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
Bi-focal FoR stereoscopic.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [1 Post] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:26 am    Post subject: Bi-focal FoR stereoscopic. Reply with quote

$$ Sue... wrote: > > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > > Dear Sue:
Quote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1150691649.542392.312190@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
-=-
There is only one object in the box containing the gun and the
rabbit with the kind of structure we normally associate with
the storage of energy.
The atomic structure of the bullet is where students of
relativity that speak of particle accelerators and pair
anhilation should be able to localise the mass/energy
equivalent of the expended gunpowder.

They'd be making a mistake.
"Relativity" implies "between two frames".

$$ "Between two frames" at-ONE-point-in-time is a GR-implication.
$$ And ANY Frame-of-Reference (FoR) has an ANTHROPiC implication.
$$
$$ Stereoscopic bi-focal Frame-of-Reference (FoR).
$$ The GUESS iSS is a stereoscopic, bi-focal, Frame-of-Reference.
$$ [ Hamiltonian ENTHALPY (E - eM) + (eF + L) = (eK + eG - eV) ].
$$
$$ This FORM of the equation gives SEVEN of the entities at once,
$$ with CHEMiSTRY's Enthalpy E, iNTRiNSiC REST eM, Helmholtz FREE
$$ energy eF, LaGrangian L, Kinetic energy eK, Gibb's free energy
$$ eG and Volt*Amp*sec energy eV ..eV is otherwise - (m1*v1^2/2).
$$ [Before GUESS these were NOT all COHERENT Equations-of-State].
$$
$$ The LEFT side can be FAR-stereoscopic; RiGHT side, NEAR-field.
$$ The stereoscopic attribute "induces" a 3D di-polar POiNTspace.
$$ A bi-focal Frame-of-Reference describes NEAR & FAR POiNTspace.
$$ [But NOTE this is about the SAME POiNTspace AT ONCE ..in 3-d].
$$
$$ Duh ..what can Roberts say about a point on a space-TiME-line?
$$ GUESS iSS isN'T isN'T just about a point on a space-TiME-line.

Quote:
-=- Not just a bullet, but a bullet and everything at rest
wrt the gun (and/or rabbit).

The frames can still be defined as coherent matter.
The induction barycentre is one FoR.
The centre of mass is another FoR.

In 'freefall' the barycenter lies between
the centre of mass and the attractor.

$$ There is NO barycentre for a POiNT on a time-line, in GR or SR.
$$ SR eliminates the barycentre ..with the CENTRAL mass M at REST.
$$ [Newton CENTRAL mass ALSO has acceleration ..like TEST mass m].
$$ Only the ADOPTED Newtonian part of GR & SR makes "predictions".

Quote:
I am still wrestling with how the barycentre
should move when a batter strikes his self-pitched
baseball. The bat has insufficient mass to
effect the displacement of an induction center
(the ball could, as well, fire a rocket booster)
so some advancing and retarding of the
cohering signals to affect molecular structure
seems necessary.

I seem to recall some of the Tajmar - de Matos papers
had some calculations involving retarded time
Some review might give some insight how such
a mechanism could work in terms of a Maxwell
field's advanced and retarded time.

$$ "RETARDED time" ought give you a "SERiOUS" clue.
$$ AMBiENT is NEVER zero particles-per-cubic-meter.
$$ [ANY space with 377 Ohms in it ..isN'T "EMPTY"].

Quote:
Ahhh ...when I get my chores caught up. >Smile > > Sue...

