Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 10:37 The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. Einstein's concept 'space-time' is described physically as follows: - 'curved space-time' is the aether displaced by a massive object. - Motion with respect to the aether, and gravity (the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object), determine the aether pressure on each and every nuclei which is the matter which is the object. The greater the aether pressure the slower atoms oscillate. "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move" Matter tells aether how to displace, and displaced aether tells matter how to move.
From: Esa Riihonen on 19 Mar 2010 10:57 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 18, 6:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> >> > mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics >> > > by the double solution theory >> > > Louis de BROGLIE' >> > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf >> > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to >> > see how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. >> > > '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.' In Aether >> > > Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the >> > > aether. >> > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no >> > immediate sense to me >> >> Then that is your issue. Things can tend to get slightly more >> complicated when you actually figure out what is occurring physically >> in nature and can't just use a label like 'field' and actually have to >> understand aether is a material and a moving C-60 molecule has an >> associated aether displacement wave. Let me try to clarify: you have yourself described aether interaction with matter by comparing it to a bowling ball (with lots of holes) moving in water. So I naturally thought that aether is some 'stuff' like water. Now saying that water is a field doesn't make sense. Body of water has properties (like density) that at each point has a value (scalar or other type) - so we can speak for ex about density field associated with this body of water. But at the same time there are other property fields like temperature field, pressure field, velocity field, force field etc. And whence we have mathematical theory that relates these field values with each other we can start calculating and experimenting - to see how good our model is in explaining the measurements. The question is what property does your aether field represent - aetherness?. >> "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines >> of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable >> physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave- >> functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at >> variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his >> keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the maze >> !" >> >> The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. I think you don't understand what de Broglie (material) waves are. They are most definitely not intrinsic to space but instead 'are associated with', 'be generated by', 'or just are' the moving particles themselves. So you just can't say that they are the same as aether waves - perhaps you could make a connection but for that you must show your model - how does the properties of the space filling aether react with the moving particle and how does de Broglie equations rise from that. >> If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. You have given me no way to _understand_ anything - you require me to just _believe_ when you say that aether pressure does this and aether waves do that. >> > - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If so, how >> > does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You >> > really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I >> > assume entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure >> > formula (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I >> > would like to see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the >> > interfering ether waves and the equation of the resulting particle >> > trajectories >> The equations are in the articles you are unwilling to read or refuse >> to read because of your 'understanding' of a field. >> >> If you want to state the aether is a substance and therefore not a >> field and therefore the de Broglie wave mechanics do not represent a >> moving C-60 molecule and its associated aether displacement wave then >> that is up to you. >> >> It is obvious you are going to do whatever you require in order to >> insist the aether as a material is different then a field. Doesn't parse - but as demonstrated above you don't know what is meant by the term field - please educate yourself. >> > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE >> > > The wave nature of the electron >> > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' >> > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- >> > lecture.pdf >> > The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction >> > section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed >> > - you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. >> > >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of >> > >> the radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks >> > >> AFAIK). A conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is >> > >> needed. I like to add that in order to produce same predictions as >> > >> GR the aether pressure must also have identical effect also on >> > >> e.g. mechanical and chemical clocks. >> > > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. >> > > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on >> > > the space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the >> > > aether pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than >> > > the associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the >> > > Earth, is going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We >> > > need to differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock >> > > ticks and time. >> > Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory >> > developed almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just >> > happens to accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields >> > e.g. GPS, while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate >> > enough for testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they >> > don't even measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful >> > coincidence. But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks >> > (e.g. aging or cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. >> >> That is not what I said. I said the rate at which a clock ticks has >> nothing to do with time. The same for the biological process in the >> human body or the rate at which a hard boiled egg cooks. What is the use of the whole concept (of time) then? And isn't it a still fascinating that what Einstein called time in