Prev: johnreed to PD on Roemer
Next: A castigation of Napoleon Bonehead Green, Doctor of Phrenology,
From: spudnik on 1 Aug 2010 21:51
if you are on a train & you look out of it
from the cab, toward the station at night,
both the sounds & the light eminating from the station
will be blueshifted per the velocity of the train & yourself,
wondering about the math of the psychedelic experienced ... me,
three, with or without LSD.

> how can Doppler have anything to do with relativity?

thus quoth:
    I used electrical engineer language to describe the four
polarization states of the electromagnetic field inside an antenna.
Let me use covariant QED language.
    The two circular polarization states are unchanged in QED
language. Clockwise and counterclockwise are good words. However, the
transverse magnetic mode is called the longitudinal spin state. The
transverse electric mode is called the time-like spin state.
       To summarize: I described a good heuristic relating QED to
classical antenna theory. The spin state of the photon relates to the
polarization state of the radio wave or radio field. There are two
polarization/spin states in the far field (far from the antennae) and
four polarization/spin states in the near field (close to the
antennae).

thus: the pythagorean 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 .-)
> So why are you assuming otherwise?

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/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph...

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: Y.Porat on 1 Aug 2010 23:35
On Aug 2, 3:51 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> if you are on a train & you look out of it
> from the cab, toward the station at night,
> both the sounds & the light eminating from the station
> will be blueshifted per the velocity of the train & yourself,
> wondering about the math of the psychedelic experienced ... me,
> three, with or without LSD.
>
> > how can Doppler have anything to do with relativity?
>
> thus quoth:
>     I used electrical engineer language to describe the four
> polarization states of the electromagnetic field inside an antenna.
> Let me use covariant QED language.
>     The two circular polarization states are unchanged in QED
> language. Clockwise and counterclockwise are good words. However, the
> transverse magnetic mode is called the longitudinal spin state. The
> transverse electric mode is called the time-like spin state.
>        To summarize: I described a good heuristic relating QED to
> classical antenna theory. The spin state of the photon relates to the
> polarization state of the radio wave or radio field. There are two
> polarization/spin states in the far field (far from the antennae) and
> four polarization/spin states in the near field (close to the
> antennae).
>
> thus:  the pythagorean 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 .-)
>
> > So why are you assuming otherwise?
>
> 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/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph...
>
> --Light, A History!http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html

------------------------
the Inorganic Nature
is not cleaver enough to follow your mind boggling

IT IS MUCH SIMPLER THAN YOU IMAGINE !!!

y.p
---------------------------------
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: johnreed to PD on Roemer
Next: A castigation of Napoleon Bonehead Green, Doctor of Phrenology,