Prev: Circular orbit proves space curve round
Next: Instructors Manual for Microeconomics Principles and Policy by William J. Baumol, Alan S. Blinder 11th Edition (2009) is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
From: cjcountess on 4 Jul 2010 17:16
Thomas Hager

Very interesting, will read your paper when I can really sat down and
give it the proper concentration.


I am incline to agree with much of what you said and will prepare a
better description of my own views. What I posted ealier was just the
begining and as such is not as complete and clear as it could be


PD, Whoever, Inertia


What are your realities if any,
all you do is critisize


Inertia you still don't recognize E=hf/c^2 as an equation


I showed you this before


http://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=E...


and you don;t think that light has angular motion and momentum?


http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm


PD


It is clear to me that you have no idea of what I am talking about,
or
for that matter, what you are talking about. As such, it is hard to
know even where to begin answering you.


I don't know what to think of you


You always critisixe but have no solutions of your own, are you
jealous because I have one of the greatest discoveries since
relativity and quantum theory and you know it. You think that if
enougth of you attact my theory I will become discouraged and otheres
will not reguard it and it will go away.


PD


it is not going away, it is here to stay because the evidence is so
clear that it speaks for itself, louder than any titles or degrees,
that any of you, who are afraid to even use your own names, may have


It even speaks louder than I, its author, and if I make a mistake
here
and there, it still does not invalidate the therory/discovery, it is
sound, solid and one of the greatest of all times.


I know that it is a great discovery and many of you can't stand it,
but its done, its out there, and I "Conrad J Countess" am the
discoverer.


I is amusing whatching all of you fight against something for which
you have no win.


Whoever


I will prepare a more thorough explination keeping in mind all that
all of you said. I know this theory goes against the grain of
established excepted physics and turns the foundatios of moderen
physics, "the constancy of the speec of light and c as highest speed"
upside down.


And so this better and shall be GOOD.


Conrad J Countess




From: Victar Shauwberger on 5 Jul 2010 05:38
nothing
From: Victar Shauwberger on 5 Jul 2010 05:45
On Jun 30, 5:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> cjcountess wrote:
> > The postulates
> > 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
> > 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> > observed
>
> Those cannot possibly give you SR, or anything remotely like it.
>
> You absolutely must have this postulate:
>
> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
>
> Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
> derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
> illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
> tests, and is known as SR.
>
> [#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
> * the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
> * space is homogeneous and isotropic

what do you mean by homogeneous space and isotropic?

i never understood this words

> * time is homogeneous

this confuse me even more, how would you make sure for that

homogeneous imply consistency, am i wrong?


> * clocks and rulers have no memory

i would admit, but they imply reading, hence memory

without memory, clocks and rulers are inexistent

thanks

>
> Note, in particular, that light is not mentioned at all. It is an EXPERIMENTAL
> issue that the vacuum speed of light turns out to be equal to the constant c in
> the Lorentz transforms. That leads to the identification of the constant c in
> the Lorentz transforms with the constant c in Maxwell's equations, which then
> leads to the unification of classical electrodynamics and SR (historically, SR
> was derived from an assumption of that unification).
>
> This confusion about multiple quantities with the same label "c"
> is purely historical.
>
> Tom Roberts

From: Tom Roberts on 5 Jul 2010 12:11
Victar Shauwberger wrote:
> On Jun 30, 5:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> You absolutely must have this postulate:
>> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
>> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
>> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
>> Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
>> derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
>> illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
>> tests, and is known as SR.
>> [#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
>> * the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
>> * space is homogeneous and isotropic
>
> what do you mean by homogeneous space and isotropic?

Homogeneous means not varying from place to place. Technically it means the
metric does not depend on location; there are three Killing vectors
corresponding to translations in space.

Isotropic means not varying in different directions. Technically it means the
metric projected onto a given axis does not depend on the orientation of that
axis; there are three Killing vectors corresponding to rotations in space.


>> * time is homogeneous
>
> this confuse me even more, how would you make sure for that

This means that the metric does not vary at different times (is independent of
time); there is a Killing vector corresponding to translation in time.