his theory just by coincidence happens to accurately describe the behavior of the atomic clocks ticking on GPS orbits? >> If you are on top of a mountain and it requires longer for your egg to >> cook then has time changed? >> >> No, of course not. It takes longer to cook stuff at elevation because >> there is less pressure. Indeed - and we even have mathematically formulated theory that seems to quite accurately describe and explain the situation - alas not so for your aether pressure affecting atomic clocks. >> > I wonder what would be >> > the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do >> > you derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and >> > the actual time (biological time) are different? >> >> Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do >> with time. It seems that if there is no way to measure 'time' it has no effect in real world and so we can safely ignore the concept when considering measurements and experiments? But still most of the physical models contain a parameter called 'time' which seems very useful - even necessary. That is a problem, let just say that from now on by 'time' we mean 'what a clock shows' - right? >> If you own a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has >> time changed, or do you replace the batteries? >> >> You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically >> occurring to the clock in order for it to tick slower. Certainly, and major part of this understanding is gained from _mathematical_ model of the physics of the situation. >> Just because you refuse to understand the rate at which an atomic clock >> ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists does does >> not mean time has changed. But 'time' as you use the term here has no effect on the material world - so why should I care? And I'm still waiting for the description how the aether pressure affect the atomic clock? >> If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock to >> tick slower then has time change? Nope - and I can tell by making some experiments. > As your battery operated clock begins to tick slower and slower compared > to the other clocks in your house do you stare at the battery operated > clock in disbelief as time changes for this particular clock? > > If this particular clock was the only clock in your house as it begins > to tick slower and slower compared to every other clock in existence > would time have changed in your house? Certainly not - this is one kind of experiment mentioned above. > What's the difference between a battery operated clock and an atomic > clock in a GPS satellite? You understand what is occurring physically to > your battery operated clock in order to cause it to tick slower so you > replace the batteries. Since you refuse to understand the rate at which > an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it > exists you allow yourself to incorrectly assume time changes. You haven't explained how the aether pressure affects the atomic clock - so I think you have not presented anything to refuse yet. > So, I ask you once again, if you do not know what is causing your > battery operated clock to tick slower and it is the only clock in your > house does time change in your house? I assume no - and I guess I can tell for ex by comparing the clock procession with how often I have to shave my beard plus myriad other things. Here is an important question: a) you state that atomic clocks (while not measuring 'time) just happen to obey GR (because of the aether pressure) b) you state that the biological processes (aging) would not obey GR (but apparently can't be used as a clock either because time is a 'concept' or something) You can't use the GR machinery to come up with the statement b. How did you derive that understanding from your aether model? Please explain - preferably using maths. > If not, how is this different than simply refusing to understand what > causes atomic clocks to tick at different rates? I refuse to believe you before you give me any reason - it is just that simple. > Einstein's concept 'space-time' is described physically as follows: > > - 'curved space-time' is the aether displaced by a massive object. - > Motion with respect to the aether, and gravity (the pressure associated > with the aether displaced by a massive object), determine the aether > pressure on each and every nuclei which is the matter which is the > object. The greater the aether pressure the slower atoms oscillate. Pressure on nuclei? Atoms oscillate? Are you sure you know how atomic clocks work? > "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter > how to move" Yes, and old Al also had not just words but a quite extensive mathematical theory explaining what this all means in practice. > Matter tells aether how to displace, and displaced aether tells matter > how to move. Instead, you just have empty words thus far. Esa(R) -- The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
From: marc on 19 Mar 2010 13:03 On 2010-03-18 17:12, Tom Roberts wrote: > I am discussing MODELS of nature, and make no attempt to describe what > is "responsible" for any physical phenomenon like gravity, because I > know that can never be known to humans. How do you 'know' that it can never be known? Our current mode of acquiring understanding may appear to be inherently thus constrained but who can say what framework of understanding might be developed/discovered at some future time that could transform our understanding by kind rather than degree. Marc
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 13:11 On Mar 19, 1:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 6:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > > by the double solution theory > > > > Louis de BROGLIE' > > > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to see > > > how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. > > > > '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.' > > > > In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the > > > > aether. > > > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no immediate > > > sense to me > > > Then that is your issue. Things can tend to get slightly more > > complicated when you actually figure out what is occurring physically > > in nature and can't just use a label like 'field' and actually have to > > understand aether is a material and a moving C-60 molecule has an > > associated aether displacement wave. > > > "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines > > of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable > > physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave- > > functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at > > variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his > > keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the > > maze !" > > > The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. > > > If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. > > > > - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If > > > so, how