Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 16 Mar 2010 14:03 of course it is possible, if the apparatus effects the fullerenes, by somehow tuning into their "frequency" (viz de Broglie). mostly, those pioneers were confuzed about the mathmatical duality of Schroedinger's and Pauli's mathematical approaches, including those, two; so, just do a "two-column proof in projective geometry" a la Pascal -- who discovered the perfect vacuum, "the Plenum." now, your argue that your description is the "most correct," but it is awfully hand-waviculey! > The most correct answer, to date, is the C-60 molecule has an > associated aether displacement wave and it is the associated aether > displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The C-60 > molecule always enters and exits a single slit. When the associated > aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which > alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Placing detectors at > the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no > interference. thus: the speed of light varies (locally) with the index of refraction; there is no absolute vacuum, nor "rocks o'light according to Pentchoo" -- gezundheit!... all that you have to do, is study "permitivity & permeability" of stuff, including "free space." thus: that's what is known as "over a ton o'math," although i like the philosophie de l'auteur ... if his topologie holds-up! > Just add two more paths and you will have at least 3 ways to > analyse hundreds of experiments. > http://books.google.com/books?id=lA8tgLMRu2kC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA279&vq=S... >Sagnac interferometer --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 14:19 On Mar 16, 1:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sure it does....no matter, no physical property. > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but physics has said differently for the last couple > > hundred years at least. > > > You have it in your head that the only things real in the universe are > > material things, and that real physical descriptions are always about > > material and only material things, and that anything else that is > > described must be some kind of illusion or mathematical trick. This is > > not the case. Physical descriptions and in fact physical theories > > involve the immaterial as well as the material. > > > To a physicist, for example, an electric field is a very real thing -- > > it can carry energy and momentum just as well as a material thing can > > -- and it is completely immaterial. > > It's magic! No, not at all. Magic is what audience members use to describe what a magician did when they don't know how he did it. I'll tell you the same thing that I told Seto: ========================================= Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way this could occur. There is no magic. There is no magic in physics, either. It's just that sometimes the explanation is different than the one or two things you can think of for an explanation. ========================================= > > > Matter can disappear completely, > > And more magic! Again, not at all. There never has been any physical law that says matter cannot be created or destroyed. Inventing such a law would be pointless, as the universe obviously doesn't obey this law. > > > yielding energy, but there are physical properties that remain (and > > some of them remain unchanged) through that disappearance. > > > Light is not material, and yet it has wavelength, frequency, > > intensity, energy density, momentum, angular momentum, and a slew of > > other very physical properties. > > Yes, and light waves propagate through a void! Yes, they do. Waves are phenomena that occur both with media and without them. > > More magic! No, not really. Waves HAVE TO happen anytime the physical laws take the form of the wave equation. This happens sometimes when there is a medium and sometimes when there is not. > > > I could list a number of other examples > > of magic! > > > > > that are also listed in your > > freshman physics book. If you did not read your freshman physics book, > > and because of that laziness, you came to believe that the only things > > that are physically real are material things, then you need to start > > over again with freshman physics. > > > > > > permittvity and > > > > > permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. > > > > > That is incorrect. Read your freshman physics text where these > > > > properties are discussed. These properties have been ascribed to empty > > > > space for 150 years. > > > > Hey idiot These are not properties of empty space. They are properties > > > of a medium occupying space. > > > Read your freshman physics book. It says differently. > > Might want to check you magic bag; You forgot to mention 'virtual' > particles and the future determines the past. Well, it's a pity you're so irritated by magic. Most people enjoy the entertainment value of not knowing how something happened. That's why they buy tickets to see good magicians. But there is no magic. It's just that the magician doesn't show the audience how it's done. If you want to know how it's done, then you have to study how magicians do what they do. Same thing here. If you want to understand physics and the other ways things can happen that you didn't know about, then you have to study it. You could try ASKING, rather than the unproductive approach you've taken so far. PD
