There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: NoEinstein on 13 Apr 2010 10:31 On Apr 11, 1:26 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Paul: You mix-in 'history' while discussing science. I never know whether you are second guessing some science pioneer, or defending that person's principles of science... that sound suspect. I developed most of my New Science via close observation and reasoning, without having to read what another soul had written. I accepted good data, while rejecting most of the near-sighted interpretations of that data. *** I invite you to paraphrase any issue of science. I don't have the time to go looking for histories and biographies to understand the arguments you are making. I express my points of science, every day, so that the readers won't have to go on any wild-goose-chases to understand my thought processes. NoEinstein > > On Apr 10, 4:01 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 8:17 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 9:57 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Timo Nieminen wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > > > > Yup, that an interesting problem, isn't it... The exposure of more > > > > > > attenuating area ican increase the effect per unit volume because its > > > > > > a 4 pi omni-directional flux and, being constant per unit volume has > > > > > > some counter intuitive aspects. > > > > > > Problem 2: Not that counter-intuitive. 6.74N is what you'd have if the > > > > > flux were unidirectional. Not being unidirectional will reduce the maximum > > > > > force possible, and make things worse. Not much worse, but it certainly > > > > > doesn't help. > > > > > In Edwards (pg 187), you have max flux = Q * pi * (r/R)^2 for a spherical > > > > body that absorbs completely. Given that Q is defined as the incident flux > > > > per unit area, it is odd that shielding from one side gives a net flux > > > > larger than this, but I assume this is in the definition of "net flux" as > > > > a different kind of flux. > > > > The maximum attenuation is terms of field flux is given in equation > > > 12 (mentioned above) BUT! R^2 must, at all times but physically equal > > > or greater than pir^2 (if r' is the physical radius of a spherical > > > body) and and R = r' then the 'visible' area pir^2 is less than piR^2, > > > meaning, the sphere is physically blocking the view or horizon of some > > > physical area. IOW, you cannot lose more than you have to begin > > > with. This was assumed to be understood. > > > Yes, the _maximum_ possible flux is Q*pi (for R=r). (It's explicitly > > stated in Edwards that r<=R.) > > > > > OK, with this, you get a maximum force, next to a completely shielding > > > > body, of 6.74 * pi = 21 N per kg. > > > > Qnet = Q but this is the maximum impinging flux, not a force, or an > > > acceleration. The 'force' for this would be, > > > > F = QAa/R^2 > > > > Where A and a are the physical shadowing areas and R the physical > > > distance between them. So, given the constraint mentioned above, QA/ > > > R^2 must be simply Q, as a maximum (A/R^2 <= 1). Thus, given the case > > > where a is unity, the maximum mutual 'force' between them would be > > > 6.74 Nt on the surface. But, this is an 'idealized' black body > > > interaction case, not likely to be seen in any real physical > > > situation. > > > And for the case where only one body completely shields, and the 2nd > > body (the small one) is weakly absorbing, then a = mass * u, since a > > is the absorption cross-section for the body. For weak absorption by > > the 2nd body, the maximum possible gravitational force is 6.74N/kg. > > For complete absorption by the 2nd body, the maximum possible is > > 6.74kg/m^2. > > > Yes, we're not likely to see this, since it is an extreme limiting > > case. That's the problem, it's the maximum force possible, and all > > gravitational forces we observe are likely to be less - much less - > > than these values. Measuring g here I find that the observed force is > > 9.78N/kg (uncorrected for centripetal acceleration, but that doesn't > > make enough difference), in excess of the strong-weak limit. Since I > > can make a plate of area 1m^2 with a mass of 1kg, I can also easily > > observe forces in excess of the strong-strong limit. > > THe real question is, what, in terms of LeSage's model is inertial/ > gravitational mass? We measure this by Newton's second law, i.e. by > the inertial response... Thus the strong equivilence principle. But, > as you should clearly see in the above expressions, mass (M) is NOT! > the primary player in the process, interaction area is. As I've said, > massiveness is an emergent quantity. Thus, in terms of LeSage's > process, mass is NOT! a fundamental property. It is in inertia, not > gravity, that the answer to this is found. And, inertia