aether propulsion ?
in [Math]
|
From: master1729 on 25 Feb 2010 05:28 ok , aether fans , here is a big question. if aether exists , why isnt there an eather propulsion ? i know UFO propulsion is often associated with that , and also the coral castle - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr9U1cP68eU and related stuff such as the lonocraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft magnetic levitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation and others. im also familiar with boat and plane design and their propulsion techniques. but those propulsions are based upon the environment such as mass ( air , air (wind) , water , fuel ) and energy ( electromagnetism ). since no eather propulsion can be shown , the existance of eather is dubious ... if aether exists , why isnt there an eather propulsion ? saying eather is 'different' from liquid , gas or electromagnetism doesnt cut it ! regards tommy1729
From: master1729 on 3 Mar 2010 01:41 you didnt answer my question why no aether propulsion ? tommy1729
From: James Burns on 3 Mar 2010 12:12 [un-snipped:] master1729 wrote: ; ok , aether fans , here is a big question. ; ; if aether exists , why isnt there an eather propulsion ? [...] [then, you asked:] master1729 wrote: > you didnt answer my question > > why no aether propulsion ? Perhaps every aether fan that reads sci.math has already responded to your request. Jim Burns
From: spudnik on 3 Mar 2010 23:01 well, Bingo. > Perhaps every aether fan that reads sci.math > has already responded to your request. thus quoth: Strictly speaking, of course, Plancks discovery of the quantum of action, and the subsequent elaboration of the so-called wave mechanics by Schrödinger, already imply a fundamental correction of classical mechanics. The standard textbook accounts assure us, however, that this correction, while significant in the domain of microscopic physical objects, can be virtually neglected when dealing with systems of macroscopic bodies. The reason given for this, is the practically infinitesimally small value of Plancks quantum, compared to the magnitudes of action involved in the motion of macroscopic bodies. The latter would include Doubochinskis pendulum and all other macroscopic systems belonging to the traditional domain of classical mechanics. Physicists and engineers, who for generations have been drilled in the formalisms of phase- or configuration- or time-spaces of Lagrange and Hamilton, often regard it as self-evident, that a macroscopic mechanical system is in principle fully equivalent to the corresponding set of differential or integral equations derived according to the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian methods of analytical mechanics. Many would hasten to add, of course, that in practice certain idealizations, simplifications, and approximations are always introduced, in order to make the mathematical equations more manageable. But this practice is purely pragmatic, and does not contradict the assumed, principled equivalence between the physical and mathematical systems. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Winter2005.html thus: I want to say some thing about the administrative aspect of the googolplex, that is why I never googol a God-am thing. I summoned sci.physics, earlier today, instead of my usual habit of sci.math. since I came, immediately within the vanilla schedule of last-in/first-out items, to one of your aether items, it serves to show that the googolplex keeps track of the habitual users -- i.e. while still not signed-in -- from whatever server, and interpolates one with one's self-selected set of correspondents, which can be quite a small group of folks! thus: so, what experiment should be preformed, that these suppositions would provide? if there is matter & antimatter, is there mather & antimather, or is there also two kinds of aether? thus: there is a simple explanation: there is no vacuum; that is to say, the "speed of light in vacuuo" is only a limit, that is never quite achieved even by light. this nonvacuuo is the medium through which the alleged photon must go. I'm really getting tired of playing with Schroedinger's undead cat! thus: in deed, one ought to write the book, A Brief History of Schroedinger's Putty-tat! > the particle & wave evocations are duals; > (Shcroedinger's and/or Pauli's e.g.). thus: so, if the 1st conj. is (or leads to) the twin primes one, then what is the 2nd conjecture of Littlewood and Hardy?... and, why would one not believe, there is no end to twin primes? > I too have noted that the Harris approach is very similar to the first > H-L conjecture and I would add Merten's Third Theorem. His approach is > not better as he leaves out an important constant but it can still be > used to do useful work with twin primes. --Light, A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ --The Ides of March Are Coming: Pro-Impeachment Democrat Wins Nomination in Texas! http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.htm
From: spudnik on 3 Mar 2010 23:38 100 YEARS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS Max Plancks Unanswered Challenge Caroline Hartmann The accepted quantum theory still leaves unanswered the fundamental questions raised by Max Plancks discovery of a century ago. What is the structure of the atom, and how does it produce the results measured by Plancks constant? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/summ01TOC.html
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Arcs And Marks Next: THE MYSTERY OF THE CARROT. OH PARSNIP, WHEREFORE ART THOU? |