Prev: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 6th Edition Incropera, DeWitt Solutions Manual
Next: From the book: "How to Succeed in College Mathematics - A Guide for the College Mathematics Student", Richard M. Dahlke, Ph.D., 2008.
From: spudnik on 8 May 2010 17:01
yeah, OK;
so what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?"

what is the shape of the wave of light?

> Conceptually, at least, aether is matter times the second power of the
> speed of light.

thus:
spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra,"
meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces
of the other, and vise versa.

thus:
the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if
one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect
(and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and
the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone.

thus:
how about this:
show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then,
tackle the remaining primes.

thus:
NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_
for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and
"three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but,
this is just the original "vectors."

compare Lanczos' biquaternions
with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure,
to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion.

"wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants,"
totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism --
time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability
(of dimensionality !-)

thus:
try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or
"go" to wlym.com.
> This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987,

thus:
the problem appears to be,
"some observers measure the angle to the marker,
relative to the other observers,"
which would not give you the distance *on a plane*,
because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature
of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure
of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine,
triangulatin' that contested area .-)

thus:
notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and
the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway,
I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy,
who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind.

thus:
sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
have read in an article about his retirement.

> I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
> I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
> once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
> others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
> capNtrade e.g.).
> what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> his real "proof" is _1599_;
> the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]:
"Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They
can ?!?"
* His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain;
so?
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 18:09
On May 8, 5:01 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> yeah, OK;
> so what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?"
>

Aether has mass.

Aether is uncompressed mæther.

Aether is a material.

When mæther decompresses the effect this has is energy.

You need to be able to differentiate between the cause and the effect.

The transition of matter to aether is what physically occurs. The
effects of this physical occurrence is energy.

> what is the shape of the wave of light?
>

This is my preferred concept of a photon:

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif

Where the 'particle' moves within the wave similar to:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif

What the image above is is the 'particle'. It occupies a very small
region of the associated aether wave.

> > Conceptually, at least, aether is matter times the second power of the
> > speed of light.
>
> thus:
> spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra,"
> meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces
> of the other, and vise versa.
>
> thus:
> the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if
> one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect
> (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and
> the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone.
>
> thus:
> how about this:
> show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then,
> tackle the remaining primes.
>
> thus:
> NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_
> for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and
> "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but,
> this is just the original "vectors."
>
> compare Lanczos' biquaternions
> with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure,
> to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion.
>
> "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants,"
> totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism --
> time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability
> (of dimensionality !-)
>
> thus:
> try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or
> "go" to wlym.com.
>
> > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha,  1987,
>
> thus:
> the problem appears to be,
> "some observers measure the angle to the marker,
> relative to the other observers,"
> which would not give you the distance *on a plane*,
> because of similar trigona.  Gauss meaasured the curvature
> of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure
> of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine,
> triangulatin' that contested area .-)
>
> thus:
> notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and
> the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway,
> I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy,
> who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind.
>
> thus:
> sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
> later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
> have  read in an article about his retirement.
>
> > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
> > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
> > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
> > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
> > capNtrade e.g.).
> >     what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> > his real "proof" is _1599_;
> > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
> >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.....
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
>
> --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]:
> "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They
> can ?!?"
> * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain;
> so?

From: Uncle Al on 8 May 2010 18:53
mpc755 wrote:
[snip 100 lines of rap]

> Aether has mass.
> Aether is uncompressed m�ther.
> Aether is a material.
> When m�ther decompresses the effect this has is energy.

idiot

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation

idiot


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 19:09
On May 8, 3:53 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote:
> mpc755 wrote:
>
> [snip 100 lines of rap]
>
> > Aether has mass.
> > Aether is uncompressed mæther.
> > Aether is a material.
> > When mæther decompresses the effect this has is energy.
>
> idiot
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
> Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
> <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>  
>  No aether
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
> Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
>  No Lorentz violation
>
> idiot
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>  (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

Infinitely dense energy C squared is mass of a point particle of the
infinitely small.

Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 9 May 2010 00:40
you need to differentiate cause & effect, and
I'm sure that you are able to. as it stands,
your theory does nothing, at all.

> When mæther decompresses the effect this has is energy.
> You need to be able to differentiate between the cause and the effect.

thus:
it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because
he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and
that is your only real problem.

admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but
there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon"
-- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel,
to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one
that goes faster in denser media .-)

more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum
of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that
"the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional,
no mass, no momentum QED .-)

> I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed
> the particle is always detected exiting a single slit.

thus:
NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_
for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and
"three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but,
this is just the original "vectors." so,
compare Lanczos' biquaternions
with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure,
to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. anyway,
"worldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants,"
totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism --
time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability
(of dimensionality !-)

thus:
Gore *and* the UNIPCC got a Nobel; so, that was obviously because
the energy companies *love* the Kyoto Protocol (and
all other capNtrade schemes, Waxman's '91 bill on NOx and SO2 e.g.)

whenthenat the Anthropocene, it is clear that
human landscape changes are the greatest effects
on the weather and CO2 concebtrations, less-so the use
of Fossilized Fuels (TM; Obnoxico).

as for the "holes in the ozonosphere,"
there is utterly no evidence that they never existed,
before we launched a satellite (TOMS) to look at it; also,
they are really just patterns of weather:
how many "holes" are there in teh ozonosphere,
at any given time?

so, combine the two models, "global" warming and
"holes" in the ozonosphere, and you've got a good,
first-pass computerized simulacrum of a "glass house,"
which has been missing since Ahrrenius defined the term, and
did *not* get the first Nobel for it.

thus:
"photons" are the only thing
-- 0-dimensional massless particles,
thought to exist til Kaluza and stringtheory --
that can "go" at c with no momentum, because
they are not waves. in particular,
they are not the "plane waves" of math-phys idealization, because
they always have a curvature, no matter how far they "go"
from the source.

how is a wave (quantum) of light emitted from the whole surface
(quantum)
of a Sun?

personally, I do not believe in Wikipedia or the googolplex, so that
such an "event" makes no difference, at all. but, if
you try to ignore dimensional analysis, you're being silly.

thus:
Gauss meaasured the curvature
of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure
of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine,
triangulatin' that contested area .-)

thus:
notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and
the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway,
I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy,
who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind.

thus:
sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
have read in an article about his retirement.
> I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
> I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
> once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
> others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
> capNtrade e.g.).
> what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> his real "proof" is _1599_;
> the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost
of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was
in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
Prev: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 6th Edition Incropera, DeWitt Solutions Manual
Next: From the book: "How to Succeed in College Mathematics - A Guide for the College Mathematics Student", Richard M. Dahlke, Ph.D., 2008.