From: spudnik on 16 Mar 2010 14:23 that was a good question, about L7 (not in the ecliptic .-) most of "empty space" is the Copenhagenskoolish format of "reifiying the math" of Pauli's matrices and Heisenberg's principle, along with the absurdity of an absolute vacuum -- even though Pascal uncovered it! > > >> Being empty means it has no matter in it. Having no matter in it does > > >> not mean that space cannot have physical properties. Physical > > >> properties are not limited to matter. > > > > Bullshit. fields are stresses in a solid medium occupying space > > > according to steven weinberg thus: of course it is possible, if the apparatus effects the fullerenes, by somehow tuning into their "frequency" (viz de Broglie). mostly, those pioneers were confuzed about the mathmatical duality of Schroedinger's and Pauli's mathematical approaches, including those, two; so, just do a "two-column proof in projective geometry" a la Pascal -- who discovered the perfect vacuum, "the Plenum." now, your argue that your description is the "most correct," but it is awfully hand-waviculey! thus: the speed of light varies (locally) with the index of refraction; there is no absolute vacuum, nor "rocks o'light according to Pentchoo" -- gezundheit!... all that you have to do, is study "permitivity & permeability" of stuff, including "free space." thus: that's what is known as "over a ton o'math," although i like the philosophie de l'auteur ... if his topologie holds-up! > http://books.google.com/books?id=lA8tgLMRu2kC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA279&vq=S... >Sagnac interferometer --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 16 Mar 2010 14:30 On Mar 16, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 1:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Sure it does....no matter, no physical property. > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but physics has said differently for the last couple > > > hundred years at least. > > > > You have it in your head that the only things real in the universe are > > > material things, and that real physical descriptions are always about > > > material and only material things, and that anything else that is > > > described must be some kind of illusion or mathematical trick. This is > > > not the case. Physical descriptions and in fact physical theories > > > involve the immaterial as well as the material. > > > > To a physicist, for example, an electric field is a very real thing -- > > > it can carry energy and momentum just as well as a material thing can > > > -- and it is completely immaterial. > > > It's magic! > > No, not at all. > > Magic is what audience members use to describe what a magician did > when they don't know how he did it. I'll tell you the same thing that > I told Seto: > ========================================= > Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see > something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this > could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or > two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think > it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations > for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way > this could occur. There is no magic. > > There is no magic in physics, either. It's just that sometimes the > explanation is different than the one or two things you can think of > for an explanation. > ========================================= > When you state energy and momentum are carried through a field which is completely immaterial you are choosing to believe in magic. You do not want to understand what is occurring in nature so you just make stuff up. The aether is material. > > > > > Matter can disappear completely, > > > And more magic! > > Again, not at all. There never has been any physical law that says > matter cannot be created or destroyed. Inventing such a law would be > pointless, as the universe obviously doesn't obey this law. > Of course the universe obeys the law where mass is neither created nor destroyed. Just because you choose to believe in the magic of the Big Bang does not make it true. The Big Bang is the Big Ongoing. The following image is of the jet stream the universe is, or the jet stream the local universe exists in: http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > > > > yielding energy, but there are physical properties that remain (and > > > some of them remain unchanged) through that disappearance. > > > > Light is not material, and yet it has wavelength, frequency, > > > intensity, energy density, momentum, angular momentum, and a slew of > > > other very physical properties. > > > Yes, and light waves propagate through a void! > > Yes, they do. Waves are phenomena that occur both with media and > without them. > Of course not. What you are suggesting is pure magic. You are suggesting a non-material light propagates through a void. I realize you will never understand this because you are conceptually deficient but one of your previous posts discussed gravity as not consisting of the absurd nonsense of graviton but of quanta. This quanta is the aether. Try and rationalize your delusional denial of gravity consisting of quanta while non-material light propagates through a void. You can't. One of your concepts is complete nonsense, and its not the aether as quanta. It is a non-material light propagates through a