SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 25 May 2010 18:21 there are lots of folks on the nets (sik), who apparently are second-generation Americans, and who are not really literate in two languages. what I'm saying is, you'll never grok English, til you *try* to read Shakespeare -- which is all anyone can do, especially the God-am British. (see, "Why the British Hate Shakespeare," http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf ... of course, probably, one'd also have to "get classical" in one's mother tongue, two, ultimately .-) thusNso: there is no problem with using four dimensions, in two ways: a) a 3D movie; b) homogenous coordinates for ordinary space. unforunately, the British Psychological Society muddied the waters with monsieur A.A. Skwared -- as if the pythagorean theorem had anything to do with skwares, or even with 2D shapes, alas. thusNso: there was once a thing, actually a decade or two ago, called the U.S. Climate Reference Network, that was just a dataset of the 28 continental weather stations that had not been "incorporated" by the urban heat island effect -- then understood only in terms of manmade changes of albedo & evapotraspiration. when I tried to search it online, a while ago, I found that it had mysteriously been allowed to, well, not be just a dataset, and there were plans for starting a new one, some time. > Here's some data from Iowa State University > http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html thusNso: "case" is every thing, in this context, and I stand by what I mean by it (a little calculation of a long time ago, inspired by Bucky saith .-) anyway, your say-so is rather nonsensical, since everyone else comprehends them to be two forms of the *same* thing, only one of which "has" mass. you pretty-much tossed your whole cookie, by "transforming the equation into maether." > Your 'm' refers to mass. That is inaccurate. Both aether and matter > have mass. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther. > A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter, or: M=A/c^2. > Change your lowercase 'm' to an upper case 'M' and you've got it. thusNso: there are lots of effects that are not neccesarily taken into account by the UNIPCC, such as subsidence of land due to erosion from agriculture & deforestation (even though there really is no discernible world-around "rise of sea level," excepting in computerized simulacra, as with so much else). thusNso: there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts continuous with distance, or just very subtle? the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star, doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still, the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light" a la Dubya. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html > Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there > is stray light coming in from another source. That's how, > We didn't really go to Moon! thusNso: you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property of the atom, and *that* is the "particle" into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon. the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy, as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye (the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-) nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and probably not really in Einstein's; so, there. > > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above, > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into a particle" e.g.. --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other! http://wlym.com |