Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 5 Jan 2010 21:04 don't bother with the no-top-posting request, if you can't supply a sufficient and/or necessary reason for it (no-one has been able to do this, for all of the time I've been doing it, about 20 years; think about it, before replying). the analogy has only one crucial "localization," for an otherwise completely "un" localized (wave) phenomena, when Moon hits your CCD like pizza!... so, you are simply using language uncritically, and haphazardly exchanging the pair of dualities -- whether or not you can actually use the math (at this time, I cannot). > Not in all respects, but the analogy is accurate. A photon is a wave > in the aether. As a wave it travels the available paths in a double > slit experiment, but the photon 'particle' (i.e. the ability of the > photon to collapse and be detected as a particle) travels a single > path. > > the point I have been making, > > via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that > > they are working exclusively with matter (although > > Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space." thus: unfortunatley, due to the wide range of implimentations of the floatingpointware specification (IEEE-754/-854; the first is an article in an IEEE magazine), there is really no such thing as a canonical M-set, or Julia set; can you say, Psychedelic "Magnification?" thus: the usual mathematical term is Universe; contrary to teh extreme exegesis of the Copenhagenskool, there is only one (the rest is Solopsism, per David Deutsch's say-not .-) > I appreciate your help in this matter. thus: strictly untrue; Kepler et al were using the program of [Cardinal] Nicholas of Cusa; of course, since you are apparently British, you've probably been indoctrinated with the secular church of Newton, and/or the Harry Potter PS curriculum of the "Venetian Party" of England. also, I keep on referring to the 2.5-page article in *Math.Mag.* (MAA.org), that proves of the isometry of inductive & deductive proofs, also giving a formula to convert from one to the other. the Royal Society attack on Leibniz was political; he was actively being considered to be the PM, by Queen Anne. (deny that, if you care to .-) > With Gawd getting in the way it's small wonder the Xtian Romans > produced no mathematicians of the earlier Greek calibre. :-)- Hide quoted text - thus: doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. thus: he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may be more responsible, after all, for the time-space crack-up than doctor Minkowski; can you say, Most useless formalism of Century 20.1? however, the real problem is your persistent use -- with whomever else from the past & future -- of the the concept of vacuum, as Pascal first thought of it, which is really, strictly relative or active (as in, That giant sucking sound, you hear, when you're trying to read this ****). > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 21:19 On Jan 5, 9:04 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > don't bother with the no-top-posting request, if > you can't supply a sufficient and/or necessary reason for it Then you are going to be talking to yourself. Your posts are nearly impossible to comprehend as is and it is not worth the effort to try and dissect them if you are not even willing to not post replies at the top. That along with the fact that the same point must be made several times over before you make the effort to understand what is being said makes 'conversing' with you difficult at best. If you are willing to make the effort to understand what is being said in a post and show the courtesy of not posting replies at the top, I will be willing to continue this 'conversation', else take care. > (no-one has been able to do this, for all > of the time I've been doing it, about 20 years; > think about it, before replying). > > the analogy has only one crucial "localization," > for an otherwise completely "un" localized (wave) phenomena, > when Moon hits your CCD like pizza!... so, > you are simply using language uncritically, and > haphazardly exchanging the pair of dualities -- > whether or not you can actually use the math > (at this time, I cannot). > > > Not in all respects, but the analogy is accurate. A photon is a wave > > in the aether. As a wave it travels the available paths in a double > > slit experiment, but the photon 'particle' (i.e. the ability of the > > photon to collapse and be detected as a particle) travels a single > > path. > > > the point I have been making, > > > via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that > > > they are working exclusively with matter (although > > > Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space." > > thus: > unfortunatley, > due to the wide range of implimentations > of the floatingpointware specification (IEEE-754/-854; > the first is an article in an IEEE magazine), > there is really no such thing as a canonical M-set, > or Julia set; can you say, Psychedelic "Magnification?" > > thus: > the usual mathematical term is Universe; > contrary to teh extreme exegesis of the Copenhagenskool, > there is only one (the rest is Solopsism, > per David Deutsch's say-not .-) > > > I appreciate your help in this matter. > > thus: > strictly untrue; Kepler et al were using the program > of [Cardinal] Nicholas of Cusa; of course, since > you are apparently British, you've probably been indoctrinated > with the secular church of Newton, and/or the Harry Potter PS > curriculum > of the "Venetian Party" of England. > > also, I keep on referring to the 2.5-page article > in *Math.Mag.* (MAA.org), that proves of the isometry > of inductive & deductive proofs, > also giving a formula to convert from one to the other. > > the Royal Society attack on Leibniz was political; > he was actively being considered to be the PM, > by Queen Anne. (deny that, if you care to .