The Law Of The Universe
in [Relativity]
|
From: SolomonW on 24 Oct 2009 06:52 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:21:21 +1100, Inertial wrote: > "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. In the observer would know that he is not the only inertial frame of reference.
From: jdawe on 27 Oct 2009 04:37 On Oct 24, 2:05 am, Paul O <first.d.l...(a)company.com> wrote: > 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)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi Paul, Sorry for the late reply I've been away on bit of a break. I came across to physics from another discipline - I never set out specifically to find the 'Law Of The Universe'. It just so happened that if I was going to excel at the other discipline then I had to understand the underlying, physical laws of nature. So I went on bit of a journey of scientific discovery. I began unearthing little 'laws'. Each one of these little laws all had one unique thing in common - there were always 2 'ways' of doing something. A 'way' and it's equal and opposite 'way'. I learnt this from the Chinese theory of 'yin\yang'. I really got quite absorbed in it. All day and night all I could ever do was think, think and think. I just couldn't stop thinking about it. I knew I was headed for a bit of a breakdown if I didn't stop thinking and take a break from it but the more little laws I uncovered the greater the desire there was to uncover more and more and more. I kept pushing it, of course, until I spilled over completely from the other discipline here to pure physics where I continued my thinking unabated. Then, finally, I hit the almighty jackpot. Discovering something Einstein, Newton and everyone else you listed had been searching for. The 'Law Of The Universe'. Now, many in the pure scientific community will probably take some time before they accept it because they have made one very big mistake in their own journey of scientific discovery. They have tried to impose a one sided view on a two sided universe. So long as they continue to maintain that there is only 'one' state energy\matter can be in - the moving state. Recognising only 'one' state of motion gives you only one form of gravity and understanding only one form of gravity means you will never truly understand the dual 'way' of the universe. You will be stuck using 'vacuums' for your scientific research with all the energy\matter removed so you can live in a mythical universe of no positive or negative gravity. Now, as to whether or not I feel special, as Brian alluded to, well, there's a feeling of achievement there just as an athlete feels he has achieved something by breaking a world record. All the effort they have put, day in and day out, into their training has finally paid off. So, in my case, all those sleepness nights of endless thinking, thinking and thinking finally paid off in the end. So at last, I can finally switch the 'In Motion' state of my mind into the 'At Rest' state and finally get a good nights sleep for once. -Josh.
From: Argir Pando Vasil Dobri Matea Karagorgovi on 27 Oct 2009 07:41 The Law Of The Universe is The Law Of The Lever cause The Universe is The Lever
From: brian whatcott on 27 Oct 2009 20:33 jdawe wrote: >>> That's all I will be posting in these science groups. You then continued with this.... >... > It just so happened that if I was going to excel at the other > discipline then I had to understand the underlying, physical laws of > nature. So I went on bit of a journey of scientific discovery. > So at last, I can finally switch the 'In Motion' state of my mind into > the 'At Rest' state and finally get a good nights sleep for once. > > -Josh. Please.... Brian W
From: jdawe on 27 Oct 2009 21:24
There is no greater crime one can commit than the crime of holding back humanity to keep one's own intellectual ego intact. -Josh. |