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 » Electromagnetics
O.T. -- Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 65 of 67 [993 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 Next
Author Message
tony fleming
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 196

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:46 pm    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics Reply with quote

wate wrote:
Quote:
tony fleming wrote:
wate wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
SFT has been accepted for presentation at NN2006. "IX International
Conference on Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions", NN2006, to be held in Rio de
Janeiro, August 28-September 1, 2006.
NN2006 is the ninth meeting of a traditional series (last two hold in
Strasbourg and Moscow) under the auspices of IUPAP.

Copies of the abstracts
"Composite EM, weak and strong nuclear self-field theory" and
"A sono-EM mechanism for fusion engineering"

can be found at
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/NN2006_Abstract_Fleming.pdf and
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/NN2006_Abstract_Fleming2.pdf

Such "brilliance".

I really can't be sure whether you or Ken Seto or Sarfatti or Bearden
or even Porat would win the Nobel for year 2010. Is it ok with you if
you share it with them (5 member Nobel winners) or do you want
to have it alone?

wate

such cynicism!! why does it always come down to the nobel prize for you
guys, is it the money, the personal vainglory, the ambitiousness? Maybe
I just want the world to be a better place!!

Yes. A better place. That is good.. a world where machines don't
work and missiles don't fire.

wate
well if you think fission is better than fusion then i'd hate to be

your great-great grand children!!
Back to top
Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirc
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:25 pm    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics Reply with quote

light is the only *perceptible* knowledge, or energy is;
if you're not going to look at it, it doesn't matter.
"to any particular n-body problem."

Quote:
well, the uncertainty principle assumes light is knowledge which it
ain't, i.e we can only 'know' something via the light it emis. but
knowledge, mental thoughts, intelligence, don't perturb anything at the
experimental level (although some might maintain telepathic thoughts
can cause telekenesis, but not this little duck!!) so we can get BEYOND
the uncertainty due to the photon by an application of our intelligence
to find a valid structure of the photon and to go on to model the gluon
as well.

thus:
also, "oneself is a factor of one, along with one."

Quote:
so is zero!

--It takes at least two to polka!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Keplerian.W05.pdf
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3315greenland_ice.html
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:15 pm    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics Reply with quote

$$ tony fleming wrote: > Timo A. Nieminen wrote: > Dr Photon wrote:
Quote:
For example, you got Maxwell's eqns wrong in eqns 1a-1d of
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf
[cut]
div(E) = 4 pi q / Vol 1a
div(H) = 0 1b
curl(E) + mu0 dH/dt = 0 [+ eV = - (m1*v1^2/2).] 1c
curl(H) - eps0 dE/dt = pi q vel / Area 1d

$$ NO "curl" applicable in GR (..no GR *ANGULAR* momentum icon pA).
$$ Total Hamiltonian ENTHALPY energy E = m*c^2 + pL*c + pA*fA
$$ = m*c^2 + h*fL + nA*hbar*fA.

Quote:
1a is in cgs units, whereas 1c and 1d are in SI units.
Rewriting 1a in SI units would give div(E) = q / (eps0 Vol)
which is numerically different to your eqn by a factor of
4 pi / eps0 = 1.4 x 10^12 which is a factor of over a trillion.
[cut]
, although I'm not sure how deep you are reading apart from
trawling for errors, and for taht I am grateful;
J.D. Jackson gives the equations (p238) as

div(D) = 4 pi rho 1a
div(B) = 0 1b
curl(E) + dB/dt = 0 1c
curl(H) = J + dD/dt 1d

so you admit you got 1a wrong?

It's worse than that. Jackson 3rd ed (which is the only edition
that gives the Maxwell equations on p238, and also the only SI
edition) very clearly states div(D)=rho.
-- > > T
correct!! so yes this IS cgs, brian is right about this; so the SFT
analysis will need to be redone for SI units!! in this debate over
units; it will be interesting to see where Planck's 'constant' fits in
in all this because as it stands, Planck's constant is a variable in
the SFT as you see it now. You will note that the final equations are
dimensionally correct.

