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 19:46 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 .-) > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the 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 an actual carbon tax would achieve the same thing, more or less, as the total "free" market apporach 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: spudnik on 5 Apr 2010 20:52 nah; we should blame Pascal for discovering, experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean, it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy, with a German thrown-in for "triality." > of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity, > via the re-adumbration of his dead-as- > a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle, > "the photon." well, and/or "the aether," > necessitated by "the vacuum." --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! > > <<pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of > > Principia Mathematica, a product of a committee, > > the Royal Society, after "the MS burnt in an alchemical > > process that set the trunk in which it was resting, afire," > > has had several editions, the latter of which take pains > > to omit mention of Robert Hooke. The sole calculus is > > is a rectangle, dxdy, in Book 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2.>> thus: as a student of Bucky Fuller -- an army of one, I say -- you've bit- off more than you should want to chew, with the n-hole spin on fullerenes; and that is my clue, because a fullerene should have a very large manifestation of polarization, not unlike in a game of futbol. I mean, just becaus the ball went through only one slit, why wouldn't it be affected by the total symmetry of the instrumentation?... all of it, down to teh electronics etc. my main thing was, though, that you should at least *try* to consider the theory of light using only waves, which can still be pieced-together from almost any "undergrad" textbook, post-Copenhagen, especially older ones. or, just stick with Einstein's refurbishment of Newton's crappy "theory," nothing of which is needed for relativity & so on. anyway, one simply does not need to analyze a phenomenon by *both* its wavey & bullety aspects -- at the same time; once you have proven a theorem in projective geometry e.g., you do not have to give the "2nd column proof," unless you're just learning it, for the first time! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > any moving particle or object had an associated wave." thus: a-ha, I was correct: say "half," with respect to the beamsplitters, please (as I comprehend, they generally split the "photon" into "two photons" of half the energy, I think of a different frequency, not amplitude -- although the "photon" is really more akin to a phonon, such as the audible "click" of the geiger-counter. the *proviso* with these experiments is that the waves are highly modified in the LASER apparatus, so that some folks more easily think of them as "rocks o'light." it could have been worse; lots of more-or-less literate folks use "of" in the place of "have" -- to be or not to be owned, that is this particualr question! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... 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 20:52 On Apr 5, 7:46 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 .-) > > > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the > > 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 .-) > 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: Paul Stowe on 5 Apr 2010 20:52 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: > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 3:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 2:19 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > {snip... I'll focus on this one issue here} > > > > > > OK, sounds like this requires further assumptions about the > > > > > interaction of le Sage corpuscles with each other. Perhaps a mean free > > > > > path is sufficient. That this is suggested as occuring for orbits > > > > > within the solar system is a big red STOP sign. The range of the > > > > > inverse square law depends on the mean free path (since these > > > > > interactions will affect the shadow, which gives Newton in the weak > > > > > absorption, straight-line propagation limit), while this back-action > > > > > looks like it needs a much smaller mean free path. > > > > > Sigh, in perfectly elastic collisions, along any linear path, does it > > > > matter to a particle's momentum if encounters no collision or a > > > > billion? But it does matter however to the field's granularity. IOW, > > > > the 1/r^2 is due to the attenuation mean free path NOT! the > > > > interaction mean free path. > > > > It matters very much if the particle has collisions along its path. In > > > particular, if it has collisions as it travels, elastic or otherwise, > > > the path will generally not be a straight line. In perfectly elastic > > > collisions, momentum is still transferred. > > > > See le Sage's comments on mean free path (i.e., interaction between > > > corpuscles, and their collision frequency). > > > > The kind of back-action and swirling you described requires > > > interaction between the corpuscles. For this to happen within the > > > solar system, the mean free path can't be large compared to the solar > > > system. > > > 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. > > -- > Timo The whole point is/was point-like perfectly elastic collisions. These are, by definition, again, center of mass collisions thus the term, point-like. ...
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 21:05
In article <86554c54-24a1-49ed-98b2-6d2980514469@ 8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Space998(a)hotmail.com says... > > nah; we should blame Pascal for discovering, > experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean, > it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy, > with a German thrown-in for "triality." > > > of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity, > > via the re-adumbration of his dead-as- > > a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle, > > "the photon." well, and/or "the aether," > > necessitated by "the vacuum." > > --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! > > > > <<pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of > > > Principia Mathematica, a product of a committee, > > > the Royal Society, after "the MS burnt in an alchemical > > > process that set the trunk in which it was resting, afire," > > > has had several editions, the latter of which take pains > > > to omit mention of Robert Hooke. The sole calculus is > > > is a rectangle, dxdy, in Book 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2.>> > > thus: > as a student of Bucky Fuller -- an army of one, I say -- you've bit- > off > more than you should want to chew, with the n-hole spin on fullerenes; > and that is my clue, because a fullerene should have a very large > manifestation of polarization, not unlike in a game of futbol. I > mean, > just becaus the ball went through only one slit, why wouldn't it be > affected by the total symmetry of the instrumentation?... > all of it, down to teh electronics etc. > > my main thing was, though, that you should at least *try* > to consider the theory of light using only waves, > which can still be pieced-together from almost any "undergrad" > textbook, post-Copenhagen, especially older ones. > > or, just stick with Einstein's refurbishment of Newton's crappy > "theory," > nothing of which is needed for relativity & so on. anyway, > one simply does not need to analyze a phenomenon > by *both* its wavey & bullety aspects -- at the same time; > once you have proven a theorem in projective geometry e.g., > you do not have to give the "2nd column proof," unless > you're just learning it, for the first time! > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie > > any moving particle or object had an associated wave." > > thus: > a-ha, I was correct: > say "half," with respect to the beamsplitters, please (as > I comprehend, they generally split the "photon" > into "two photons" of half the energy, I think > of a different frequency, not amplitude -- although > the "photon" is really more akin to a phonon, > such as the audible "click" of the geiger-counter. the *proviso* > with these experiments is that the waves are highly modified > in the LASER apparatus, so that some folks more easily think > of them as "rocks o'light." > Incorrect. Beam splitters do not cause a photon to 'split' into 'two photons' of half the energy. What you are mistaking for two photons is the associated aether wave propagating the available paths while the photon 'particle' travels a single path. If you actually read the experiment associated with the experiment which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement you would know this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser \#The_experiment "a beta barium borate crystal (labeled as BBO) causes spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC), converting the photon (from either slit) into two identical entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the original photon." And: "beam splitters (green blocks) are encountered that each have a 50% chance of allowing the idler to pass through and a 50% chance of causing it to be reflected." 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. |