Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: franklinhu on 29 Jul 2010 18:15 On Jul 26, 12:17 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "franklinhu" <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:b5687566-0863-4f40-8550-5ed2382b77dd(a)u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com... > You do see the staircase energy pattern which has never been > recognized before by modern science, don't you? > > ============================================== > Bwahahahahahaha! I was going to let it go, but when you come out with such > outlandishly stupid statements I have to speak up. > > Do you have any clue what these people were doing, Hu? > Pfund, Paschen, Balmer, Lyman, Brackett. > Here's a hint: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series > > You don't see the staircase energy pattern which has always been recognized > by modern science for a century, you idiot? > > The great aetherialist franklinhu's astounding discovery: > The Rydberg constant of helium (R_He) is related to the > Rydberg constant for hydrogen (R_H). Amazing! > No, that isn't at all what I am claiming. I'm not saying anything about the relationship between the spectra for H and He. What I am saying is that the Rydberg formula can explain lines in both the He+ and He++ ion. On my graph, I have two lines representing the He+ and He ++ ions which appear to be identical. The staircase pattern I am referring to has nothing to do with the Rydberg constant. > Listen up, cretin! > > frequency = (1/n_1^2 - 1/n_2^2) * (constant) > > The constant is called the Rydberg constant. > Constants are used to express numbers in the arbitrarily chosen units of > meters, seconds and kilograms. A different constant would be needed if > the frequency was RPM instead of hertz. > > There is a different constant for each element. > The important part of Rydberg's work is 1/n_1^2 - 1/n_2^2. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg%E2%80%93Ritz_combination_principle > The spectral lines of hydrogen had been analyzed and found to have a > mathematical relationship in the Balmer series. This was later extended to a > general formula called the Rydberg formula. This could only be applied to > hydrogen-like atoms. What I am claiming is that the Rydberg can be applied to NON- hydrogen- like atoms. In 1908 Ritz derived a relationship that could be > applied to all atoms. This principle, the Rydberg-Ritz combination > principle, is used today in identifying the transition lines of atoms. > I'd like to know more about the Rydber-Ritz combination principle as my charting depended on the electron transitions listed in the NIST database. Those had to derived by some means. > Nobody minds you learning, Hu, but don't tell us "never been recognized > before by modern science", dumbfuck.
From: franklinhu on 29 Jul 2010 18:29 On Jul 27, 1:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 3:03 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > And what makes you or anybody else think that earth is so unique that any > > > real or (most likely) imagined ether would be at rest with regards to its > > > surface? The idea of such an ether sounds ridiculous. > > > It isn't rediculous if you compare it with the Earth's atmosphere. > > While not being at complete rest with the surface, certainly, the air > > in the room you are sitting with is at rest. You don't think that is > > rediculous do you? > > > I believe that the aether is composed of a "gas" like substance and it > > behaves the same as a gas in that it concentrates at the surface of > > highly gravitational objects and just like the Earth has an envelope > > of atmospheric gases that it drags through space, it may also drag a > > similar envelope of aether. > > And this has a demonstrable effect called aberration. > > Where there is dragging of a medium, there is a boundary or transition > to the region where it is not dragged. (If you like, imagine the layer > of air being dragged with a golf ball, and the transition to air > further out that is not dragged.) For waves that are borne by a > medium, this introduces a bending at the boundary or transition layer. > Then it is pretty easy to detect this bending, especially if the > medium is being dragged around a rotating body that is also > translating. All you need to do is to find a source that is beyond the > transition, and then you watch for the *differential* effect of the > bending as the receiver rotates. To see why there is a differential, > just consider a point on the surface of the earth. The earth is in > motion around the sun at about 60,000 mph. But the earth is also > spining on its axis, so that the equator is moving west to east at > 1,000 mph. This means that during the day, the surface of the earth is > traveling at 59,000 mph with respect to the sun and at 61,000 mph at > night. This difference would introduce a *shift* in the bending of a > signal from a distant source that would be evident on a daily cycle. > > So a dragged aether model has in fact been looked at quiet thoroughly, > and it is possible to calculate how much differential aberration you'd > expect from the transition layer for light coming from a star. Then > this was very carefully measured. To date, the absence of a > differential aberration is the best counterevidence available > regarding a dragged aether hypothesis. > > This was actually done quite a long time