is not > gravity. To answer this question you do need some sort of > unification. > > > Since I observe forces in excess of the _maximum possible_ > > gravitational force predicted using your values of Q and u, either the > > theory is wrong, or your values of Q and u are wrong. > > Not if you throw out M as an invariant property. Also Q is the > LeSagian the momentum interaction parameter. Nothing says it cannot > be field density (z) multiplied by a differntial change in c per event > squared, i.e., > > Q = z(dc)^2 > > I am NOT! saying this is, in fact, the case BUT! now we get down into > the nitty-gritty underlying foundational questions of possible > different variants of the LeSage models. Matt Edwards for example > perfers a Casmir type effect for the apparent momentum attenuation in > the field. > > > > > > > > > (Eqn (19), on pg 188, is wrong; this should be F = Qu m2 pi (r/R)^2, not > > > > F = Qu^2 m2 pi (r/R)^2. Just repeat the weak limit calculation, replacing > > > > the weak limit net flux with the strong limit net flux, and this is what > > > > you get. > > > > Equation 19 is the mixed bag, where a perfectly 'black body' is > > > interacting with a normal (weakly attenuating) object. So, OK, the > > > constraint for the strong limit applies, and A/R^2 <= 1, thus a black > > > body exerts a maximum force of QuM between them. But, again, the > > > 'strong' attenuator does not have mass in any definable sense. What > > > does this say about LeSage's model? Black holes are gravitationally > > > extremely weak objects... and would tend to NOT! influence their > > > surrounding much at'tall... > > > No, "black holes" have the maximum possible gravitational force. If > > they don't influence their surroundings much at all, nothing does, > > gravitationally. They have less gravitational force per unit mass, due > > to shielding, but adding mass never reduces the gravitational force in > > a le Sage theory. > > Maybe I should have said 'black bodies' to indicate this model's > version. > > > > > > > > > In Edwards, pg 188, it's clearly stated (in words, rather than as a > > > > mathematical expression) that F = Q_net u m. So why have you been trying > > > > to say that Qu * mass isn't a force? > > > > Where? It states that the force between two bodies in the LeSage > > > field of magnitude Q will behave as described under the conditions > > > described. For mutually weak attenuators, that is, > > > > F = Q(uM)(um)/R^2 => (Qu^2)Mm/R^2 => GMm/R^2 Where G = Qu^2 > > > Yes, and since Q_net = Q(uM)/R^2, this means that F = Q_net u m. > > > > There is nothing either logically, or mathematically, inconsistent > > > here. Believe me, if there was, Matt Edwards, TVF, and other > > > reviewers would have been all over it like a cheap suit. > > > It's a rare error that's caught by peer review, so I'm not surprised > > if there's a mistake there. > > > Check the numbers for yourself. Using your value of u, and typical > > densities, the linear absorption coefficient (i.e., what is usually > > called the linear absorption coefficient, not your "linear > > attenutation coefficient" which is something else altogether) is > > lambda = u*density = approx 0.01 m^-1. That is, going through ordinary > > terrestrial matter, we expect a unidirectional beam of le Sage > > corpuscles to fall in intensity as exp(-lambda*distance) = > > exp(-0.01*distance in metres). This means that most le Sage corpuscles > > would be absorbed after travelling a few 100m into the Earth, which is > > only a tiny fraction of the thickness of the Earth - almost none would > > make it through. Meanwhile, F = Q(uM)(um)/R^2 => (Qu^2)Mm/R^2 => GMm/ > > R^2 assumes weak absorption - contradicted by this value of u*density. > > The strong absorption limit meanwhile gives a maximum gravitational > > force of 6.74N per kg or per m^2 (depending on whether the 2nd body is > > weakly or strongly absorbing), both of which are observed to be > > exceeded. > > I have been a radiation transport specialist since 1980 and am the > primary author of both ProShield and SmartShield (discrect Ordinate > transport model [QADCGGP] based) and am very well aware of > fundamentals. Thus I have always said u is a mass 'attenuation' > coefficient NOT! an absorption coefficient since the principle > underlying processes remain undefined! Further, yes, u is, at > 3.146E-6, incongruent with a mass density of 5525 kg/m^3 Earth's bulk > density for example. It is not for a field density of the order of > 8.854E-12 kg/m^3 however (which is the EM density). In fact, 3E-6 x > 9E-12 => 2.7E-17 1/m (linear 'attenuation' coefficient). However, > this raises the big question as to 'what, exactly, is matter?'