void. I doubt this will ever occur for you, but your head would not hurt if you were able to realize the concept of the aether as quanta. With this concept you get the pressure associated with the quanta displaced by matter is gravity. You get the pressure associated with the quanta determines the rate at which atomic clocks tick. You get the medium in which light waves propagate. Your so close to understanding nature you don't even realize it but it is more important for you to not abandon your incorrect beliefs than it is to be correct. Your quanta even gets you the wave the moving C-60 molecule creates in a double slit experiment. No need for the future to determine the past. It is time for you to decide to choose quanta or void. > > > > More magic! > > No, not really. Waves HAVE TO happen anytime the physical laws take > the form of the wave equation. This happens sometimes when there is a > medium and sometimes when there is not. > > > > > > > > I could list a number of other examples > > > of magic! > > > > that are also listed in your > > > freshman physics book. If you did not read your freshman physics book, > > > and because of that laziness, you came to believe that the only things > > > that are physically real are material things, then you need to start > > > over again with freshman physics. > > > > > > > permittvity and > > > > > > permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. > > > > > > That is incorrect. Read your freshman physics text where these > > > > > properties are discussed. These properties have been ascribed to empty > > > > > space for 150 years. > > > > > Hey idiot These are not properties of empty space. They are properties > > > > of a medium occupying space. > > > > Read your freshman physics book. It says differently. > > > Might want to check you magic bag; You forgot to mention 'virtual' > > particles and the future determines the past. > > Well, it's a pity you're so irritated by magic. Most people enjoy the > entertainment value of not knowing how something happened. That's why > they buy tickets to see good magicians. But there is no magic. It's > just that the magician doesn't show the audience how it's done. If you > want to know how it's done, then you have to study how magicians do > what they do. Same thing here. If you want to understand physics and > the other ways things can happen that you didn't know about, then you > have to study it. > > You could try ASKING, rather than the unproductive approach you've > taken so far. > > PD Ask what? How do you resolve the concept of gravity is due to quanta at the same time non-material light waves propagate through a void? Why do I want to ask you about your confused state of delusional denial? Decide between quanta or void.
From: PD on 16 Mar 2010 14:38
On Mar 16, 1:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 1:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 16, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Sure it does....no matter, no physical property. > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but physics has said differently for the last couple > > > > hundred years at least. > > > > > You have it in your head that the only things real in the universe are > > > > material things, and that real physical descriptions are always about > > > > material and only material things, and that anything else that is > > > > described must be some kind of illusion or mathematical trick. This is > > > > not the case. Physical descriptions and in fact physical theories > > > > involve the immaterial as well as the material. > > > > > To a physicist, for example, an electric field is a very real thing -- > > > > it can carry energy and momentum just as well as a material thing can > > > > -- and it is completely immaterial. > > > > It's magic! > > > No, not at all. > > > Magic is what audience members use to describe what a magician did > > when they don't know how he did it. I'll tell you the same thing that > > I told Seto: > > ========================================= > > Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see > > something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this > > could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or > > two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think > > it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations > > for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way > > this could occur. There is no magic. > > > There is no magic in physics, either. It's just that sometimes the > > explanation is different than the one or two things you can think of > > for an explanation. > > ========================================= > > When you state energy and momentum are carried through a field which > is completely immaterial you are choosing to believe in magic. I'm not choosing anything. This stuff comes from nature, not from me. Fields are experimentally measurable. The energy that is contained in the field is measurable. The momentum that is contained in the field is measurable. How to measure them is documented in freshman physics books. Now, it is true that I *do* choose to believe what my own eyes tell me in measurements. I *do* choose to believe that if something is measured in nature, then that's how nature is. You may *choose* to not believe measurements. You may *choose* to believe what you want about nature, and to hell with measurements. That's up to you. But