Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 20:33 On May 8, 6:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 3:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 5:32 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, > > > the *really* perfect gas. > > > Aether is uncompressed mæther. > > Matter is compressed mather. > > > The equation should read: > > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. Both sides of the equation > > consist of mæther in different states. > > > > so, now, all that you have > > > to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts > > > for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead > > > of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, > > > "I have a dream!") > > > > "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > > > > > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. > > > > thus: > > > to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, > > > Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, > > > because his proof only applied to prime exponents, > > > excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). > > > > thus: > > > yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..." > > > 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 > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > If the particle is inside the dual wave of an electric and right angle > magnetic wave which wave is it in? > > Mitch Raemsch The associated aether wave.
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 20:41 On May 8, 8:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > > construct > > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > > making things up. > > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist.. > > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > > PD > > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > > not conserved when mass is conserved. > > I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't > why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least > partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that > which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading? Since I understand mass is conserved and, in terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect of mæther decompressing, I prefer to conceptually understand how nature works physically and what causes the effect of energy. For example, any particle in a double slit experiment is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle ALWAYS enters a single slit. Since I understand the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether wave which enters and exits multiple slits, I prefer to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 20:47 On May 8, 5:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 6:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 3:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 5:32 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, > > > > the *really* perfect gas. > > > > Aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > Matter is compressed mather. > > > > The equation should read: > > > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. Both sides of the equation > > > consist of mæther in different states. > > > > > so, now, all that you have > > > > to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts > > > > for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead > > > > of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, > > > > "I have a dream!") > > > > > "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > > > > > > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. > > > > > thus: > > > > to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, > > > > Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, > > > > because his proof only applied to prime exponents, > > > > excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). > > > > > thus: > > > > yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?...." > > > > 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 > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If the particle is inside the dual wave of an electric and right angle > > magnetic wave which wave is it in? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > The associated aether wave.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are not three waves but only two. The aether wave is it the electric or magnetic? Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 8 May 2010 21:20 On May 8, 7:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 8:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 3:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 8, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 12:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exists in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > > > > > > > > > > > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > > > > > > > > > > > > nematodes as states of mæther. > > > > > > > > > > > > You would. > > > > > > > > > > > Makes as much sense as what you're doing. > > > > > > > > > > Physics today: > > > > > > > > > - mistakes mathematics for nature. > > > > > > > > > - mistakes energy for cause. > > > > > > > > > Nah, it doesn't do either of those things. You should study up on what > > > > > > > > physics today really says. > > > > > > > > It does both those things exactly. Now, I could ask you how a 'wave > > > > > > > function' physically enters, travels through, and exits the slits in a > > > > > > > double slit experiment and you would respond with my need to read many > > > > > > > books. However, the issue is a 'wave function' is a mathematical > > > > > > > construct > > > > > > > No, it isn't. As I said, you should study up on what physics today > > > > > > really says, rather than looking up comic-book articles about stuff or > > > > > > making things up. > > > > > > > > and has nothing to do with what physically occurs in a > > > > > > > double slit experiment. The fact that physics today can not understand > > > > > > > the difference between a mathematical representation of what occurs in > > > > > > > nature and what actually occurs in nature is the issue. > > > > > > > > The same for 'energy'. 'Mainstream' physics today insists mass > > > > > > > converts to energy. When asked how that physically occurs in nature > > > > > > > there is no answer, or the answer is 'it just does'. 'Mainstream' > > > > > > > physics today is conceptually unable to understand what occurs > > > > > > > physically to the mass causes the effect which is described as energy. > > > > > > > 'Mainstream' physics can't even understand mass is conserved. > > > > > > > I'm sorry, you said mainstream physics "mistakes energy for cause". > > > > > > Nothing like that is true, and nothing you've said in the paragraph > > > > > > above supports that contention. > > > > > > That is exactly what 'mainstream' physics does. > > > > > > I can ask you the simple question and your refusal to answer it is > > > > > evidence of 'mainstream' physics inability to understand energy is an > > > > > effect of what physically occurs. > > > > > Don't be ridiculous. I'm not the spokesman for mainstream physics and > > > > I'm not your trained monkey. > > > > I don't answer your questions because you're a dirtbag, not because > > > > there is no mainstream physics understanding. > > > > > Just because you are not provided something you sulk and whine and > > > > demand should not be evidence to you that the something doesn't exist. > > > > It just means that you are a whining baby with severe emotional > > > > problems who goes after things the wrong way. > > > > > PD > > > > You insist I read many, many books in order to 'understand' mass is > > > not conserved when mass is conserved. > > > I don't insist anything of you. I suggest you do that, yes. I don't > > why you would steadfastly refuse to read something that is at least > > partially in opposition to your point of view. Do you only read that > > which you fully agree with? Are you afraid of reading? > > Since I understand mass is conserved You have religious faith that this is the case, and you use as support your own assertion that it is the case. > and, in terms of E=mc^2, energy > is the effect of mæther decompressing, I prefer to conceptually > understand how nature works physically and what causes the effect of > energy. Yes, I know. You always do what you PREFER, whether that has any usefulness or not. > > For example, any particle in a double slit experiment is ALWAYS > detected exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle ALWAYS > enters a single slit. Since I understand the particle ALWAYS enters > and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether wave which > enters and exits multiple slits, I prefer to understand what occurs > physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 23:14
On May 8, 8:47 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 8, 5:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 8, 6:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 3:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 8, 5:32 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, > > > > > the *really* perfect gas. > > > > > Aether is uncompressed mæther. > > > > Matter is compressed mather. > > > > > The equation should read: > > > > > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter. Both sides of the equation > > > > consist of mæther in different states. > > > > > > so, now, all that you have > > > > > to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts > > > > > for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead > > > > > of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, > > > > > "I have a dream!") > > > > > > "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > > > > > > > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. > > > > > > thus: > > > > > to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, > > > > > Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, > > > > > because his proof only applied to prime exponents, > > > > > excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). > > > > > > thus: > > > > > yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..." > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > If the particle is inside the dual wave of an electric and right angle > > > magnetic wave which wave is it in? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > The associated aether wave.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There are not three waves but only two. > The aether wave is it the electric or magnetic? > > Mitch Raemsch The aether wave is the wave. |