does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You > > > really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I assume > > > entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure formula > > > (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I would like to > > > see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the interfering ether > > > waves and the equation of the resulting particle trajectories. > > > The equations are in the articles you are unwilling to read or refuse > > to read because of your 'understanding' of a field. > > > If you want to state the aether is a substance and therefore not a > > field and therefore the de Broglie wave mechanics do not represent a > > moving C-60 molecule and its associated aether displacement wave then > > that is up to you. > > > It is obvious you are going to do whatever you require in order to > > insist the aether as a material is different then a field. > > > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > > > The wave nature of the electron > > > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' > > > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > > > lecture.pdf > > > The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction > > > section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed - > > > you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. > > > >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the > > > >> radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A > > > >> conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to > > > >> add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure > > > >> must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical > > > >> clocks. > > > > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. > > > > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the > > > > space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether > > > > pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the > > > > associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is > > > > going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to > > > > differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. > > > Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory developed > > > almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just happens to > > > accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields e.g. GPS, > > > while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate enough for > > > testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they don't even > > > measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful coincidence. > > > But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks (e.g. aging or > > > cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. > > > That is not what I said. I said the rate at which a clock ticks has > > nothing to do with time. The same for the biological process in the > > human body or the rate at which a hard boiled egg cooks. > > > If you are on top of a mountain and it requires longer for your egg to > > cook then has time changed? > > > No, of course not. It takes longer to cook stuff at elevation because > > there is less pressure. > > > > I wonder what would be > > > the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do you > > > derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and the > > > actual time (biological time) are different? > > > Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do > > with time. > > > If you own a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has > > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? > > > You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically > > occurring to the clock in order for it to tick slower. > > > Just because you refuse to understand the rate at which an atomic > > clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists does > > does not mean time has changed. > > > If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock > > to tick slower then has time change? > > As your battery operated clock begins to tick slower and slower > compared to the other clocks in your house do you stare at the battery > operated clock in disbelief as time changes for this particular clock? > > If this particular clock was the only clock in your house as it begins > to tick slower and slower compared to every other clock in existence > would time have changed in your house? > > What's the difference between a battery operated clock and an atomic > clock in a GPS satellite? You understand what is occurring physically > to your battery operated clock in order to cause it to tick slower so > you replace the batteries. Since you refuse to understand the rate at > which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which > it exists you allow yourself to incorrectly assume time changes. > > So, I ask you once again, if you do not know what is causing your > battery operated clock to tick slower and it is the only clock in your > house does time change in your house? > > If not, how is this different than simply refusing to understand what > causes atomic clocks to tick at different rates? > > Einstein's concept 'space-time' is described physically as follows: > > - 'curved space-time' is the aether displaced by a massive object. > - Motion with respect to the aether, and gravity (the pressure > associated with the aether displaced by a massive object), determine > the aether pressure on each and every nuclei which is the matter which > is the object. The greater the aether pressure the slower atoms > oscillate. > > "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells > matter how to move" > > Matter tells aether how to displace, and displaced aether tells matter > how to move. You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated aether pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is less than a comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic clock in the space ship ticks faster than the comparable clock on the Earth. Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits in exactly 23 hours 56 minutes, the same rate at which the Earth spins. You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around the Sun. You are in as close to the exact same position with respect to the distant stars as you were when the experiment began. From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth and the Sun you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. This is in exact agreement with the atomic clock on the Earth. You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was altered to remain in sync with the atomic clock on the Earth. The other atomic clock was not altered. The altered atomic clock says 365 and 1/4 days have passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have passed since the beginning of the experiment. What day is it and how much time has passed since the beginning of the experiment? It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was not modified to tick according to the aether pressure it exists in.