$$ The GUESS iSS STATiSTiCAL mental & physical flux TENSOR:
$$
$$ (h + nA*hbar) (2*pi + nA) 10^25*("e")^4*Ri Ri
$$ Ni = ------------- = ----------- = ---------------- = ----
$$ h 2*pi Qx hbar.
$$
$$ Note, (h + 2*hbar) / h = (pi + 1) / pi = Ra / 2*pi = Rx / hbar.
$$
$$ There caN'T-BE a REAL ZERO-"distance", *between* ADjACENT points,
$$ because ANGULAR & LiNEAR MOMENTA happen BETWEEN *adjacent* POiNTs.
Back to top
Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirc
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:16 pm    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics Reply with quote

Quote:
sounds like a job for ... tripolar co-ordinateurs!

thus:
I'm not sure, and hydrogen is addressed
at the end of the article -- I finally know
what its relative energy-density is....
the question is, how does it compare to methane,
from which 99.44% of all H2 is derived?

Quote:
Does this mean more ethanol is required per stroke? Is there an available
comparison with gaseous hydrogen?

thus:
"free your mind from Newtonian slavery;"
thank you!

Quote:
just what would be an axample of an effect,
if the relative speed of the medium were a consideration

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
Back to top
Timo Nieminen
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 244

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:37 am    Post subject: Re: ? why can one solve Helmholtz eqn in one z-dir along Reply with quote

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Cheng Cosine wrote:

Quote:
Given a Helmholtz eqn with constant coefficients, assuming solution in
negative z-dir is neglegible, i.e., no reflecting wave in negative z-dir,
one can then use 2d FFT in xy-plane to solve the eqn. But when applying
the same argument to x- and y-dir, one can argue that wave still propogate
in positive and negative x- and y-dir since no simplifications are made in
those directions. That is, there are totally 5 propagation directions:
positive z-dir and neg/pos directions of x- and y-dirs. Then how can one
say that: it is a "plane wave in positive z-direction"?

Use separation of variables in Cartesian coordinates to find a general
solution to the Helmholtz equation. You end up with 2 arbitrary parameters
k_x and k_y which can vary from -infinity to +infinity for every
individual solution. Looking at the solutions, you can see that these
parameters are the x and y components of the wavevector.

Since you know the wavenumber, you can find k_z from

k^2 = k_x^2 + k_y^2 + k_z^2.

This gives you 2 distinct families of solutions: those where you take the
positive square root, and those where you take the negative square root.
These are plane waves propagating (at least partly) in the +z and -z
directions (except for k_z=0). Only when k_x=k_y=0 do the plane waves
propagate purely in the +z or -z directions.

The general solution is then an integral over some amplitude density
multiplied by these solutions, integrated over all k_x, k_y.

If for some given z=A, if all sources have z<A, then you only have
non-zero contributions from modes with k_z>0 for z>A.

(That's assuming exp(ik.r-iwt) convention.)

Quote:
Does this mean that one can neglect negative z-direction and then use FFT
to march along positive z-direction to solve ANY given wave sources without
errors?

No. A technical "no" because FFT isn't exact - you need the continuous
2D Fourier transformation in general.

A more general "no" because it isn't enough to know the sources - you need
to know the fields over an entire z=constant plane such that all of the
sources are on the -ve side of the plane. For the very restricted case of
a plane wave with wavevector in the +z direction incident on a screen with
some apertures, it's a very useful method. If you have a collection of
sources spread out through a 3D volume, you'll first need to find the
fields in a plane. In your post on sci.physics.electromag, you ask about
point sources. For point sources you can do this easily enough by using
the appropriate Green function. But then you don't need to bother with
Fourier transforms at all, since you can find the fields anywhere.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Back to top
Cheng Cosine
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:24 am    Post subject: Re: ? why can one solve Helmholtz eqn in one z-dir along Reply with quote

"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0606161316310.9732-100000@localhost...
Quote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Cheng Cosine wrote:

Given a Helmholtz eqn with constant coefficients, assuming solution in
negative z-dir is neglegible, i.e., no reflecting wave in negative z-dir,
one can then use 2d FFT in xy-plane to solve the eqn. But when applying
the same argument to x- and y-dir, one can argue that wave still
propogate
in positive and negative x- and y-dir since no simplifications are made
in
those directions. That is, there are totally 5 propagation directions:
positive z-dir and neg/pos directions of x- and y-dirs. Then how can one
say that: it is a "plane wave in positive z-direction"?

Use separation of variables in Cartesian coordinates to find a general
solution to the Helmholtz equation. You end up with 2 arbitrary parameters
k_x and k_y which can vary from -infinity to +infinity for every
individual solution. Looking at the solutions, you can see that these
parameters are the x and y components of the wavevector.