. This > is a question that goes to the very heart of unification. We know > that matter is, fundamentally, quantum mechanical, thus, hu = mc^2. > Then > > hd(nu) = mc(dc) + dmc^2 > > It is my take that both the inertia response and gravity itself is the > result from a second order effect of changes in velocity. First order > changes in velocity carry the sign (+/-) and can result in opposing > effects, however, effects of the second order are decidedly non linear > AND unlike first order effects, cannot have a change in sign > (directionality). I speculate that, in fact, both inertia and gravity > are the second order effects of EM processes. Thus, again, this leads > back to the question where does matter's apparent density come from? > That is a very interesting question. > > FYI, there are other striking correlations (coincidences) such as (in > SI), > > k = h/ec > > Where k is Boltzmann's constant, e elemental charge, c light speed. > And, before you go off on saying the units don't match, they doe using > Maxwell's definition where e has units of mass devided by time. This > leads to temperature (in Kelvins) of have mlt units of 'impact' of kg- > m/sec^3. > > Also expressions with physical units can yield coincidential > correlations BUT NEVER numerological ones. IMO the Planck units are > really just silly exercises in blind man's numerology that are not > even coincidental or correlated. I try very hard NOT! to intrduce > baseless and unitless scaling factors which WOULD BE numerology... > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Paul Stowe on 13 Apr 2010 21:34 On Apr 13, 7:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 11, 1:26 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Paul: You mix-in 'history' while discussing science. I never > know whether you are second guessing some science pioneer, or > defending that person's principles of science... that sound suspect. > I developed most of my New Science via close observation and > reasoning, without having to read what another soul had written. I > accepted good data, while rejecting most of the near-sighted > interpretations of that data. *** I invite you to paraphrase any > issue of science. I don't have the time to go looking for histories > and biographies to understand the arguments you are making. I express > my points of science, every day, so that the readers won't have to go > on any wild-goose-chases to understand my thought processes. > > NoEinstein There is a saying, "Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it." This is most certainly true and the topic we were discussing is a prime example of this. Having gone through a nuclear engineering program and Rickover's Naval Nuclear program which, by definition, covered all of modern physics AND the practical application of same, there was no mention of many foundational works including Maxwell's vortex model or LeSage's theory. Many people rediscovered these again & again giving them new names but its the same thing. While it is good to think for yourself and not! blindly follow what others tell you there are very few who deliberately seek to deceive. Most truly and fervently believe what they are saying. It's ingrained and they actually feel slighted if anyone dare challenge those beliefs. However, many times its not the hard science (i.e. the actual data set and results) that disputed, its the soft or meta- scientific interpretation of these that is. If anyone actually claims that the results of an experiment which have been independently validated by repetition 'is wrong' the burden of 'proof' falls to them to prove their point, by hard reproducible data. The problem with much of more modern science is that many experiments are no longer being independently validated, they are accepted by fiat', that is to say, by just followup analysis. Then there is the flip side to this, experiments that beg to be validated and no one bothers (such as Majorana's shielding tests) and are likely to be dismissed as a fluke, especially if the results reported do not fit within accepted norms. This discussion was a good example, the equations are generic and sound, what was challenged was NOT those equations but the values of the model's parameters. What is rather ironic is, the values of those parameters were derived from two measured and verifiable values, net heat output and big G. Further, once derived from these the very same values predict and match observed behavior of a third totally different aspect that, while predicted by the model, is not part of expected behavior. That these values might lead to having to abandoning the idea that massiveness of matter as manifested by inertia is an inviolate primal property and perhaps, instead, could be a result of a process very similar to electromagnetic braking. This is simply too radical of a notion to be contimplated seriously. Anyway, contrary to what some want to believe, I do not think the hard science is wrong, just that how much of it is interpreted seems insane, such as the 'concept' of virtual entities, Schrodinger's cat, ... etc. Regards, Paul Stowe
