Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: mpc755 on 27 Apr 2010 12:49
On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> his problem is not "research on the net;"
> it appears taht English is not his primary language,
> so that we really can't say, what he is trying
> to say.  if you have ever tried to "deal"
> with AP, you know of what I type.
>
> the only possible cure -- other than
> cruising on fora in his mother tongue, but
> of which (like AP) he may not be literate --
> is to *try* to read Shakespeare (and
> this applies to everyone, who thinks he is or
> ought to be literate in the "King's English,"
> as proven in the KJV .-)
>
> thus:
> I missed that on the initial scan; it is to laugh!...  but
> I was interested to read of Soros' funding --
> what a creep "philanthropist," he is (you can
> check this on the LaRouchiac site .-)
>
> so, basically, all Hindu gods should be toasted, if
> y'know what I mean (althoug, of course,
> each is very useful in its own domain, I'm sure,
> other than "what is the speed of the propogation
> of light?")
>
> Light: A History!http://wlym.com

Light propagates with respect to the aether.
From: spudnik on 27 Apr 2010 19:44
I swear, I'm going to leave you to Nein EinStein;
seems much more productive. (by the way,
most of the theoretical things in your list, just before,
are necessary to the wave theory of light
"in free space."

> Light propagates with respect to the aether.

thus:
are you still thinking of light as "photons
with a guidewave" -- like that little cartoon, you found?

thus:
OMG, some dood hates Lyn!... well,
find the article about actual sea-level data
from tidal stations, yourself, mister Nice-guy.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall01/Tanawa/tanawa.html
What Is a Torquetum?
The torquetum, an analogue computer, can tell us, without long and
tedious calculation, at any time of the night when planets or the Moon
are visible, what their angular distance is from the Sun, or from the
first point of Aries, and/or from some bright star in their vicinity.
It can also tell us how much they are above or below the ecliptic.

This would give us a fairly quick way to construct an almanac, with
enough data to predict at least lunar eclipses, as well as
occultations of bright stars or planets by the Moon—the which dramatic
events ought to confirm the longitude readings obtained by using the
torquetum to measure lunar distance.
—Rick Sanders

> 148940000 km^2 Earth land area
> 510072000 km^2 Earth sea area
> 14000000 km^2 Antarctica area
> 1.6 km Ice height

thus:
I dug into your wikilink, Sue;
the upshot is that there is only practiceably "partial vacuum,"
with all kinds of waffling about "free space;"
particularly laudable is:
Scientists working in optical communications tend to use free space to
refer to a medium with an unobstructed line of sight (often air,
sometimes space). See Free-space optical communication and the What is
Free Space Optical Communications?.

The United States Patent Office defines free space in a number of
ways. For radio and radar applications the definition is "space where
the movement of energy in any direction is substantially unimpeded,
such as the atmosphere, the ocean, or the earth" (Glossary in US
Patent Class 342, Class Notes).[40]

Another US Patent Office interpretation is Subclass 310: Communication
over free space, where the definition is "a medium which is not a wire
or a waveguide".[41]

thus:
now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare
wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder
about his death at fifty-three, after dining
with a manslaughterer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if
you really want to get into WS's politics,
find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine,
"Why the British hate Shakespeare" -- if you can do so,
at http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners.

thus:
the whole *problem* is the diagramming,
which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned
into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched
on paper. you simply do not need the pants,
the lightcones they're made with, and
the paradoxes of "looping in time" because
of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate
with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died.

as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes,
you won't be able to do *any* physics,
that isn't "junkyard physics."

thus:
you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster"
than "photons," which is three things that have
never been seen. Young proved that all properties
of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo-
electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls
o'light for British academe. well, even if
any large thing could be accelerated to so close
to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known
as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space"
-- which is no-where "a" vacuum --
it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting,
per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all,
this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics,"
not "vacuum energy dynamics").

thus:
what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
his real "proof" is _1599_;
the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 27 Apr 2010 21:55
On Apr 27, 7:44 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I swear, I'm going to leave you to Nein EinStein;
> seems much more productive.  (by the way,
> most of the theoretical things in your list, just before,
> are necessary to the wave theory of light
> "in free space."
>
> > Light propagates with respect to the aether.
>
> thus:
> are you still thinking of light as "photons
> with a guidewave" -- like that little cartoon, you found?
>

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics
by the double solution theory
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle."

"This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
located."

de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
the wave.

In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment
the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and
exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits.

A C-60 molecule displaces the aether.

A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The
C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The
C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit
experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits
the available slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits
it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule
travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the
associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and
there is no interference.
From: NoEinstein on 28 Apr 2010 21:31
On Apr 27, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are
no longer welcome, here! — NoEinstein —
>
> On Apr 27, 8:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 11:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey fellow:  Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s).  You are
> > no longer welcome, here!  — NoEinstein —
>
> The aether does not 'flow' towards matter.
>
> Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047
>
> "However this is not a ‘flow’ of some form of ‘matter’ through space,
> as previously considered in the aether models or in the ‘random’
> particulate Le Sage kinetic theory of gravity, rather the flow is an
> ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam patterns that form space,
> and indeed only have a geometrical description at a coarse-grained
> level. Then the ‘flow’ in one region is relative only to the patterns
> in nearby regions, and not relative to some a priori background
> geometrical space"
>
> What is mistaken as 'flow' is the pressure the aether exerts towards
> the matter.
>
> The the aether displaced by the matter is the "ongoing rearrangement
> of the quantum-foam patterns that form space".
>
> "Then the ‘flow’ in one region is relative only to the patterns in
> nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the
> matter where the state of the aether as determined by its connections
> with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is
> the aether's state of displacement.

From: NoEinstein on 28 Apr 2010 21:32
On Apr 27, 8:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are
no longer welcome, here! — NoEinstein —
>
> On Apr 27, 8:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 11:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey fellow:  Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s).  You are
> > no longer welcome, here!  — NoEinstein —
>
> Water slows down when interacting with a fishing net due to resistance
> and friction. Therefore, in your theory, due to friction, there is no
> momentum.
>
> 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum
> medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf
>
> "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic
> particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory
> makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as
> the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and
> the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a
> quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results
> of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum
> medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though
> interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and
> thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion."
>
> A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium,
> whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid
> medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the
> super fluid medium.
>
> A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is
> at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an
> individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in
> the aether.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general