Let's settle the argument When gravity has no strength mpc.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Prentice Halls Federal Taxation Comprehensive 24E 2011 Solutions manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
Next: TWILIGHT OF THE GODS
From: mpc755 on 10 Jun 2010 18:22 On Jun 10, 6:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 12:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 10, 7:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2:38 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 8:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Burt: Where did you get the notion that circular orbits have no > > > > > > > > > gravity? If that were so, then, how are those telecommunications > > > > > > > > > satellites held in orbit? I've got gravity nailed as: Flowing ether, > > > > > > > > > replenished by photon exchange. Nothing that you've ever said changes > > > > > > > > > those facts. NE > > > > > > > > > There is a round curve of gravity for energy in a circular orbit. But > > > > > > > > there is no strength of gravity to change the motion of circular > > > > > > > > speed. The strength of gravity does not lie in the curve but in space > > > > > > > > flow. A circular orbit has zero gravity strength but a pre speed > > > > > > > > through the round curve. You can quantify the prespeed in space for > > > > > > > > the circular orbit. Pre-speed is the motion through space independant > > > > > > > > of the strength of gravity pushing it faster or slower. Gravity gives > > > > > > > > and takes from pre-motion of falling energy in elliptical orbit. But > > > > > > > > pre speed is always a preserved quantity in time orbit. > > > > > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > > > Mpc? A circular orbit of energy follows the curve by its premotion. > > > > > > > And there is no gravity strength to accelerate or decelerate the speed > > > > > > > of energy. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > > de¯ned as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > I can do without your question. But can you deal with mine? > > > > > > Mitch Reamsch > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > v wave.' > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you? > > > > What you are doing isn't even a question. But I think that what you > > > are putting up is sciences first shot. And that never is right all of > > > the way. In fact most of the time only one thing is right and the rest > > > wrong. I see everybody doing this. Trying to support something even > > > with all its error. Why? Because science must be right. The short > > > history of science demonstrates that it is built mostly of mistakes. > > > So we need intellectual honesty here and hopefully Einsteinian > > > objectivity to make the corrections. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > In a double slit experiment, does the moving C-60 molecule travel a > > single continuous path through three dimensional space as a particle > > with an associated external wave?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The wave is a continuous form that needs no particle for absorption. > It also behaves immatterial when it moves through the two slit > partition inbetween the holes. What do you say to that? > > Mitch Raemsch I disagree and so does Bohm. A moving particle has an associated aether wave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits." You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?
From: BURT on 10 Jun 2010 18:26 On Jun 10, 3:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 6:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 3:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 12:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 7:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2:38 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 8:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Burt: Where did you get the notion that circular orbits have no > > > > > > > > > > gravity? If that were so, then, how are those telecommunications > > > > > > > > > > satellites held in orbit? I've got gravity nailed as: Flowing ether, > > > > > > > > > > replenished by photon exchange. Nothing that you've ever said changes > > > > > > > > > > those facts. NE > > > > > > > > > > There is a round curve of gravity for energy in a circular orbit. But > > > > > > > > > there is no strength of gravity to change the motion of circular > > > > > > > > > speed. The strength of gravity does not lie in the curve but in space > > > > > > > > > flow. A circular orbit has zero gravity strength but a pre speed > > > > > > > > > through the round curve. You can quantify the prespeed in space for > > > > > > > > > the circular orbit. Pre-speed is the motion through space independant > > > > > > > > > of the strength of gravity pushing it faster or slower. Gravity gives > > > > > > > > > and takes from pre-motion of falling energy in elliptical orbit. But > > > > > > > > > pre speed is always a preserved quantity in time orbit. > > > > > > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > Mpc? A circular orbit of energy follows the curve by its premotion. > > > > > > > > And there is no gravity strength to accelerate or decelerate the speed > > > > > > > > of energy. > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > > > de¯ned as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > I can do without your question. But can you deal with mine? > > > > > > > Mitch Reamsch > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you? > > > > > What you are doing isn't even a question. But I think that what you > > > > are putting up is sciences first shot. And that never is right all of > > > > the way. In fact most of the time only one thing is right and the rest > > > > wrong. I see everybody doing this. Trying to support something even > > > > with all its error. Why? Because science must be right. The short > > > > history of science demonstrates that it is built mostly of mistakes.. > > > > So we need intellectual honesty here and hopefully Einsteinian > > > > objectivity to make the corrections. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > In a double slit experiment, does the moving C-60 molecule travel a > > > single continuous path through three dimensional space as a particle > > > with an associated external wave?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > The wave is a continuous form that needs no particle for absorption. > > It also behaves immatterial when it moves through the two slit > > partition inbetween the holes. What do you say to that? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > I disagree and so does Bohm. > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > through exactly one of the slits." > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light is an aether/energy wave whithout a particle in the one time flow of gravity. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 10 Jun 2010 18:54 On Jun 10, 6:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 3:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 6:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 10, 12:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 7:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2:38 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 8:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Burt: Where did you get the notion that circular orbits have no > > > > > > > > > > > gravity? If that were so, then, how are those telecommunications > > > > > > > > > > > satellites held in orbit? I've got gravity nailed as: Flowing ether, > > > > > > > > > > > replenished by photon exchange. Nothing that you've ever said changes > > > > > > > > > > > those facts. NE > > > > > > > > > > > There is a round curve of gravity for energy in a circular orbit. But > > > > > > > > > > there is no strength of gravity to change the motion of circular > > > > > > > > > > speed. The strength of gravity does not lie in the curve but in space > > > > > > > > > > flow. A circular orbit has zero gravity strength but a pre speed > > > > > > > > > > through the round curve. You can quantify the prespeed in space for > > > > > > > > > > the circular orbit. Pre-speed is the motion through space independant > > > > > > > > > > of the strength of gravity pushing it faster or slower. Gravity gives > > > > > > > > > > and takes from pre-motion of falling energy in elliptical orbit. But > > > > > > > > > > pre speed is always a preserved quantity in time orbit. > > > > > > > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > Mpc? A circular orbit of energy follows the curve by its premotion. > > > > > > > > > And there is no gravity strength to accelerate or decelerate the speed > > > > > > > > > of energy. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > > > > de¯ned as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > I can do without your question. But can you deal with mine? > > > > > > > > Mitch Reamsch > > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > > defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you? > > > > > > What you are doing isn't even a question. But I think that what you > > > > > are putting up is sciences first shot. And that never is right all of > > > > > the way. In fact most of the time only one thing is right and the rest > > > > > wrong. I see everybody doing this. Trying to support something even > > > > > with all its error. Why? Because science must be right. The short > > > > > history of science demonstrates that it is built mostly of mistakes. > > > > > So we need intellectual honesty here and hopefully Einsteinian > > > > > objectivity to make the corrections. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > In a double slit experiment, does the moving C-60 molecule travel a > > > > single continuous path through three dimensional space as a particle > > > > with an associated external wave?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > The wave is a continuous form that needs no particle for absorption. > > > It also behaves immatterial when it moves through the two slit > > > partition inbetween the holes. What do you say to that? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > I disagree and so does Bohm. > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Light is an aether/energy wave whithout a particle in the one time > flow of gravity. > > Mitch Raemsch I'm not discussing light. I am discussing a C-60 molecule. In a double slit experiment, does the moving C-60 molecule travel a single continuous path through three dimensional space as a particle with an associated external wave?
From: BURT on 10 Jun 2010 19:07 On Jun 10, 3:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 6:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 6:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 12:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 7:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2:38 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 8:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Burt: Where did you get the notion that circular orbits have no > > > > > > > > > > > > gravity? If that were so, then, how are those telecommunications > > > > > > > > > > > > satellites held in orbit? I've got gravity nailed as: Flowing ether, > > > > > > > > > > > > replenished by photon exchange. Nothing that you've ever said changes > > > > > > > > > > > > those facts. NE > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a round curve of gravity for energy in a circular orbit. But > > > > > > > > > > > there is no strength of gravity to change the motion of circular > > > > > > > > > > > speed. The strength of gravity does not lie in the curve but in space > > > > > > > > > > > flow. A circular orbit has zero gravity strength but a pre speed > > > > > > > > > > > through the round curve. You can quantify the prespeed in space for > > > > > > > > > > > the circular orbit. Pre-speed is the motion through space independant > > > > > > > > > > > of the strength of gravity pushing it faster or slower. Gravity gives > > > > > > > > > > > and takes from pre-motion of falling energy in elliptical orbit. But > > > > > > > > > > > pre speed is always a preserved quantity in time orbit. > > > > > > > > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > Mpc? A circular orbit of energy follows the curve by its premotion. > > > > > > > > > > And there is no gravity strength to accelerate or decelerate the speed > > > > > > > > > > of energy. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > > > > > de¯ned as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > I can do without your question. But can you deal with mine? > > > > > > > > > Mitch Reamsch > > > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > > > defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you? > > > > > > > What you are doing isn't even a question. But I think that what you > > > > > > are putting up is sciences first shot. And that never is right all of > > > > > > the way. In fact most of the time only one thing is right and the rest > > > > > > wrong. I see everybody doing this. Trying to support something even > > > > > > with all its error. Why? Because science must be right. The short > > > > > > history of science demonstrates that it is built mostly of mistakes. > > > > > > So we need intellectual honesty here and hopefully Einsteinian > > > > > > objectivity to make the corrections. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > In a double slit experiment, does the moving C-60 molecule travel a > > > > > single continuous path through three dimensional space as a particle > > > > > with an associated external wave?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > The wave is a continuous form that needs no particle for absorption.. > > > > It also behaves immatterial when it moves through the two slit > > > > partition inbetween the holes. What do you say to that? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > I disagree and so does Bohm. > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Light is an aether/energy wave whithout a particle in the one time > > flow of gravity. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > I'm not discussing light. I am discussing a C-60 molecule. > > In a double slit experiment, does the moving C-60 molecule travel a > single continuous path through three dimensional space as a particle > with an associated external wave?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have to ask. Can you please show how something heavy as that molecule could ever be collected and shot through the two holes. I suspect there is dishonesty involved concerning the experiment. Would not that molecule be impossible to pass through the slits? I don't think it is even doable but it is around as an extrapolation that in the end soes not apply. I believe the truth lies in the fact that that experiment has never actually been done. It has only been projected. What I am saying is that there are no molcular vibrations or the wave to causes them when atoms are bonded. The atoms free will vibrate and have a quantum wave only when this is so. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 10 Jun 2010 20:22