Since you know the wavenumber, you can find k_z from

k^2 = k_x^2 + k_y^2 + k_z^2.

This gives you 2 distinct families of solutions: those where you take the
positive square root, and those where you take the negative square root.
These are plane waves propagating (at least partly) in the +z and -z
directions (except for k_z=0). Only when k_x=k_y=0 do the plane waves
propagate purely in the +z or -z directions.

The general solution is then an integral over some amplitude density
multiplied by these solutions, integrated over all k_x, k_y.

If for some given z=A, if all sources have z<A, then you only have
non-zero contributions from modes with k_z>0 for z>A.

(That's assuming exp(ik.r-iwt) convention.)

Does this mean that one can neglect negative z-direction and then use
FFT
to march along positive z-direction to solve ANY given wave sources
without
errors?

No. A technical "no" because FFT isn't exact - you need the continuous
2D Fourier transformation in general.

A more general "no" because it isn't enough to know the sources - you need
to know the fields over an entire z=constant plane such that all of the
sources are on the -ve side of the plane. For the very restricted case of
a plane wave with wavevector in the +z direction incident on a screen with
some apertures, it's a very useful method. If you have a collection of
sources spread out through a 3D volume, you'll first need to find the
fields in a plane. In your post on sci.physics.electromag, you ask about
point sources. For point sources you can do this easily enough by using
the appropriate Green function. But then you don't need to bother with
Fourier transforms at all, since you can find the fields anywhere.


Looks like the key point is to have the complex wave field in a z=const
plane, and then

one can march solution along a z-direction. For example, one has a complex
sound field

at z=const plane either from a single point source or from a set of point
sources distributing

in a 3D space, then one can use this approach to obtain solution at the
right side of z=const.

If one is interested in solution in negative z-direction, simply use the
same approach in the

other z-direction, right?

Now turn to Fourier transform and FFT. In many situations, one only has
measurement in

a finite plane, so only FFT can be performed. In this case, what are the
techniques to minimize

errors? Also, suppose the complex wave field at z=const plane is obtained
from a focused

source, say, waves emitted from a partial spherical surface, will this help
to reduce errors when

using FFT since most "features" or "information" are confined in a smaller
area?

Thanks,
by Cheng Cosine
Jun/16/2k6 NC
Back to top
Timo Nieminen
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 244

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:27 am    Post subject: Re: ? why can one solve Helmholtz eqn in one z-dir along Reply with quote

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Cheng Cosine wrote:

Quote:
Looks like the key point is to have the complex wave field in a z=const
plane, and then

one can march solution along a z-direction.

Yes. As long as the sources are on the other side of the z=const plane.

Quote:
For example, one has a complex
sound field

at z=const plane either from a single point source or from a set of point
sources distributing

in a 3D space, then one can use this approach to obtain solution at the
right side of z=const.

Yes, but if you just have point sources, you can directly find the
solution everywhere with much less effort. But as an illustration of the
method, sure.

Quote:
If one is interested in solution in negative z-direction, simply use the
same approach in the

other z-direction, right?

On the other side of a different plane that's on the far side of the
sources. Two planes on which you know the fields, with the sources between
them, and you can use Fourier transform methods to find the solutions
anywhere in the region outside the space with the sources in it.

Quote:
Now turn to Fourier transform and FFT. In many situations, one only has
measurement in

a finite plane, so only FFT can be performed.

2D FFT assumes that the fields are periodic. The result will be unreliable
after propagation over a sufficient distance for the wave in one finite
patch to diffract over the borders into neighboring patches.

Quote:
In this case, what are the
techniques to minimize

errors? Also, suppose the complex wave field at z=const plane is obtained
from a focused

source, say, waves emitted from a partial spherical surface, will this help
to reduce errors when

using FFT since most "features" or "information" are confined in a smaller
area?

If you want to calculate propagation over a long distance, FFT is no good,
due to the above-mentioned diffractional spreading. It might be better to
assume that the field outside the patch is zero, and directly calculate
a discrete Fourier transform as an approximation of the continuous Fourier
transform. This will fail after a certain distance depending on the
spacing of discrete points (as opposed to FFT which will fail after a
distance depending on the size of the patch).

