There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "The Einstein Hoax"
Next: ALL DIZEAZZEZ ARE DEZERVED ! ESPECIALLY THE CANCER GOODY, BACKBONE OF THE JUICY DIZEAZZEZ INDUSTRY
From: spudnik on 5 Apr 2010 21:08 if you can't take the heat, get out of the frying-pan, dood! ah, fullerenes are cool; not so, the "particulate" photon ... but, at least, they are much easier to deal with, since their sole properties are the ones that waves have (freq., polarity). poor MPC#x, has to try to read Shakespeare *out loud*, or he will never find that massive clue-space, eef eets een eengleesh!. > direction the photon 'particle' travels. thus: SR is so simple, without the God-am lightcone-headage! --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com thus: Death to the lightcone -- long-live Minkowski!... yeah; and, the photon is *still* dead, no matter what herr Albert said about it! thus: if you let go of the empty notion of "photon," there isn't any difficulty, at all, with a geometrical picture. Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads (because, Minkowski was only one of them, by haphazard default/death). yes, I know, that *photonics* is a whole field of engineering; thank you, herr doktor-professor E., for unburying Newton's bogus corpuscle and attendant "theory," that Young had successfully popped! thus: on the wayside, if you are really going to set so much store in a two-hole procedure for fullerenes, maybe you shouold read the original article, and try to question its purpose. as it is, I'd guess that English is not your mother-tongue, which can sometimes prove difficult in *using* it; so, that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase *no* one can *begin* to comprehend English, til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand in translating the KJV of the Bible .-) thus: NB, quaternions are not "quadrays" (for an amateur attempt at homogenous co-ordination), but you can "do" special rel. with them (according to Lanczos .-) thus: The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is at least as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One must really stop and consider, just who really opposes this "last hurrah" for Wall Street (like-wise, the healthcare bill, also under Waxman's House committee, and which, after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S-- the economy, already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary" cap & trade, which the bill would essentially mandate, a la the much-larger, market-making EU scheme). Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ, which mentioned that a carbon tax would achieve the same thing, more or less, as the total "free" trade approach of cap & trade; oh, but, there're certain, so-called Republicans, who refer to the bill as "cap & tax!" Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially considering that the oil companies have not bothered to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use, to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so, guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway? Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora -- all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be related!) 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 capbility for industry & infrastructure.) --yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65 (deadletter since March 27, 2000, when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 21:12 On Apr 5, 9:08 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > if you can't take the heat, get out of the frying-pan, dood! > > ah, fullerenes are cool; > not so, the "particulate" photon ... but, at least, > they are much easier to deal with, since their sole properties > are the ones that waves have (freq., polarity). > > poor MPC#x, has to try to read Shakespeare *out loud*, or > he will never find that massive clue-space, eef eets een eengleesh!. > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." '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. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits 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. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser \#The_experiment Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels.