If you build your bullet with these:
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
and couple them to the remainder of the mass in the
universe then you can plot the energy within the
ball as the centre of mass and barycenter move
in relation with each other.

$$ There's NO barycentre at all in GR or SR theory of relativity.
$$ [This is WHY it's *ONLY* the Newtonian part of GR that works].
$$ SR eliminates it by ONE "seeing" ONLY ANOTHER hypothetic mass.
$$ GR eliminates it by EACH "seeing" the OTHER, at once, in time.
$$
$$ Newton can include TWO mass, AT ONCE, where-as GR or SR caN'T.
$$ TWO mass areN'T "seen" ..*AT ONCE*, at any ONE point in space.
$$ [TWO mass areN'T "seen", *AT ONCE*, at any ONE point in time].
$$ The BETTER you focus on one the WORSE you can "see" the other.
$$
$$ "RELATiViTY" doesN'T make much sense for 1 point in SPACEtime.
$$ [Maxwell *discovered* eV+m*v^2/2=0, as Curl(E)+(mu0*dH/dt)=0].
$$
$$ Let eV=eM=eP, for LaGrangian L=E-eM-eV=E-2*eP; E=L+eV+eM=L+2*eP.
$$ Let eV=eM=eP, for LaGrangian L=E-eM-eV=eK-eV ; E=L+eV+eM=eK+eM .
$$ Let eV=eM=eP, for LaGrangian L=E-eM-eV=eK-eP ; E=L+eV+eM=eK+eP .
$$ [As *previously* web-posted: L=H-2eP ..where, H=L+2eP memory?].
$$ [The L & H analysis remained virtually SEPARATED ..until GUESS].
$$ [Einstein noticed that in H=eK+eP the "REST energy=eM=m*c^2=eP].
$$ [Einstein noticed that in E=eK+eM the "REST energy=eM=m*c^2=eP].
$$
$$ Notice, eV + (m*v^2/2) = 0 ..where, Volt*Amp*sec energy eV = eP.
$$ [LaGrange didn't notice in L=eK-ep that OTHERwise eV+m*v^2/2=0].
$$ [Maxwell *discovered*, eV+m*v^2/2=0 ..as one of *his own* laws].
$$ [Maxwell *discovered*, eV+m*v^2/2=0 ..as Curl(E)+(mu0*dH/dt)=0].
$$ [..where Maxwell's Curl (E) and dH are NOT the GUESS iSS icons].
$$ My thesis clearly distinguishes two potential energies, eV & eM,
$$ to establish eV as a "potential", REST-or-KiNETiC energy entity;
$$ Where eV -> Volt*Amp*sec energy and eM -> iNTRiNSiC rest energy.
$$ [The icons are all well-established, in GUESS iSS NOMENCLATURE].
$$ All this serves to bring together ..BOTH, LaGrange and Hamilton,
$$ into ONE *General UNiVERSAL Equation of State* ..The GUESS iSS..
$$ ..in terms of the Helmholtz, Gibbs CHEMiSTRY Equations-of-State.
$$
$$ Total Hamiltonian ENTHALPY energy E = m*c^2 + pL*c + pA*fA
$$ = m*c^2 + h*fL + nA*hbar*fA
$$ = eM + L + eV
$$ ..OTHERwise.. E = m*c^2 + L - (m*v^2/2)
$$ = (eG - eV) + L - (m*v^2/2)
$$ = m*c^2 + eK
$$ = (eF + L) + (L + eV)
$$ = (eF + L) + (E - eM).
$$
$$ [Energy POTENTiAL eP isN'T relative = eV = -(m1*v1^2/2), OR eM].
$$
$$ Whereas EM's about "retarded potential", SR, about "appearences,
$$ and GR ..about Non-Euclidian geometrically benign "imagination".
$$
$$ NEiTHER Newton NOR Einstein seemed to "imagine" *AMBiENT media*.
-=-
Quote:
David A. Smith

Re: Bi-focal FoR stereoscopic.
Re: ANY Frame-of-Reference (FoR) has an ANTHROPiC implication.
Re: "Where Is The Kinetic Energy of a Bullet Stored?". End Re-POST.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [1 Post] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:14 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts How find focal length of lens at home? Waffa Physics 11 Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:39 pm
No new posts Stereoscopic bi-focal FoR. brian a m stuckless Electromagnetics 0 Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:57 pm
No new posts Focal length of lens and power Andres E Physics 7 Mon May 23, 2005 4:22 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: 0.0219s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0032s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]