From: NoEinstein on 14 Apr 2010 17:17 On Apr 13, 9:34 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Paul: For over a century, Albert Einstein has been consideredby the naive and the biasedto be at the height of intellectual thinking. Doing follow-up experiments is nice, but often only show similar results in a WRONGLY DESIGNED experiment, like M-M. If a "scientist" manages to get other scientists to think that he's very smart, it is much easier for those scientists to just accept... the "far out" thinking of another rather than to question everything. Sadly, things are thought to be more 'intellectual' if they are hard, and even counterintuitive, than clear and intuitive. When Einstein cheated and extrapolated the angle of bending of the moons of Jupiter to, instead, be the size and mass of the Sun, he so... snowed the surprised physicists that they soon worshiped the ground that he walked on. The Law of the Conservation of Energy is far more basic than SR or GR. SR, clearly, violates that law. No exhaustive new testing is required to prove that the LCE has been violated. Over a year ago, I devised a simple dropped object experiment to measure the kinetic energy of two equal size balls of different weights. Using Coriolis's 1830 equation, KE = 1/2mv^2, I was able to 'predict' the height of drop of the lighter ball that would match the KE of the heavier ball. But Coriolis's formula did not correctly predict the height of drop proving that the equation is WRONG. My experiment only costs about $40.00 to perform. I even proposed to MythBusters that they perform the experiment to prove that the textbook KE equation is wrong. But MythBusters doesn't care to do so, because they have used the old formula to calculate the 'g' forces of a plane crashing into the ground. Of course, their calculated 'g' forces were wrong... Science is all screwed up, because there is too much EGO preventing anything from being questioned. I can generalize from that, and conclude that 25% of the technical stuff being taught is universities is WRONG. So, getting most college degrees isn't worth the paper that they are printed on! NoEinstein Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# > > On Apr 13, 7:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 1:26 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Paul: You mix-in 'history' while discussing science. I never > > know whether you are second guessing some science pioneer, or > > defending that person's principles of science... that sound suspect. > > I developed most of my New Science via close observation and > > reasoning, without having to read what another soul had written. I > > accepted good data, while rejecting most of the near-sighted > > interpretations of that data. *** I invite you to paraphrase any > > issue of science. I don't have the time to go looking for histories > > and biographies to understand the arguments you are making. I express > > my points of science, every day, so that the readers won't have to go > > on any wild-goose-chases to understand my thought processes. > > > NoEinstein > > There is a saying, "Those who fail to remember history are doomed to > repeat it." This is most certainly true and the topic we were > discussing is a prime example of this. Having gone through a nuclear > engineering program and Rickover's Naval Nuclear program which, by > definition, covered all of modern physics AND the practical > application of same, there was no mention of many foundational works > including Maxwell's vortex model or LeSage's theory. Many people > rediscovered these again & again giving them new names but its the > same thing. > > While it is good to think for yourself and not! blindly follow what > others tell you there are very few who deliberately seek to deceive. > Most truly and fervently believe what they are saying. It's ingrained > and they actually feel slighted if anyone dare challenge those > beliefs. However, many times its not the hard science (i.e. the > actual data set and results) that disputed, its the soft or meta- > scientific interpretation of these that is. If anyone actually claims > that the results of an experiment which have been independently > validated by repetition 'is wrong' the burden of 'proof' falls to them > to prove their point, by hard reproducible data. The problem with much > of more modern science is that many experiments are no longer being > independently validated, they are accepted by fiat', that is to say, > by just followup analysis. Then there is the flip side to this, > experiments that beg to be validated and no one bothers (such as > Majorana's shielding tests) and are likely to be dismissed as a fluke, > especially if the results reported do not fit