then what you're doing doesn't have anything to do with science. > You do > not want to understand what is occurring in nature so you just make > stuff up. > > The aether is material. > > > > > > > Matter can disappear completely, > > > > And more magic! > > > Again, not at all. There never has been any physical law that says > > matter cannot be created or destroyed. Inventing such a law would be > > pointless, as the universe obviously doesn't obey this law. > > Of course the universe obeys the law where mass is neither created nor > destroyed. Why? Just because you SAY so? Where are the measurements that prove that matter cannot be created or destroyed? Why is it that you think you can just make statements and insist that they are so just because you SAY they are so? > Just because you choose to believe in the magic of the Big > Bang does not make it true. The Big Bang is the Big Ongoing. The > following image is of the jet stream the universe is, or the jet > stream the local universe exists in: > > http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > > > > > > yielding energy, but there are physical properties that remain (and > > > > some of them remain unchanged) through that disappearance. > > > > > Light is not material, and yet it has wavelength, frequency, > > > > intensity, energy density, momentum, angular momentum, and a slew of > > > > other very physical properties. > > > > Yes, and light waves propagate through a void! > > > Yes, they do. Waves are phenomena that occur both with media and > > without them. > > Of course not. What you are suggesting is pure magic. You are > suggesting a non-material light propagates through a void. Yes, indeed. This has been understood for hundreds of years, and it is covered in freshman physics books. There is no such thing as magic. There is only stuff that happens when you don't understand how it happened. > > I realize you will never understand this because you are conceptually > deficient but one of your previous posts discussed gravity as not > consisting of the absurd nonsense of graviton but of quanta. LOL. Do you know what "graviton" and "quanta" mean? > > This quanta is the aether. > > Try and rationalize your delusional denial of gravity consisting of > quanta while non-material light propagates through a void. You can't. > One of your concepts is complete nonsense, and its not the aether as > quanta. It is a non-material light propagates through a void. > > I doubt this will ever occur for you, but your head would not hurt if > you were able to realize the concept of the aether as quanta. With > this concept you get the pressure associated with the quanta displaced > by matter is gravity. You get the pressure associated with the quanta > determines the rate at which atomic clocks tick. You get the medium in > which light waves propagate. > > Your so close to understanding nature you don't even realize it but it > is more important for you to not abandon your incorrect beliefs than > it is to be correct. It has nothing to do with beliefs. Immaterial fields are *measurable*. > > Your quanta even gets you the wave the moving C-60 molecule creates in > a double slit experiment. No need for the future to determine the > past. > > It is time for you to decide to choose quanta or void. LOL. You don't even know what the words mean, I guess. > > > > > > > > More magic! > > > No, not really. Waves HAVE TO happen anytime the physical laws take > > the form of the wave equation. This happens sometimes when there is a > > medium and sometimes when there is not. > > > > > I could list a number of other examples > > > > of magic! > > > > > that are also listed in your > > > > freshman physics book. If you did not read your freshman physics book, > > > > and because of that laziness, you came to believe that the only things > > > > that are physically real are material things, then you need to start > > > > over again with freshman physics. > > > > > > > > permittvity and > > > > > > > permeability are properties of a unique medium occupying space. > > > > > > > That is incorrect. Read your freshman physics text where these > > > > > > properties are discussed. These properties have been ascribed to empty > > > > > > space for 150 years. > > > > > > Hey idiot These are not properties of empty space. They are properties > > > > > of a medium occupying space. > > > > > Read your freshman physics book. It says differently. > > > > Might want to check you magic bag; You forgot to mention 'virtual' > > > particles and the future determines the past. > > > Well, it's a pity you're so irritated by magic. Most people enjoy the > > entertainment value of not knowing how something happened. That's why > > they buy tickets to see good magicians. But there is no magic. It's > > just that the magician doesn't show the audience how it's done. If you > > want to know how it's done, then you have to study how magicians do > > what they do. Same thing here. If you want to understand physics and > > the other ways things can happen that you didn't know about, then you > > have to study it. > > > You could try ASKING, rather than the unproductive approach you've > > taken so far. > > > PD > > Ask what? How do you resolve the concept of gravity is due to quanta > at the same time non-material light waves propagate through a void? > Why do I want to ask you about your confused state of delusional > denial? > > Decide between quanta or void. |