From: spudnik on 5 Apr 2010 21:16 now, guess what?... you get to have the very last word; so, be careful, what you regard as a agood, conversational argumentum (including the other-wise perfectly fine "use of no math, what-so-ever -- I could, if I needed to ... I mean, I always say, I can only do it in tripolars, just as soon as I figure that out !-) --Look, Ma; no photons! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com dear editor; when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))
From: Timo Nieminen on 5 Apr 2010 21:31 On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > On Apr 4, 8:03 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > On Apr 5, 11:28 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > OK, let's have three particles with different velocities thus momenta > > > p1, p2, p3 Particle p1 is moving in the x direction, all other > > > particles move randomly.... The particle are frictionless, and by > > > definition, perfectly elastic. They undergo frictionless center of > > > mass collisions. I'll try to graphically portray this, > > > > > /(p2 m1v2) (p3 m3v3) > > > / \ > > > (p1 m1v1) / (p1 m2v1) \ (p1 m3v1) > > > o---------x----->--o-----------------------x-----o => > > > / \ > > > / \ > > > o (p2 m2v2) o (p3 m2v3) > > > > > In the end, the momentum along the x axis is unchanged as if no > > > collisions had ever occurred The momentum lines in a perfect fluid of > > > this type are invariant, it does not matter HOW MANY collisions > > > occur. Attenuation is a different animal. This why I said > > > interaction mean free path is not the same. > > > > For frictionless collisions, the force during the collision is along > > the line joining the centres of the particles. For identical > > particles, this means that the component of momentum along this line > > is swapped between the particles, and the component normal to this > > line remains the same. For anything other than a straight in-line > > collision (impact parameter of zero, if you like), this swapped > > component of the momentum is only part of the momentum p1 at the first > > collision, and so on for the subsequent collisions. Your diagram is > > the special case when all particle centres are lined up along the line > > of p1 at the moments of collision, and what is shown will not be the > > general result. > > > > You've played billiards/snooker/pool, yes? Hit a ball dead-centre with > > the cue ball, no extra spin, and the cue ball stops, and the hit ball > > goes off at the same speed that the cue ball hit with. Hit off-centre, > > a glancing hit, and neither ball continues on the original path. > > > > You know that with real particles, it matters whether or not the > > collision is dead-centre or off-centre. Off-centre, and both balls are > > deflected away from the original direction of travel. Yes, you can > > have friction with the real balls, and real balls won't be perfectly > > elastic, but you should be able to see that an off-centre collision > > with ideal elastic frictionless balls will still give deflection away > > from the original line of travel. If not, do the algebra. > > > > This is related to the viscosity of a hard-sphere gas! Fire an atom > > into a hard sphere gas, and its original momentum is spread amongst > > many particles by such collisions, and spread sideways. It's usual to > > say that this spread is by diffusion, but the mechanism of that > > diffusion is a sequence of collisions like this. > > The whole point is/was point-like perfectly elastic collisions. These > are, by definition, again, center of mass collisions thus the term, > point-like. ... Isn't the idea to KIS? Inventing new dynamics at such a fundamental level, or at least new types of particles unlike any we see in nature, interacting in ways unlike anything we see in nature, is not KIS. Worse, it looks like a highly artificial choice of highly artificial conditions to try to produce a specific result. If you have to choose very special behaviour to get a model to work, it isn't a good sign for the model. In particular: (a) Look at how billiard-ball collisions change as the size of the billiard-balls changes. Notice that there is no change in the distribution of how off-axis or on-axis collisions are, when a collision occurs. What changes is the probability of having a collision, not the subsequent probability of the amount of off-centre-ness. The behaviour you suggest does not follow from any natural limit of finite-size ideal rigid balls. (b) As the size of the particles goes to zero, the mean free path goes to infinity. Point particles don't interact with interaction at a distance. OK if you're happy with infinite mean free path, but not OK if you need a finite one. With infinite mean free path, the only one-body interaction with a le Sage aether that you'll get is drag, no swirling back-action for bodies in orbit. (c) If you postulate a very special model of collisions so as to make collisions have no observable effect (the corpuscles being indistinguishable), then you'll get the same behaviour as having an infinite mean free path, without the (invisible) interactions being able to produce (non-invisible) effects such as the swirling orbital back-action. KIS would suggest sticking to zero size and infinite mean free path rather than inventing magic dynamics that gives exactly the same observable effect as zero size and infinite mean free path. (Very small size and very long mean free path would be the way to go if one wishes to avoid assuming zero size - basically, le Sage's assumption.) -- Timo
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 21:34
On Apr 5, 9:16 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > now, guess what?... you get > to have the very last word; so, > be careful, what you regard as a agood, > conversational argumentum (including the other-wise > perfectly fine "use of no math, > what-so-ever -- I could, if I needed to ... I mean, > I always say, I can only do it in tripolars, just > as soon as I figure that out !-) > > --Look, Ma; no photons!http://21stcenturysciencetech.com > > --NASCAR rules on rotary engines!http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com > > dear editor; > when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96)) A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." '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. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits 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. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. |