ago, if you will look it up > on the web. > > PD I must admit that this isn't an area which I am entirely clear on. It seems that stellar aberation of 20 arc-s is observed which is perfectly consistent with an aether which is fixed relative to the sun. So the fact that we have stellar aberation supports the existence of an aether. I was curious how stellar abberation is explained by mainstream science without invoking an aether? On the other hand, there seeem to be people who think that if the aether is dragged by the earth, that we should not observed stellar aberation at all. This doesn't happen, so we have 2 contradictory observations with no apparent resolution. But what I really don't understand is why they would think there would be no abberation in an aether drag situation. I would think that whatever is causing the abberation, it would be happening out in the space between the star and the Earth's atmosphere. There was an experiment that I don't get which involved filling the telescope full of water. I think this only shows that the abberation does not happen within the telescope. I would think the abberation happens as it travels through the moving aether of space between the Earth and the star and the little bit it has to go through to reach the Earth where the aether is basically stationary is not going to make a bit of difference on the angle of the star at that point. I'm thinking the entire mechanics of how abberation happens need to be reviewed. I would also think that if there were any abberation due to aether, that it would also be extremely difficult to separate to the abberation caused by the atmosphere as both occupy the same space with similar relative densities.
From: franklinhu on 29 Jul 2010 18:44 On Jul 29, 10:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > > news:4c51af49$0$17087$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > | "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote > |news:Slc4o.275828$sD7.39394(a)hurricane... > | > > | > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > | >news:4c5145e1$0$2605$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > | > | > | "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote > | > |news:M3a4o.342815$m87.28318(a)hurricane... > | > | > > | > | > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > | > | >news:4c512bb7$0$2587$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > | >> | > | > | > | > | > | The rotating Sun drags the ether. So no relative velocity > | > between > | > | > | > planets > | > | > | > | and ether. > | > | > | > | The experiments show that rotating Earth do not drag ether. > This > | > is > | > | > | > | unexpected but it is a fact. > | > | > > | > | > Szczepan Bialek is raving mad. This is unexpected but it is a fact. > | > | > | > | Someone also: > | > > | > First, we must discuss Szczepan Bialek's insanity. > | > Szczepan Bialek is raving mad. This is unexpected but it is a fact. > | > Hey Bialek! What do you think of this, you lunatic? > | > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E > | > | It stops after 1 minute 33s. So I do not know what is the conclussion. > Could > | you explain? > > Your computer is too old / too small / too slow or your internet connection > failed. > Try again. > > | > | It seems that you do not like Stokes sun's ether drag theory. > | Tell us what you like? > > I like sanity. What do you want aether to do for you anyway? Szczepan is making an arugment that the aether is made out of interstellar dust. Now, getting to the point of what we want an aether to do for us, I think it is of utmost importance that the aether be the medium for transmitting light. I would doubt that the interstellar medium would be sufficient to account for transmission of light. The density of that interstellar medium is extremely low. Given the speed of light and how higher density materials transmit waves faster, I would expect the aether to be extremely dense. Neither could waves propagate well in medium with so few particles to transmit the wave by. If you created a perfect vacuum without any interstellar medium and you could show that it results in light being unable to pass, then I think you might have a point, but I would think we have pretty much shown that light and electromagnetic waves in general can pass through a perfect vacuum, neither is the ability to transmit EM affected by vaccum. I prefer a model of the aether which consists of positron/electron pairs which I call poselectrons. This forms an extremely dense "gas" which fills all of avaliable space and acts as the transmission medium for electromagnetic waves. This aether also defines the smallest amount of space and time which is expressed as plank length and time. This gives rise to all of the observed "quantum" effects such as the specific spectra emitted by atoms. The aether also creates "mass" by the mechanism which is currently assigned to the Higgs Boson. The aether is also useful in explaining how "inertia" works by storing energy in the aether fields. It also serves as the medium for magnetic forces. It also explains why positron/electrons can be ejected from "empty" space. It also allows the mechanical explanation of attractive electric charges. So these are the things I think we need an aether for and my preferred embodiment. See: http://franklinhu.com/aether.html