>> * clocks and rulers have no memory
>
> i would admit, but they imply reading, hence memory

This means that the tick rate of a clock and the incremental distance on a ruler
depend on their physical situation when read, not on any history of how they got
to their current state.

Note that the metric on the Minkowski spacetime of SR has all the above Killing
vectors plus 3 more (corresponding to boosts). That is a total of 10 independent
Killing vectors, which is the largest number possible in a 4-D manifold.

If you don't know what a Killing vector is, don't worry about it.
They are an advanced way of specifying symmetries of a manifold.


>> Note, in particular, that light is not mentioned at all. It is an EXPERIMENTAL
>> issue that the vacuum speed of light turns out to be equal to the constant c in
>> the Lorentz transforms. That leads to the identification of the constant c in
>> the Lorentz transforms with the constant c in Maxwell's equations, which then
>> leads to the unification of classical electrodynamics and SR (historically, SR
>> was derived from an assumption of that unification).
>>
>> This confusion about multiple quantities with the same label "c"
>> is purely historical.

Tom Roberts
From: Victar Shawnberger on 6 Jul 2010 04:49
On Jul 5, 6:11 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Victar Shauwberger wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 5:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> You absolutely must have this postulate:
> >> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of physical
> >> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
> >> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
> >> Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
> >> derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
> >> illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
> >> tests, and is known as SR.
> >> [#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
> >> * the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
> >> * space is homogeneous and isotropic
>
> > what do you mean by homogeneous space and isotropic?
>
> Homogeneous means not varying from place to place. Technically it means the
> metric does not depend on location; there are three Killing vectors
> corresponding to translations in space.

thank you for the good detailed explanation, i still dont understand

how can space not be varying from place to place, what is the
consistence of space in order to it to eventually be varying?

and we need to use tensors because tensors are real, vectors are not

and we have also rotation along with translation

>
> Isotropic means not varying in different directions. Technically it means the
> metric projected onto a given axis does not depend on the orientation of that
> axis; there are three Killing vectors corresponding to rotations in space.

same question i have as before, what is the consistence of space,
vacuum?

>
> >> * time is homogeneous
>
> > this confuse me even more, how would you make sure for that
>
> This means that the metric does not vary at different times (is independent of
> time); there is a Killing vector corresponding to translation in time.

still i am confused, what about the consistence of time?

the meter is about distance and speed of light, hence again i suppose
we need a "standard" time so to speak

what about rotation in time?

>
> >> * clocks and rulers have no memory
>
> > i would admit, but they imply reading, hence memory
>
> This means that the tick rate of a clock and the incremental distance on a ruler
> depend on their physical situation when read, not on any history of how they got
> to their current state.

if we have nothing to compare from the past, how would one know that
the ticking interval is not changed, wrt something else

>
> Note that the metric on the Minkowski spacetime of SR has all the above Killing
> vectors plus 3 more (corresponding to boosts). That is a total of 10 independent
> Killing vectors, which is the largest number possible in a 4-D manifold.

this must be a tensor, not?

>
> If you don't know what a Killing vector is, don't worry about it.
> They are an advanced way of specifying symmetries of a manifold.
>
> >> Note, in particular, that light is not mentioned at all. It is an EXPERIMENTAL
> >> issue that the vacuum speed of light turns out to be equal to the constant c in
> >> the Lorentz transforms. That leads to the identification of the constant c in
> >> the Lorentz transforms with the constant c in Maxwell's equations, which then
> >> leads to the unification of classical electrodynamics and SR (historically, SR
> >> was derived from an assumption of that unification).
>
> >> This confusion about multiple quantities with the same label "c"
> >> is purely historical.
>
> Tom Roberts

is c inside an atom boundaries the same valued c as outside?

if yes then there is no outside, and space is not real !

thanks
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Circular orbit proves space curve round
Next: Instructors Manual for Microeconomics Principles and Policy by William J. Baumol, Alan S. Blinder 11th Edition (2009) is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.