If the sources are contained in a spherical volume, so that you'll have
spherical waves, don't use plane wave solutions, use spherical wave
solutions. If you know the outgoing field over a spherical surface, then
you can find a spherical wave transform, and use that. Convergence
properties are supremely better than for plane waves - it will not fail at
any distance (because you get discrete modes, not a continuous set of
plane wave modes, and the convergence depends on the radius of a sphere
enclosing the sources).

I dealt with the reverse of this problem - spherical waves from outside
some volume converging to a focus. This was for electromagnetic waves, not
acoustic waves, but if you're interested, see:
T. A. Nieminen, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop and N. R. Heckenberg
Multipole expansion of strongly focussed laser beams
J. Quant. Spect. Radiative Transfer 79-80, 1005-1017 (2003)
which is also on arxiv and available via eprints link below (when it
works, which is usually but not right now).

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Back to top
tony fleming
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 196

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:51 am    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics Reply with quote

Brian I'm back from Cancun

I am currently investigating the Zeeman effect with regard to
electrohypersensitivity (EH). It appears that there are many people who
suffer from EH. We can use the Zeeman effect to protect against EH.
SInce DISTANCE is a crucial parameter in the biochemistry of biological
structures (atoms, ions, molecules, macromolecules, proteins, DNA, the
Zeeman effect can absorb spurious external energy. This is a vital
insight that may lead to many medical therapies. It is crucial to be
able to know the precise motions of the outershell electrons rather
than the probability clouds of quantum mechanics.

I'm still jetlagged so I'll get back to your queries as soon as I'm
physically able. I'm still just getting over AUstralia making it
through to the last 16 in the Mundial!! LOL

cheers Tony

Dr Photon wrote:
Quote:
tony fleming wrote:
Dr Photon wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
Dr Photon wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
[snips for brevity]
This IS physics brian, it takes
the magnetic field into account which bohr theory didn't do.

nonsense - it was by taking the magnetic field into account that they
found the solutions radiated.

You're not watching what I'm writing here; I'm saying the EM solution
pathway (as distinct from the QM pathway) post relativity and pre-QM,
did NOT take a magnetic effect into account. ie Bohr theory. QM DID
take the radiation into account, but continued to use the old-type
field which is why it has problems with uncertainty becuase it is too
primitive, you need a higher degree of distance to model the photon's
actual motions, and the electron's actual motions; you just can't do it
with a point-point distance a la coulomb because you will ALWAYS end up
with an error, an uncertainty.

I still don't get you. I thought you were using Maxwell's eqns, which
was historically investigated as to orbital stability and found
lacking. This analysis certainly included the magnetic field.

Bohr knew this didn't match experiment, so made up a few ad hoc rules
where Maxwell's eqn equations didn't apply, but which matched
experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%27s_Atomic_Theory
even though he didn't know why.

At the site wikpedia site above, it says quite correctly that the Bohr
theory had trouble with the Zeeman effect. So this is what I was
saying; the old pre-quantum theories did NOT take the magnetic field
into account.

what does your model say about the Zeeman effect?

You say that the scientists of this era did a stability
analysis which took the magnetic field into account. I have yet to see
such an early analysis. Otherwise they would have realised there was
an EM pathway to solving the atom. I have found in Whittaker's history
of the pre-quantum theories a reference to the EM field as thin beams
(like my STREAMS) rather than radiation over all solid angles (a la
coulomb), but they went away from this idea.

All I have seen in recent era texts is the line about two electric
charges, eg electron and proton, spiralling in together and causing a
catastrophic reaction as they eventually collide, hence EM is
supposedly unstable. And this is rubbish.

If we take the magnetic effect into account you can find a stable
orbital motion along with a stable cyclotron motion, ie, the
self-fields of the two EM particles provide for an electric, AND a
magnetic motion.

if true that's a good result, but I am far from convinced at this stage
- I still think your "solution" will radiate.

I looked at various conditions for zero-radiation in my PhD and that
included motions due to a magnetic field. Since these motions are
circular, they do zero work where
integral (force).diff_distance = 0 over a periodic cycle.
Quote:

And these motions are both what I term 'physical'
spinors and are orthogonal to each other. These actual motions are
gvien by the Maxwell-Lorentz equations if you follow them through to
solving the eigenvalue problem solution. This eigenvalueproblem is
able to be solved analytically for all electrons and for all protons.