From: PD on 19 Mar 2010 17:11
On Mar 19, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 6:29 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 2:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 17, 1:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 17, 12:31 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 8:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:08 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 1:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 2:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 1:25 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens....(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:08 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 9:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:43 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a whole lot to add to what Inertial in particular said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In GR, gravity is a virtual force in a similar way to centrifugal force in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newton. In both cases its really an acceleration, and the force is just the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > product (literally) of this acceleration and the mass of the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein in GR gave a geometric interpretation of what gravity is. This is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very appealing, because it provides a mechanism for force at a distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong it provides no such physical mechanism. It merely assumes the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existence of a physical entity caLLED the fabric of spacetime for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interacting object to follow. The problem with such assumption is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the fabric of spacetime physically? This question is relevant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because SR/GR deny the existence of physical space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ? ".... SR/GR deny the existence of physical space......" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What the devil are you saying man ????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The theory of relativity says that gravity IS deformation of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can this same theory deny the existence of space ??? Better visit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your optometrist really, really soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh...How can you deform space when space is defined by Einstein as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "empty space".???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Solid medium? He said nothing about an electric field being a stress > > > > > > > > > > > in a solid medium. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? > > > > > > > > > > > On page 25 he said A field like an electric field or a magnetic field > > > > > > > > > > is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of > > > > > > > > > > stress possible within a soild body, but a field is a stress in space > > > > > > > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > Note what Weinberg actually said: "...something LIKE the various sorts > > > > > > > > > of stress possible within a solid body, but a field is a stress IN > > > > > > > > > SPACE ITSELF." He does not say that stress only happens in solid > > > > > > > > > bodies. He says that stress happens in solid bodies AND in empty > > > > > > > > > space, and the stress in empty space is something like the stress in > > > > > > > > > solid bodies. This does NOT mean that empty space is a solid body. > > > > > > > > > No stress can exit in liquid or gas. Stress can exist only in solid. > > > > > > > > This is an incorrect statement, Ken. It is just flat wrong. > > > > > > > What I said is 100% correct. Stress exsts only in solids. I suggest > > > > > > that you go to your freskman physics book and look it up. > > > > > > Sure. I have the one you have. Please cite in your freshman physics > > > > > text where it says that stress exists only in solids. > > > > Please point out in your freshman book where it said that stresses can > > > occur in liquid or gas. > > > Or in space. > > > In liquids, you can look up in the index shear modulus, which induces > > a shear in the liquid. > > That's not stress in liquid. Yes, it is. Shear is a stress. Do you need a pointer to a beginner's guide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress > > > > > Are you thinking that the only things that physics deals with are > > solids, liquids, and gases, and nothing else? Why would you think > > that? See the index item permittivity of empty space. > > So empty space is not empty. No, I did not say that. I said empty space has properties, even where it has no matter in it, which is the meaning of "empty space". > It is a new entity (medium or aether) > that can have stress and permittivity. So what is your point? Empty space, without any matter in it at all, can have stress and permittivity and a whole bunch of other physical properties, and these are listed in your freshman physics book, and Weinberg mentioned it as well. That is my point. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Otherwise, as you say Ken, assertion is not an argument. > > > > > > > > When you add your mistake to a correct statement that Weinberg makes, > > > > > > > this is only going to make your conclusion wrong. > > > > > > > Wienberg compare stress in space to stresses in solid. So my > > > > > > conclusion is 100%correct. > > > > > If I tell you that a cat has four legs like a lizard, but is a mammal, > > > > you should not draw the conclusion that mammals are lizards or that > > > > cats are lizards. > > > > > Weinberg said that the electric field is LIKE a stress in a solid, but > > > > is a stress in space. You should not draw the conclusion that space is > > > > a solid or that electric fields are stresses in a solid. > > > > So what he said implies that space is a solid. You are so stupid. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > So if stress exits in space as weinberg claimed then space must be a > > > > > > > > solid. Your ranting and parsing of words is irrelevant. > > > > > > > > Sorry, Ken, but pointing out a mistake of yours is not irrelevant. > > > > > > > When you can learn to acknowledge mistakes, then you will start to > > > > > > > make progress. But since you always claim that remarks by others about > > > > > > > your mistakes are irrelevant, you will never get off square one. > > > > > > > > You have to get over your personality defects before you will be able > > > > > > > to do science. > > > > > > > It will help also to learn some basic physics, like what is taught in > > > > > > > your freshman textbook. > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > Physical properties are not limited to matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > You know that there is a permittivity of EMPTY SPACE? You know there > > > > > > > > > > > is a permeability of EMPTY SPACE? You know there is an impedance of > > > > > > > > > > > EMPTY SPACE? You know there is a gravitational potential in EMPTY > > > > > > > > > > > SPACE?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |