FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [39 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:45 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Quote:
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or
a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or
vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-)

Quote:
In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in
the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is
omitted).


However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be
necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more.

Quote:
Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles
are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it
like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" page
461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly. Wink
A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required.

Quote:
Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Space is inconsequential and has no properties so it is not even a
manifold. It's the quantum fields of the quantum vacuum that is the
manifold(s).

Quote:
Apparently physics is more subtle, and more exciting, than you can
imagine. To understand this requires _study_.

Sure, but there are still interpretational scenarios to deal with.
Whether or not the detection of a photon can be considered to be a
detection of a relativistic medium is a purely interpretational issue.
The relativistic medium is so perfect that it can be mostly ignored
other than the geometry of interactions that it creates.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:45:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or
a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or
vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-)

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in
the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is
omitted).

However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be
necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more.

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles
are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it
like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" page
461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly. Wink
A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required.

Fred you are so right. You are thinking of my Espace/pairspace which
has a dozen accurately calculated parameters.
You can't modify Dirac's electron sea because neither he nor anyone
else has ever established any known parameters that would qualify it
as an element of science. It's just a good idea and all quantum guys
are comfortable with it.
Pairspace stands alongside our vacuum and is the dual of everything in
the vacuum universe. Physics happens there.

Quote:
Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.

Space is inconsequential and has no properties so it is not even a
manifold. It's the quantum fields of the quantum vacuum that is the
manifold(s).

Apparently physics is more subtle, and more exciting, than you can
imagine. To understand this requires _study_.

Sure, but there are still interpretational scenarios to deal with.
Whether or not the detection of a photon can be considered to be a
detection of a relativistic medium is a purely interpretational issue.
The relativistic medium is so perfect that it can be mostly ignored
other than the geometry of interactions that it creates.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:41 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

Tom Roberts wrote:
Quote:
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted).

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.


_Manifold_ is the coordinate space. It is a defined entity. If you do
not define any coordinate system then there is no coordinate space and
no _manifold_. But the physical space still exists. The only
'property' a coordinate space or _manifold_ can have is the *metric*.
Just as the coordinate space, its metric is also a defined entity. The
coordinate space or _manifold_ and its metric are always a part of some
or the other mathematical _model_. The metric is just like a *scale
factor* on a map or a graph.

Metric is not a property of physical space. The permittivity,
permeability, and intrinsic impedance are the properties of physical
space and not of any _manifold_. These properties of physical space can
be experimentally measured whereas the metric of any manifold cannot be
measured experimentally.

Quote:
From your above quoted remarks about "Space is the _manifold_" it
appears that you are overly engrossed in mathematical world and are

unable to distinguish between the physical and mathematical 'worlds'.

GSS
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:37 am    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1svf92toehvf4l0ragciqb72abosvgdlik@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:45:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium
or
a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or
vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-)

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in
the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model
to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is
omitted).

However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be
necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more.

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles
are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of
empty
space".

I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it
like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet"
page
461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental
medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st
century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly.
Wink
A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required.

Fred you are so right. You are thinking of my Espace/pairspace which
has a dozen accurately calculated parameters.

Well, I am actually thinking more of our "Spin Matrix" concept. Wink
Which your concept is a part of it. The EM part.

Quote:
You can't modify Dirac's electron sea because neither he nor anyone
else has ever established any known parameters that would qualify it
as an element of science. It's just a good idea and all quantum guys
are comfortable with it.

Dirac's Sea had problems because it is not bounded from below. Plus it
had to have a continuum of filled states. Solution: Flip it to be all
positive energy states with only certain states allowed due to the
geometry of interactions in the dense media. Then throw it into another
spacetime intersecting with ours. Now some of the states allowed are
more than just what would represent electron-positron states in our
spacetime. We also are going to have hadronic states which expands the
electron sea to all fermions. This scenario allows the whole enchilada;
fermions, virtual fermions and "less than virtual" fermions.

Quote:
Pairspace stands alongside our vacuum and is the dual of everything in
the vacuum universe. Physics happens there.

Sure. Physics happens here also. And inbetween. ;-)

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:37:21 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1svf92toehvf4l0ragciqb72abosvgdlik@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:45:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium
or
a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or
vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-)

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in
the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model
to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is
omitted).

However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will be
necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more.

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles
are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of
empty
space".

I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says it
like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet"
page
461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental
medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st
century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly.
Wink
A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required.

Fred you are so right. You are thinking of my Espace/pairspace which
has a dozen accurately calculated parameters.

Well, I am actually thinking more of our "Spin Matrix" concept. Wink
Which your concept is a part of it. The EM part.

You can't modify Dirac's electron sea because neither he nor anyone
else has ever established any known parameters that would qualify it
as an element of science. It's just a good idea and all quantum guys
are comfortable with it.

Dirac's Sea had problems because it is not bounded from below. Plus it
had to have a continuum of filled states. Solution: Flip it to be all
positive energy states with only certain states allowed due to the
geometry of interactions in the dense media. Then throw it into another
spacetime intersecting with ours. Now some of the states allowed are
more than just what would represent electron-positron states in our
spacetime. We also are going to have hadronic states which expands the
electron sea to all fermions. This scenario allows the whole enchilada;
fermions, virtual fermions and "less than virtual" fermions.

Well, no, Fred. my pairs that you call virtual have actually not been
created yet. They are feedstock waiting to be used. 10BYrs later after
ejection, you have pions and particles cooked up. Show me a pion and
I'll show you where the anti-pion is, in pairspace. It answers the QED
question: where are all the anti-particles?? They're cooked positrons
left behind by the electrons. Everything there is dual to our empty
universe. It's an automatic dual space, by mere subtraction of X
leaves 1 -X.
Your scheme of flipping to positive and blending with another
spacetime is approaching cock-and-bull ingenuity.
Furthermore Dirac did not have more to go on than to notice that the
surd that is "total energy" must algebraically have a negative
component. He did not stop to ponder whether the total energy equation
was bogus, but it is. There's a much better substitute.
I am not into QED as you know but I will joust a little.

Quote:
Pairspace stands alongside our vacuum and is the dual of everything in
the vacuum universe. Physics happens there.

Sure. Physics happens here also. And inbetween. ;-)

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vali92drhq4si2tjnkhfd8vrn2kbkpqtnr@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:37:21 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1svf92toehvf4l0ragciqb72abosvgdlik@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:45:33 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JZdlg.68348$4L1.40545@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a
medium
or
a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or
vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

That is probably true, but you don't do much better. ;-)

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field"
in
the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic
quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the
model
to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is
omitted).

However to include gravity in the quantum field picture, it will
be
necessary to have a relativistic medium. Plus more.

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real
particles
are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of
empty
space".

I sure am glad that Volovik does not agree with you; Volovik says
it
like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a Helium
Droplet"
page
461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental
medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st
century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the
fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

However, it *is* somewhat tricky to make it all work out properly.
Wink
A modified Dirac-like Sea is definitely required.

Fred you are so right. You are thinking of my Espace/pairspace
which
has a dozen accurately calculated parameters.

Well, I am actually thinking more of our "Spin Matrix" concept. Wink
Which your concept is a part of it. The EM part.

You can't modify Dirac's electron sea because neither he nor anyone
else has ever established any known parameters that would qualify
it
as an element of science. It's just a good idea and all quantum
guys
are comfortable with it.

Dirac's Sea had problems because it is not bounded from below. Plus
it
had to have a continuum of filled states. Solution: Flip it to be
all
positive energy states with only certain states allowed due to the
geometry of interactions in the dense media. Then throw it into
another
spacetime intersecting with ours. Now some of the states allowed are
more than just what would represent electron-positron states in our
spacetime. We also are going to have hadronic states which expands
the
electron sea to all fermions. This scenario allows the whole
enchilada;
fermions, virtual fermions and "less than virtual" fermions.

Well, no, Fred. my pairs that you call virtual have actually not been
created yet.

I don't call them virtual. I call them "less than virtual". ;-)

Quote:
They are feedstock waiting to be used. 10BYrs later after
ejection, you have pions and particles cooked up. Show me a pion and
I'll show you where the anti-pion is, in pairspace. It answers the QED
question: where are all the anti-particles?? They're cooked positrons
left behind by the electrons. Everything there is dual to our empty
universe. It's an automatic dual space, by mere subtraction of X
leaves 1 -X.

John, please learn some particle physics. "cooked" is not a particle
physics term. Wink And a pion is already a matter/anti-matter pair.

Quote:
Your scheme of flipping to positive and blending with another
spacetime is approaching cock-and-bull ingenuity.

?? It is the same thing you are doing.

Quote:
Furthermore Dirac did not have more to go on than to notice that the
surd that is "total energy" must algebraically have a negative
component. He did not stop to ponder whether the total energy equation
was bogus, but it is. There's a much better substitute.
I am not into QED as you know but I will joust a little.

Not just QED John, you need to get into the whole Standard Model. It
paints a beautiful picture but has some missing parts. There is no such
thing as absolute negative energy just as there is not such thing as an
absolute negative length. We are riding on top of a vast sea of
positive energy but we can only detect changes in energy.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Quote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150635613.326787.246380@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150453395.186066.162040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

GSS wrote:
A region of physical space which is devoid of any material particle is
known as empty space or free space or vacuum.

I would note that 'free space' is a term of art with an implied
377 ohm radiation resistance, real and measurable.

'empty space' implies a complete absence of fundamental particles
so it can only exist on paper and would have only imaginary
properties.

If you have an edit in mind, that is a distinction you can exploit
to add a bit more clarity where so much confusion abounds.

Good paper!

No it isn't. It is bogus.
He claims an ether-relative Doppler shift masks out
the possitive result in the MM experiment.
Bogus. Any such such ether-relative Doppler would
have been detected long ago.

Kindly give your specific objections on this issue in the parallel
thread titled :
"A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx
but implies a contracting Universe."

In http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf
you opine that the frequency of emission of light photons is influenced
by the motion of the source in the absolute/universal reference frame.
Kindly give an expression quantifying the frequency change
as a function of that "absolute" motion.

Kindly refer to
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf

GSS

Quote:
He also ignores the energy that would be radiated
in ether 'wake' waves.

Kindly elaborate this point.
I am sorry, I have not followed your objection/comment.

GSS
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

Dick Head Gurcharn Sandhu GSS wrote:

<snipped>

Good, ShitEater, now you are embarassing yourself by "explaining" MMX.
I would point out the several errors in your hare brain stuff but you
will argue to no end and I like to keep you more the way you are : in
the dark, like a mushroom.
Back to top
Bilge
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Physical Space, Aether and Vacuum Reply with quote

GSS:
Quote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
uri wrote:
Particles cannot interact in empty space. There must be a medium or a
force field that carries the force between them. [...]
Particles cannot interact in empty space if the empty space or vacuum
or aether did not have any physical properties. [...]

You both merely display your ignorance of modern physics.

In the standard model there is no "medium", and no "force field" in the
sense you seem to be using it. There are, however, Bosonic quantum
fields that interact with the various quantum fields of the model to
implement the three "forces" included in the model (gravity is omitted).

Note in particular that the quantum vacuum, of which real particles are
excitations, is in no way a "medium" or "physical properties of empty
space".

Space is the _manifold_ on which the quantum fields live,
and they are properties of _themselves_, not space.


_Manifold_ is the coordinate space. It is a defined entity. If you do
not define any coordinate system then there is no coordinate space and
no _manifold_. But the physical space still exists.
The only 'property' a coordinate space or _manifold_ can have is the
*metric*.

What's your point? (Also, a manifold can have other structure besides
a metric.) Are you claiming that distances and velocities are impossible
to measure? If not, you are assuming the existence of a differentiable
manifold equipped with a metric. You are simply trying to avoid the
consequences of your unstated assumptions.

Quote:
Just as the coordinate space, its metric is also a defined entity. The
coordinate space or _manifold_ and its metric are always a part of some
or the other mathematical _model_. The metric is just like a *scale
factor* on a map or a graph.

Again, what is your point? You just listed the very things which
make the notion of a manifold useful. Since we are free to choose
any coordinates we like, we choose the ones which correspond to
the physical measurements the concepts represent.

Quote:
Metric is not a property of physical space. The permittivity,
permeability, and intrinsic impedance are the properties of physical
space and not of any _manifold_.
These properties of physical space can be experimentally measured
whereas the metric of any manifold cannot be measured experimentally.

Oh, really? Explain precisely how one quantifies any of those
so-called physical properties without first defining a manifold.

Quote:
From your above quoted remarks about "Space is the _manifold_" it
appears that you are overly engrossed in mathematical world and are
unable to distinguish between the physical and mathematical 'worlds'.

I'll be happy to compare my ability to make such distinctions against
yours. As an experimentalist, I translate mathematics into quantities
which can be measured with real instruments.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [39 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:01 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts SRT , GRT and Minkowski space . socratus Relativity 1 Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm
No new posts aether drift patents 3ality Relativity 0 Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:32 pm
No new posts equilateral triangles in space, and cyclohexane David Madore Math 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:05 pm
No new posts Homology of a certain space question James1118 Math 2 Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:22 pm
No new posts Point Defects in Emergent Vacuum ODLRO Geometrodynamics Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:52 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0700s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0352s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]