Prev: How does a radio antenna work with what ever is a quantum?
Next: Climate skeptics are looking p-r-e-t-t-y hard at BP's "new" cap&trade policy -- derivatives!
From: spudnik on 2 Aug 2010 19:29
I remain, yr humble servant ... even though,
nevermind!

> looked up "vis viva," and it is not Coriolis's thing, as
> I stated.  nor was your linear ideal of Galileo, but
> apparently from Descartes and Isaac "non fingo" Newton.
>
> anyway, the "bending of light," per Bernoulli's brachistoshrone,
> is really of a "photon" per se, not the 3d waveform; that is,
> the problem was stated as ray-tracing, or "geometrical optics."

thus:
there are no photons; do you beleive that sound
is particulate, because of a mathematical use of "phonons,"
that is to say, a quantum of sound?

as for antimatter, there is no antilight, so
it's a bit of a stretch to say that "every thing is not antimatter."

> Speed of c nature only gives to messanger particles.If Einstein said
> that in the first place it would have been lots clearer TreBert- Hide quoted text -

thus: iff Universe is expanding faster & faster,
there goes any programme d'espace!... (for those
of you, who believe in Pascal's Plenum,
like herr doktor-professor Albert .-)
> Contradicted by observations.

thus: how can a massless & momentumless "photon" have polarity,
let-alone wavelength & frequency?
didn't Young essentially overthow Newton's untheory
(wherein corpuscles go faster in denser media) ??
> (NMR)
> signal generation and reception, and even in accepted texts, it is
> frequently described in terms of absorption and emission of radio
> waves, or radiation, by a two-level quantum system. … This difficulty
> is examined, and an explanation of the signal given whereby Faraday's
> law is explained simply in terms of an exchange of virtual photons. …

thus: ah, so; light is relatavistic, because
its waves "go" through no medium, or redshifts are dopplerian,
if the object is going at some fraction of lightspeed
-- not velocity -- w.r.t "free space?"
I may have muddled this, or you have.
> That's what distinguishes relativistic Doppler from the Doppler in
> medium-carried signals. Different basis, similar outcome.

thus: the pytahgorean 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 .-)

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/

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: How does a radio antenna work with what ever is a quantum?
Next: Climate skeptics are looking p-r-e-t-t-y hard at BP's "new" cap&trade policy -- derivatives!