On Jun 10, 7:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 3:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 6:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 3:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 6:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:46 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 12:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 7:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2:38 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 1:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 2:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth..net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 8:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Burt: Where did you get the notion that circular orbits have no > > > > > > > > > > > > > gravity? If that were so, then, how are those telecommunications > > > > > > > > > > > > > satellites held in orbit? I've got gravity nailed as: Flowing ether, > > > > > > > > > > > > > replenished by photon exchange. Nothing that you've ever said changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > those facts. NE > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a round curve of gravity for energy in a circular orbit. But > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no strength of gravity to change the motion of circular > > > > > > > > > > > > speed. The strength of gravity does not lie in the curve but in space > > > > > > > > > > > > flow. A circular orbit has zero gravity strength but a pre speed > > > > > > > > > > > > through the round curve. You can quantify the prespeed in space for > > > > > > > > > > > > the circular orbit. Pre-speed is the motion through space independant > > > > > > > > > > > > of the strength of gravity pushing it faster or slower. Gravity gives > > > > > > > > > > > > and takes from pre-motion of falling energy in elliptical orbit. But > > > > > > > > > > > > pre speed is always a preserved quantity in time orbit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > Mpc? A circular orbit of energy follows the curve by its premotion. > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no gravity strength to accelerate or decelerate the speed > > > > > > > > > > > of energy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > > > > > > de¯ned as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether.. > > > > > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > I can do without your question. But can you deal with mine? > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Reamsch > > > > > > > > > There is still an outstanding question you have not answered. > > > > > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE'http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > > > > > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > > > > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > > > > > > > 'The particle when in motion on its wave, thus has its vibration > > > > > > > > constantly in phase with that of the wave. This result may be > > > > > > > > interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is > > > > > > > > defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very > > > > > > > > large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion > > > > > > > > rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at > > > > > > > > the point where the particle is located. A very important point must > > > > > > > > be underlined here. For this interpretation of the guidance to be > > > > > > > > acceptable, the dimensions of the minute singular region constituting > > > > > > > > the particle ought to be very small compared to the wavelength of the > > > > > > > > v wave.' > > > > > > > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of its associated wave. > > > > > > > > The external field acting on the particle is the aether. > > > > > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you? > > > > > > > > What you are doing isn't even a question. But I think that what you > > > > > > > are putting up is sciences first shot. And that never is right all of > > > > > > > the way. In fact most of the time only one thing is right and the rest > > > > > > > wrong. I see everybody doing this. Trying to support something even > > > > > > > with all its error. Why? Because science must be right. The short > > > > > > > history of science demonstrates that it is built mostly of mistakes. > > > > > > > So we need intellectual honesty here and hopefully Einsteinian > > > > > > > objectivity to make the corrections. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > In a double slit experiment, does the moving C-60 molecule travel a > > > > > > single continuous path through three dimensional space as a particle > > > > > > with an associated external wave?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > The wave is a continuous form that needs no particle for absorption. > > > > > It also behaves immatterial when it moves through the two slit > > > > > partition inbetween the holes. What do you say to that? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > I disagree and so does Bohm. > > > > > A moving particle has an associated aether wave. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory > > > > > "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both > > > > slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes > > > > through exactly one of the slits." > > > > > You said you agreed with Bohm. Bohm states the particle has a well- > > > > defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. > > > > > Do you agree with Bohm or don't you?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Light is an aether/energy wave whithout a particle in the one time > > > flow of gravity. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > I'm not discussing light. I am discussing a C-60 molecule. > > > In a double slit experiment, does the moving C-60 molecule travel a > > single continuous path through three dimensional space as a particle > > with an associated external wave?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I have to ask. Can you please show how something heavy as that > molecule could ever be collected and shot through the two holes. I > suspect there is dishonesty involved concerning the experiment. Would > not that molecule be impossible to pass through the slits? I don't > think it is even doable but it is around as an extrapolation that in > the end soes not apply. > > I believe the truth lies in the fact that that experiment has never > actually been done. It has only been projected. > > What I am saying is that there are no molcular vibrations or the wave > to causes them when atoms are bonded. The atoms free will vibrate and > have a quantum wave only when this is so. > > Mitch Raemsch As Bohm states, the particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. The particle in this instance is a C-60 molecule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory "In de BroglieBohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits." It is the associated aether wave which enters and exits multiple slits and creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. |