I look forward to a full reply of my previous post. Please reply to
that one, and ignore this one.

br
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:29 am    Post subject: 'EMPTY Matters iN Vacu' by jOE. Reply with quote

$$ Phineas T Puddleduck [ jOE < 'EMPTY Matters iN Vacu' > Fischer? ]:
Quote:
Article in <1151204513.768975.284520@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
You have NO JUSTiFiABLE REASON to believe what you are observing
is the result of a gravitational "anisotropy".
-=-
"-=- the ESTABLiSHMENT MAN!!! They're hushing up my exciting new
discovery. They know its the secret of the .... UNiVERSE.....'"

10/1 on - thats the gist of the reply.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

jAFFA cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject
lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you
cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "CULT OF
iNSANE SCiENCE". Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law? > "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity
asymptotically approaches the odour of roses."

$$ "A stinkin' rose by any other odor is STiLL a stinkin' rose", jOE.
$$
$$ REST mass increases in motion & DeCAPiTALiZATiON corrections mine.

Re: < 'EMPTY Matters iN Vacu' > by jOE Fischer.
Re: < 'EMPTY Matters Between ADjACENT Points' by jOE >. End of REPLY.
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:58 pm    Post subject: Re: MASS OF THE PHOTON Reply with quote

** Barry and Sandra wrote: > > PD wrote: > > > Vert wrote: >
-=-SNiP-=-
Quote:
The [GR-coup] modern definition assigns every object just one
mass, an invariant quantity that does not depend on velocity.

$$ REST mass m_o increases with VELOCiTY.
$$ PHOTON (LiGHT) mass is mass which increases due to FREQUENCY, fL.
$$ [REST (iNTRiNSiC) mass is mass which increases with VELOCiTY, v].
$$
$$ Hamiltonian ENTHALPY E = REST energy + LiNEARiTY + ANGULARiTY
$$ = eM + L + eV
$$ = m_o*c^2 + (KiNETiC energy eK)
$$ = ( E - eK ) + pL*c + pA*fA
$$ = (eG - eV ) + h*fL + pA*fA
$$ = m1*c^2*Sqrt{1 - (v1^2/c^2)} + nL*h*c/wL + nA*hbar*fA
$$ = {a/y*Vc}*{1 - (b/y*Vc)} + m1*c^2 + a*b/y^2*Vc^2
$$ = {a/Volume}*{1 - (b/Volume)} + LaGrangian + Volt*Amp*sec.
$$
$$ PHOTON, m_photon = m1 = pL/c = h*fL/c^2 = m_o/sqrt{1-(v1^2/c^2)}.
$$
$$ There is NO ANGULAR momentum pA in General OR Special Relativity.
$$
Re: The PHOTON (LiGHT) mass m1 PART increases with the FREQUENCY fL.
Re: [PHOTON mass m1 is REST mass m_o as-iNCREASED by a VELOCiTY v1].
Re: REST mass PART increases with VELOCiTY. End of RePOST.

Quote:
Sometimes people will use the phrase "rest mass," or "invariant
mass," but this is just for emphasis: mass is mass. -=-SNiP-=-

$$ Yes ..of course, the "..."rest mass," or "invariant mass,"..." is
$$ ONLY "invariant" when at REST.!! The GR-coup rebels call the REST
$$ mass the iNVARiANT mass ..well because the iNVARiANT REST mass is
$$ as everybody seen in SR, the mass that "iNCREASEs" with VELOCiTY.
$$ [SHOW the ACTiON mathematically in an iNCREASED-rest-mass FRAME].
$$
$$ MASS Of The PHOTON [ m_ph = m_o/sqrt{1 - (v^2/c^2)} = h*fL/c^2 ].
$$
$$ [PHOTON mass = h*fL/c^2, the DiFFERENCE of REST mass transfered].
$$ [i.e. "Transfered" from EMiTTER-REST-mass to RECiEVER-REST-mass].
$$
$$ This is NOT to say that REST mass is a "dependent" on "velocity".
$$ This is to say that the REST mass, m_o "iNCREASEs" with VELOCiTY.
$$ This is to say PHOTON mass = any *iNCREASED* REST mass m1 = m_ph.
$$
$$ C1/c = G*M1*m1/(n - 1)*rA = eG = G*Mp*{mph}/(n - 1)*rA = m1*rA*g.
$$ [With the FiRST RADiATiON Constant C1 and Gibb's Free energy eG].
$$ [TEST mass m1, ORBiT distance rA, PLANCK mass Mp & Higg's {mph}].

