The Law Of The Universe
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 22 Oct 2009 05:21 "SolomonW" <SolomonW(a)nospamMail.com> wrote in message news:YSUDm.35903$XC7.26582(a)newsfe05.ams2... > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT), dlzc wrote: > >> Dear SolomonW: >> >> On Oct 21, 2:34 am, SolomonW <Solom...(a)nospamMail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:24:45 +1100, Inertial wrote: >>>> "jdawe" <jd...(a)ncable.com.au> wrote in message >>>>news:d32732df-40b9-4175-a321-12263bcd7efd(a)i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> ... >>>>> At Rest >>> >>>> An object can be both at the same time .. >>>> depending on who is looking at it >>> >>> Uncertainly principal states it can never >>> be at rest. >> >> No, I believe that is not correct. I believe the uncertainty >> principle states that if you *measure* something to be at rest with >> certainty, you have no idea where it is (or at least what its mass >> is). Hey, sounds like a BE condensate... Hmmmmm. >> >> Uncertainty talks about measurements, not some mythical state of >> motion... >> >> David A. Smith > > You are correct let me rephrase what I wrote under SR it is meaningless to > say an object is at rest. No .. its perfectly valid .. as long as you say in what inertial frame of reference.
From: jdawe on 22 Oct 2009 19:16 On Oct 22, 6:09 pm, jdawe <jd...(a)ncable.com.au> wrote: > Using the Law Of The Universe you can fix: > > E = MC2 > > into: > > E = ~M > > M = ~E > > Where m is matter not mass. Mass is a term for a 'thing' of matter > \energy. > > To invert energy into matter you use negative gravity ( the gravity of > the star ). > > To invert matter into energy you use positive gravity ( the gravity of > the planets ). > > -Josh. Forgot to mention: To use negative gravity to invert energy into matter set the energy 'In Motion'. To use positive gravity to invert matter into energy set the matter 'At Rest'. -Josh. ..
From: jdawe on 22 Oct 2009 19:42 That's all I will be posting in these science groups. I have explained everything to the best of my ability. If someone wants specific help with applying the law to your field of research contact me and I will be happy to help. Understand I will help anybody - you do not have to work for some well known organisation. As long as you send your questions in a polite and logical manner. Thank you, Joshua Dawe By phone: +61 432 971 741 By email: jdawe (AT) ncable.com.au By mail: JDawe PO Box 417 Strawberry Hills NSW 2012 Australia Any sort of abusive or threatening correspondence received will be referred immediately to the appropriate law enforcement agency in the country of origin.
From: Paul O on 23 Oct 2009 11:05 jdawe wrote, On 10/22/2009 7:42 PM: > That's all I will be posting in these science groups. > > I have explained everything to the best of my ability. > > If someone wants specific help with applying the law to your field of > research contact me and I will be happy to help. > > Understand I will help anybody - you do not have to work for some well > known organisation. As long as you send your questions in a polite and > logical manner. > > Thank you, > > Joshua Dawe > > By phone: > > +61 432 971 741 > > By email: > > jdawe (AT) ncable.com.au > > By mail: > > JDawe > PO Box 417 > Strawberry Hills > NSW 2012 > Australia > > Any sort of abusive or threatening correspondence received will be > referred immediately to the appropriate law enforcement agency in the > country of origin. > I have to admire your courage for publishing your address and phone number. I am curious as to why you decided to strike out on your own and develop an original Theory of the Universe instead of starting with the basics - Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Maxwell, Lorentz, Plank, Einstein, Fermi, Feynman, Bethe, Chandrasekhar, etc. - and build on their work? -- Paul D Oosterhout I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
From: brian whatcott on 23 Oct 2009 20:18
Paul O wrote: >> [about] jdawe (AT) ncable.com.au >> .... > I am curious as to why you decided to strike out on your own and develop > an original Theory of the Universe instead of starting with the basics - > Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Maxwell, Lorentz, Plank, Einstein, Fermi, > Feynman, Bethe, Chandrasekhar, etc. - and build on their work? > I have come across a few people in this same class. One person, very very sincere, who built a track for a toy car with magnets imbedded in it, that visibly would run up hill (under the influence of magnets imbedded each side of the track) run down the other side and on around and make it back to the foot of the original upslope. (Almost! At the foot of the slope, there was a boundary of magnetic repulsion that the car had to be pushed through, before it would start running up hill) He was certain that a little more effort, and he would have a toy car that would circle the track indefinitely. You could SEE it climbing up hill with no external power expended, after all! I found this kind of enthusiast forgivable: you could see how he got to his position... Then there are the folks who have been abducted by aliens - the folks who have seen a flying saucer, - the folks who hear voices.... But I suspect that Mr Dawe feels deep down that he has insights that not many people get - he feels special so he enjoys being treated as special. And I expect he has not been burdened by much college education in this area. Once you accept some Conservation rules: energy/matter, charge, momentum, it takes all the fun out of building on fanciful concepts. They are knocked out in the first or second semester. Brian W |