-) > > > With Gawd getting in the way it's small wonder the Xtian Romans > > produced no mathematicians of the earlier Greek calibre. :-)- Hide quoted text - > > thus: > doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed > about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but > that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts > were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. > > thus: > he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may > be more responsible, after all, for the time-space crack-up > than doctor Minkowski; can you say, > Most useless formalism of Century 20.1? > however, the real problem is your persistent use > -- with whomever else from the past & future -- > of the the concept of vacuum, as Pascal first thought of it, > which is really, strictly relative or active (as in, > That giant sucking sound, you hear, when you're trying > to read this ****). > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html > --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What?http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: spudnik on 6 Jan 2010 00:28 I'm sure that, iff one applies himself, he will see that there are particular or generical reasons to not "not top-post;" what ever are the supposed reasons, not to not "not top-post," I have never seen them over the years, because a) I do not read "FAQs du nettiquette," and b) no-one has ever actually tried to make the case for it, despite "n" simple requests to do so; of course, some take the either the act of top-posting, or the question as to, why, not, as provacative. > > the point I have been making, > > via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that > > they are working exclusively with matter (although > > Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space." --l'OEuvre! http://w;ym.com
From: spudnik on 6 Jan 2010 01:07 you say, that it is a problem for you; how is that, so? back in the old days, when BAUD were in the tens of thousands, they used this un-top-posting, in spite that it was just a lamentable scrolling puase, one of the things that created an infinite desire for bandwidth, to overcome it. the way I see it, and it is so obvious, when we engage in these tharapeutic back-and-forths, habitually logging-in to continue it (when, of course, we could just post in other fora, for a day or two) ... it is just conversation; you already know, pretty much what was said "in the thread," which can easily be scrolled, backwards, if you forgot the gist; eh? > It is, when you know it is something that makes others lives more difficult, > and seeing it is just as easy for YOU to bottom post like everyone else does > as to top post. So why not do THE RIGHT THING !! thus: there is nothing wrong with special relativity, but the general relativeity *also* uses the unneeded formalism of space-time, which is just a simple phase-space (the "curvature" of that, is not quite what it seems to be .-) > Be careful in getting rid of special relativity. You'll bring down > the entire edifice of Euclidean geometry and the ancient Greek > philosophers will be very pissed. > Not in all respects, but the analogy is accurate. A photon is a wave > in the aether. As a wave it travels the available paths in a double > slit experiment, but the photon 'particle' (i.e. the ability of the > photon to collapse and be detected as a particle) travels a single > path. > > the point I have been making, > > via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that > > they are working exclusively with matter (although > > Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space." --l'OEuvre! http://w;ym.com
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 10:39
On Jan 5, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 9:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What excuse to you have for not posting one link to support your > > > argument the Sun's entrained aether does not end close to the orbit of > > > Uranus? > > > The REASON I have is that it is the obligation of the proposer of a > > new theory to do this work. It is an essential skill that is expected > > of, and practiced by, every scientific researcher on the planet. You > > don't want to do it, because you are afraid, lazy, and childish. And > > so you find it easier to try to taunt and wheedle people to do that > > work for you. I don't have to indulge you in your foibles. > > > > Is that because there is no evidence, like there is no > > > evidence to support your belief wombats can fly? If your going to just > > > make stuff up like there is evidence against the Sun's entrained > > > aether ending close to the orbit of Uranus, then that is similar to > > > you making stuff up about flying wombats. > > > The evidence is there. I have suggested a tool by which you can find > > it. > > I have searched it thoroughly and the experiments having to do with > aether entrainment and the Pioneer Effect support my conclusion the > Pioneer Effect is due to the Sun's entrained aether ending close to > the orbit of Uranus. You have not searched very well. You may consider searching for documents where "entrainment" and "stellar aberration" are both mentioned. > > Aether Entrainment > > 'Miller Challenges Einstein' > Explains Ether Drift Research and Function of Interferometer > Dr. Dayton C. Miller - "By George, I never could get zero".http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/MillerCase1929.pdf You do know that Dayton Miller is a laughing stock, right? > > 'The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether Drift'http://muller.lbl.gov/COBE-early_history/SciAm.pdf > > 'Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with > Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space > Flow'http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.5404v2.pdf > "The NASA/JPL data is in remarkable agreement with that determined in > other light speed anisotropy experiments, such as Michelson-Morley > (1887), Miller (1933), De- Witte (1991), Torr and Kolen (1981), Cahill > (2006), Munera (2007), Cahill and Stokes (2008) and Cahill (2009)." > (Note: In this article they distinctly refer to space as not > consisting of aether but "a dynamical 3-space, which at a small scale > is a quantum foam system". The point of referring to this article is > to show how the above two aether experiments are in agreement with one > another). > > Aether Displacement > > - Explains the observed behaviors in any double slit experiment (The > photon/particle creates a wave in the aether and the wave always > enters and exits both slits, while the particle always enters and > exits a single slit). > > 'Wave-particle duality seen in carbon-60 molecules'http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2952 > > 'Quantum interference experiments with large molecules'http://hexagon.physics.wisc.edu/teaching/2007f_ph448/interesting%20pa... > > The simpler, more intuitive explanation of the observed behaviors in > the experiments described in the articles above is that the C-60 > molecule always enters and exits a single slit and the displacement > wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. > > - Explains gravity (the aether pushes back in order to return to a > state of rest) > > 'A Derivation of Dirac's Equation From a Model of an Elastic Medium'http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005cond.mat.10579B > "We have taken a model of an elastic medium and derived an equation of > motion that has the same form as Diracs equation in the presence of > electromagnetism and gravity." > > - Is the aether based equivalent of curved spacetime. Just as the more > massive an object is the more spacetime is curved, the more massive an > object is the more aether it displaces. As stated above, the matter > that makes up the object displaces the aether that would otherwise be > where the matter is. > > 'Diracs Æther in Curved Spacetime-II: The Geometric Amplification of > the Cosmic Magnetic Induction'http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0212/0212234v1.pdf > > - The photon is, or is creating, a wave in the aether. The photon > physically becomes part of the metal in the photoelectric effect > experiment. > > 'Photoelectric effect'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect > "Albert Einstein's mathematical description in 1905 of how the > photoelectric effect was caused by absorption of quanta of light (now > called photons), was in the paper named "On a Heuristic Viewpoint > Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This paper > proposed the simple description of "light quanta", or photons, and > showed how they explained such phenomena as the photoelectric effect. > His simple explanation in terms of absorption of discrete quanta of > light explained the features of the phenomenon and the characteristic > frequency. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect won him > the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921." > > In Aether Displacement the photon absorption is a physical absorption > of aether by the metal taking up three dimensional space, causing an > electron to be emitted. > > - The sun, earth, jupiter, and the milky way are all likely to be > creating whirlpools of aether, similar to the physical characteristics > of the whirlpool of a hurricane. The earth's whirlpool of aether is > rotating at almost the identical rotation of the earth at the earth's > surface and slows down as you move away from the earth. Consider the > moon to be getting carried along in the earth's aether whirlpool. > Jupiter's outer moons orbit opposite the whirlpool because they are > too far away from getting caught in the whirlpool, but Jupiter > displaces aether far beyond the moons and the displaced aether is > pushing back keeping all of the moons in orbit. > > 'Space-time Vortex NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft has gathered all > the data physicists need to check a bizarre prediction of Einstein's > relativity.'http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/16nov_gpb.htm > "We'll soon know the answer: A NASA/Stanford physics experiment called > Gravity Probe B (GP-B) recently finished a year of gathering science > data in Earth orbit. The results, which will take another year to > analyze, should reveal the shape of space-time around Earth--and, > possibly, the vortex." > > In Aether Displacement, the vortex physically consists of aether. > > - Gravity waves are aether waves. > > 'Gravity Waves Make Tornados'http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/19mar_grits.htm > 'What is an atmospheric gravity wave? Coleman explains: "They are > similar to waves on the surface of the ocean, but they roll through > the air instead of the water. Gravity is what keeps them going. If you > push water up and then it plops back down, it creates waves. It's the > same with air."' > > If you read the above article, the whole article makes more sense if > you conceptualize them describing aether waves instead of gravity > waves. > > 'Hunting for Gravity Waves'http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index... > "Einstein said that every time anything moved -- from the moon > orbiting the Earth to one car bumping into another -- the fabric of > space-time vibrates, sending out gravitational waves." > > The above sounds the same as what is occurring in the double slit > experiment with C-60 molecules. It also sounds like the following: > > 'Louis de Broglie'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_broglie > "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that > any moving particle or object had an associated wave." > > Yes, every moving particle has an associated wave, a wave the particle > creates in the aether. And that includes C-60 molecules and the > Earth. > > That is why I have been asking you to back up your claim, which as you > are in denial, your refuse to do. |