Re: REST mass m_o is mass that increases with the velocity v, NOT c.
Re: [MASS Of The PHOTON, m_ph = m_o/sqrt{1 - (v^2/c^2)} = h*fL/c^2].

> _______________________ > > Barry [End of POST].
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:57 pm    Post subject: *Go-go* Mr Parot.!! Reply with quote

$$ *Go-go* Mr Parot.!! *Go-go* Mr Parot.!! *Go-go* Mr Parot.!!
Y.Porat wrote: > > T Wake wrote:
Quote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1151759225.242390.325760@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote: > > >> "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
Cranks_Will_Be_Found wrote: > > >> >> Y.Porat wrote:
Y.Porat wrote: > > >> >> > > Bilge wrote:
Igor:
ATB > > >> >> > Y.Porat > > >> >> > ----------------
you are not fucking dyslexic you are just a fucking retard.
-------------------------
Hi bin laden Goebeless

Nice mixed metaphors.

why is feeding you shitty parasite ?
it it your poor wife or parents ??
no one gived a fuch for you .even not a s**t (:-)

Not wishing to get in the way of your lovers tiff, what is the mass of a
photon in kg? You still haven't answered....
--------------------------------
what can i do while i deal with blockheads??

You could answer the question.

are you able to understand a qualititive proof??

Yes, you dont have one though.

even if it was never in your parroting books ??

Hmmm. Not a sign of being a crank at all is it....

2 if you insiste :
the samllest possible mass for a single photon is
m min= h/f (x 1.00/time unit )
that is according to me and Vergon
now we leave it to youto make the calculation
are you able of that ??

It isn't really case of whether or not "I" can do it, I suspect _you_ cant
do it. This is why all you ever do is produce hand waving gibberish.

What is the answer. This is your theory. Tell us the predicted numbers.
-----------------------------
an idiot or crook (may be both) is unable to understand my qualitative
proof
others coud do it

now about your irrelevant question to my qualitative proof
9you cant even undersatd that it is ireelevant !!)
th emass of the smallest single photon is
m min=h/c^2 *1.00/time unit

you was even not cleaver enoughto find
that i did a mistake by writing

h/f instesd of h/c^2 !!
are you able to translate it to Kg ??
i wonder > sokeep well > bump parasite
9btw you are the only bump that at least ask querstions
in order to understand something and if you do it sincerily it is a
slight pointmfo ryou
but still does not make you a countable physicist
keep well > Y.Porat > ----------------------

$$ Y is HOT with PLANCK's constant h. *Go-go* Mr Parot.!!
$$ *Go-go* Mr Parot.!! *Go-go* Mr Parot.!! END of POST.!!
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:30 pm    Post subject: Professionally-incompetent interpretation and analysis of data. Reply with quote

Bilge wrote: > > Koobee Wublee, still the stupid Bumbling Boobie:
Quote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrneae378.5j.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Koobee Wublee, the bumbling boobie:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com
news:290620062334517523%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com...
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0143-0807/26/6/S09/ejp5_6_s09.pdf
-=-
Algebra, calculus, physics before MMX, etc. Did you even learn
and understand these topics?

Care to compare your knowledge on these subjects with mine?
-=-
Some of my ``everyday experiences'' have included, measuring
lifetimes for \beta decay, counting gamma rays and positrons,
measuring masses of nuclei, designing and building apparatus to
polarize protons and deuterons and precess their spins, all of
which require more mathematics than your everyday experiences
require. Since I've also done an assortment of mechanical,
electrical and cryogenic engineering work, for which relativity
is not needed, I can only conclude that your lack of mathematical
skills means you have no experience doing any engineering either.
Just because you've never been in a situation that required
anything more complex than counting on your fingers, doesn't mean
you can expect people to waste their time explaining things within
your limitations. While relativity is rather simple, you need to
recognize that you are simply not going to ever grasp it and move
on to something more your speed, like becoming a professional
lawn ornament.
-=-
I find it hard to believe that people as stupid as you exist
on earth.
-=-
Do you consider it evil to point out your lack of intelligence and
your inability to realize you don't know what you are talking about?
-=-
I don't think, ``Koobee Wublee: Poster Child for Failure and
Misguided Self-Delusion'' would be a best seller. People would
tire of reading about your attempts to mitigate a lifetime of
failure by ever more ludicrous posturing.

$$ We don't wonder why they just *had* to get rid of you, Dim-wit?.
$$ [The finer example of PROFESSiONALLY-incompetent DATA-analysis].