within accepted norms. > > This discussion was a good example, the equations are generic and > sound, what was challenged was NOT those equations but the values of > the model's parameters. What is rather ironic is, the values of those > parameters were derived from two measured and verifiable values, net > heat output and big G. Further, once derived from these the very same > values predict and match observed behavior of a third totally > different aspect that, while predicted by the model, is not part of > expected behavior. That these values might lead to having to > abandoning the idea that massiveness of matter as manifested by > inertia is an inviolate primal property and perhaps, instead, could > be a result of a process very similar to electromagnetic braking. > This is simply too radical of a notion to be contimplated seriously. > > Anyway, contrary to what some want to believe, I do not think the hard > science is wrong, just that how much of it is interpreted seems > insane, such as the 'concept' of virtual entities, Schrodinger's > cat, ... etc. > > Regards, > > Paul Stowe
From: NoEinstein on 14 Apr 2010 17:34 On Apr 14, 5:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > CORRECTION: Please insert the following sentence at the appropriate place: "When Einstein cheated and extrapolated the angle of bending of the light of the re emerging moons of Jupiter to, instead, be the angle of bending due to an object the size and mass of the Sun, he so... snowed the surprised physicists that they soon worshiped the ground that he walked on." > > On Apr 13, 9:34 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Paul: For over a century, Albert Einstein has been consideredby > the naive and the biasedto be at the height of intellectual > thinking. Doing follow-up experiments is nice, but often only show > similar results in a WRONGLY DESIGNED experiment, like M-M. If a > "scientist" manages to get other scientists to think that he's very > smart, it is much easier for those scientists to just accept... the > "far out" thinking of another rather than to question everything. > Sadly, things are thought to be more 'intellectual' if they are hard, > and even counterintuitive, than clear and intuitive. When Einstein > cheated and extrapolated the angle of bending of the moons of Jupiter > to, instead, be the size and mass of the Sun, he so... snowed the > surprised physicists that they soon worshiped the ground that he > walked on. > > The Law of the Conservation of Energy is far more basic than SR or > GR. SR, clearly, violates that law. No exhaustive new testing is > required to prove that the LCE has been violated. Over a year ago, I > devised a simple dropped object experiment to measure the kinetic > energy of two equal size balls of different weights. Using Coriolis's > 1830 equation, KE = 1/2mv^2, I was able to 'predict' the height of > drop of the lighter ball that would match the KE of the heavier ball. > But Coriolis's formula did not correctly predict the height of drop > proving that the equation is WRONG. My experiment only costs about > $40.00 to perform. I even proposed to MythBusters that they perform > the experiment to prove that the textbook KE equation is wrong. But > MythBusters doesn't care to do so, because they have used the old > formula to calculate the 'g' forces of a plane crashing into the > ground. Of course, their calculated 'g' forces were wrong... > > Science is all screwed up, because there is too much EGO preventing > anything from being questioned. I can generalize from that, and > conclude that 25% of the technical stuff being taught is universities > is WRONG. So, getting most college degrees isn't worth the paper that > they are printed on! NoEinstein > > Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 7:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 1:26 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Paul: You mix-in 'history' while discussing science. I never > > > know whether you are second guessing some science pioneer, or > > > defending that person's principles of science... that sound suspect. > > > I developed most of my New Science via close observation and > > > reasoning, without having to read what another soul had written. I > > > accepted good data, while rejecting most of the near-sighted > > > interpretations of that data. *** I invite you to paraphrase any > > > issue of science. I don't have the time to go looking for histories > > > and biographies to understand the arguments you are making. I express > > > my points of science, every day, so that the readers won't have to go > > > on any wild-goose-chases to understand my thought processes. > > > > NoEinstein > > > There is a saying, "Those who fail to remember history are doomed to > > repeat it." This is most certainly true and the topic we were > > discussing