From: Androcles on 29 Jul 2010 19:21 "franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:135e455d-67e0-4446-8b3e-1cff289a824e(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jul 29, 10:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > > news:4c51af49$0$17087$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > | "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote > |news:Slc4o.275828$sD7.39394(a)hurricane... > | > > | > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > | >news:4c5145e1$0$2605$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > | > | > | "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote > | > |news:M3a4o.342815$m87.28318(a)hurricane... > | > | > > | > | > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > | > | >news:4c512bb7$0$2587$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | > | >> | > | > | > | > | > | The rotating Sun drags the ether. So no relative velocity > | > between > | > | > | > planets > | > | > | > | and ether. > | > | > | > | The experiments show that rotating Earth do not drag ether. > This > | > is > | > | > | > | unexpected but it is a fact. > | > | > > | > | > Szczepan Bialek is raving mad. This is unexpected but it is a > fact. > | > | > | > | Someone also: > | > > | > First, we must discuss Szczepan Bialek's insanity. > | > Szczepan Bialek is raving mad. This is unexpected but it is a fact. > | > Hey Bialek! What do you think of this, you lunatic? > | > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E > | > | It stops after 1 minute 33s. So I do not know what is the conclussion. > Could > | you explain? > > Your computer is too old / too small / too slow or your internet > connection > failed. > Try again. > > | > | It seems that you do not like Stokes sun's ether drag theory. > | Tell us what you like? > > I like sanity. What do you want aether to do for you anyway? Szczepan is making an arugment that the aether is made out of interstellar dust. Now, getting to the point of what we want an aether to do for us, I think it is of utmost importance that the aether be the medium for transmitting light. ================================================ Ok. Explain this with aether of utmost importance: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg Explain this with aether of utmost importance: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000A%26A...356L..53B Explain this (same star) with aether of utmost importance: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
From: Szczepan Bialek on 30 Jul 2010 13:12
"franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrotenews:135e455d-67e0-4446-8b3e-1cff289a824e(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jul 29, 10:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> I like sanity. What do you want aether to do for you anyway? >Szczepan is making an arugment that the aether is made out of interstellar dust. Plasma (ions and electrons) and charged dust. >Now, getting to the point of what we want an aether to do for us, I think it is of utmost importance that the aether be the medium for transmitting light. I would doubt that the interstellar medium would be sufficient to account for transmission of light. Ludwig Lorenz was sure that it is sufficient. >The density of that interstellar medium is extremely low. Given the speed of light and how higher density materials transmit waves faster, I would expect the aether to be extremely dense. Ion and dust are the medium for acustic waves. For electric waves are electrons. In a wire is the same situation. >Neither could waves propagate well in medium with so few particles to >transmit the wave by. Electrons are very effective. >If you created a perfect vacuum without any interstellar medium and you could show that it results in light being unable to pass, The sublimation do not allow. > then I think you might have a point, but I would think we have pretty much shown that light and electromagnetic waves in general can pass through a perfect vacuum, neither is the ability to transmit EM affected by vaccum. >I prefer a model of the aether which consists of positron/electron pairs In reality are ions/electrons pairs. >which I call poselectrons. This forms an extremely dense "gas" which fills all of avaliable space and acts as the transmission medium for electromagnetic waves. This aether also defines the smallest amount of space and time which is expressed as plank length and time. This gives rise to all of the observed "quantum" effects such as the specific spectra emitted by atoms. The aether also creates "mass" by the mechanism which is currently assigned to the Higgs Boson. The aether is also useful in explaining how "inertia" works by storing energy in the aether fields. It also serves as the medium for magnetic forces. It also explains why positron/electrons can be ejected from "empty" space. It also allows the mechanical explanation of attractive electric charges. So these are the things I think we need an aether for and my preferred embodiment. It is better to use the real facts than dreams. The Interstelar Medium (plasma and dust) is intensivelly analised by scientists. Join them. >See: http://franklinhu.com/aether.html "The idea that I would like to propose is that the aether is made up of nothing more than an array of alternating protons and electrons." Why in the post you wrote: "positron/electron pairs ". Positrons are joke. Protons and ions are almost the same. You are on right way. S* S* |