is a prime example of this. Having gone through a nuclear > > engineering program and Rickover's Naval Nuclear program which, by > > definition, covered all of modern physics AND the practical > > application of same, there was no mention of many foundational works > > including Maxwell's vortex model or LeSage's theory. Many people > > rediscovered these again & again giving them new names but its the > > same thing. > > > While it is good to think for yourself and not! blindly follow what > > others tell you there are very few who deliberately seek to deceive. > > Most truly and fervently believe what they are saying. It's ingrained > > and they actually feel slighted if anyone dare challenge those > > beliefs. However, many times its not the hard science (i.e. the > > actual data set and results) that disputed, its the soft or meta- > > scientific interpretation of these that is. If anyone actually claims > > that the results of an experiment which have been independently > > validated by repetition 'is wrong' the burden of 'proof' falls to them > > to prove their point, by hard reproducible data. The problem with much > > of more modern science is that many experiments are no longer being > > independently validated, they are accepted by fiat', that is to say, > > by just followup analysis. Then there is the flip side to this, > > experiments that beg to be validated and no one bothers (such as > > Majorana's shielding tests) and are likely to be dismissed as a fluke, > > especially if the results reported do not fit within accepted norms. > > > This discussion was a good example, the equations are generic and > > sound, what was challenged was NOT those equations but the values of > > the model's parameters. What is rather ironic is, the values of those > > parameters were derived from two measured and verifiable values, net > > heat output and big G. Further, once derived from these the very same > > values predict and match observed behavior of a third totally > > different aspect that, while predicted by the model, is not part of > > expected behavior. That these values might lead to having to > > abandoning the idea that massiveness of matter as manifested by > > inertia is an inviolate primal property and perhaps, instead, could > > be a result of a process very similar to electromagnetic braking. > > This is simply too radical of a notion to be contimplated seriously. > > > Anyway, contrary to what some want to believe, I do not think the hard > > science is wrong, just that how much of it is interpreted seems > > insane, such as the 'concept' of virtual entities, Schrodinger's > > cat, ... etc. > > > Regards, > > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: victoria Bippart on 15 Apr 2010 15:50
I always top-post my replies; the rest is simply misc.addendum.what.I.writ.today. it's funny, because you glom onto Newton's/Einstien's photon, but that is exactly the interpretation of the (merely instrumental) photo- electrical effect that supposedly alleviated any need for an aether; did they give E. the Nobel, just to validate N.?... well, whether there was any conspiracy (other than being at the Swedish Royal Palace, together), it certainly has made Newton's day -- and the Second (Secular) Church of England! thus: Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a) nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capability for industry & infrastructure.) thus: I don't get his notation, either, but he must be trying to insert his "internal momentum" **** into some sort of mathematical form. so, when he patents his warp drive, he'll just have to be careful about travel "in" time -- and messing with his mama, before he was conceived! thus: is ten to the 500th power, like, longer than the volume of Known Universe Total Quanta? thus: the clocks are distorted by the curvature that was demonstrated by Aristarchus, and surveyed o'er Alsace-Lorraine by Gauss (with his theodolite .-) yes, time is not a dimension, or it is the only dimension, whereby we observe the others (Bucky's formulation). not only was Newton's law actually found by Hooke, but it was derived directly from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, Kepler thought that Sun was perhaps magnetic on planets, which may-well turn out to be more accurate than "gravitons" -- as long as you get rid of Newton's silly corpuscles, "photons" -- and his platonic ordering of the planets has alos proved to be more-or-less correct (if I could find that article, that gave a formula that was effective for all moons, as well). BTW, use quaternions for special rel., which shows the uniqueness of the "real, scalar, inner product" time/ dimension of Hamilton. --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65 (deadletter since March 27, 2000, when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96)) |