Re: Professionally-incompetent interpretation and analysis of data.
Back to top
S D Rodrian
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:53 am    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

Quote:
On 5 Jul 2006 17:28:48 -0700, "Timothy Golden
BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote:

S D Rodrian wrote:
The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

The three dimensional aspect of space is very simple.

No doubt, no doubt! Who can't count to three?
Well, there ARE a number of drinks beyond which...

Quote:
Take an object like the tip of a pencil.

What is a tip of a pencil! Certainly to an ant
it must be a mountain top. And to our dear ole
Planck Length Creature it is its universe in all!
But, what is the tip of a pencil to the elephant,
or to the whale! O, what is a tip of a pencil
to the world!

(Good Heavens, I've still got it! --The Poet In Me.]

Quote:
Place it in a square room.

Why does it always HAVE to be a square room?
Every time I am placed in a square room I feel
compelled to only walk in "2" dimensions! Unless
I manage to wiggle out of my strait jacket, of course.
And then I can walk "3" dimensionally (via the rope
my kind keepers like to leave for me tied to a hook
on the ceiling).

Quote:
You will find that three measures sufficiently
represent its position
relative to the room.

Why bother? Why not simply ask, "You
can't see it?!?! It's right in front of you nose!"

HINT: However way you point it out.... said "way"
is all in your head:

Unless your "lines" are the thickness of a Planck's
Length's Planck's Length's Planck's Length's Planck's
Length's (ad infinitum) your triangulation will only
always ONLY succeed in giving a general direction
as to where the thing is. (Cross you fingers and see
just how large the area is over which they cross.)
And, yes, it works both ways... or try to triangulate
the position of the earth with such itty bitty "lines."

We live in an approximate world only. And this is
the achilles heel of all attempts by Mathematics
to "rule" the universe, I'm afraid. (Who knows not
this, is doomed to waste a lot of his life de-noodling
his mind with infinite minutia.) --SDR

And how comes it that we just happen to live in
an approximate world only, you might ask. Because
in reality we live IN OUR MINDS, and there's very
precious little in there that's not but an estimation.
Or something close to it...

Certainly none of it will have to do with "dimensions"
but only with different approaches to it (or, directions).

START QUOTE

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth's...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

END QUOTE

Repeat after me: IF A ONE-DIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO-
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE. AND A 3-DIMENSIONAL ANY-
THING IS 3 TIMES AS IMPOSSIBLE & SO ON.

A balloon only has two-dimensions. But only
because that's a convenient short-hand in
mathematics: That two-dimensional balloon
helps mathematics neither to add to nor to
substract from REALITY anything whatsoever,
though we speak about it until the Word of God
at last falls silent in the universe. Amen.

Quote:
Any more will be wasteful
and any less will be broken.
In this sense the Euclidean three
dimensional space is an empirical
discovery that takes very little to demonstrate.
Do you deny this?
These are the three dimensions that you are
disputing.
Even if more dimenions do exist this
behavior must be resolved.
Three dimensions are an observation.-Tim

You are right at last, Tim: "3" dimensions ARE only
a requirement of the mind (in the mind) and have
nothing whatsoever to do with reality:

Imagine that man has finally become extinct. Then,
to the world that continues without him, what use
are the methods he used to use to point out things
to himself?

I don't mind your use of whatever method you wish
to point things out to yourself, Tim. But don't then
ORDAIN that your brain commands reality, Tim!

That's positively bonkers, ole boy.

Quote:
An interesting way to conceptualize this
is to imagine a large
screened TV in front of you. Then,
in your imagination, expand
the width and height to infinity.
Next, in your imagination, toss
the hardware aside, leaving
only the image in place.
Persons in this image perceive
their space as 3-dimensional.

That would be a nice trick for such "persons"
to perform, since they would have to do it
with "brains" which have no "depth" at all.

Quote:
That
is, they can move in any direction they want to.

With "muscles & limbs" which have no "depth"
at all.

Quote:
To them, a meter
stick will appear to be one meter long,
any way they orient it.

Well, certainly, if they try to orient it from "width" to
"height" they are going to have to make it travel
through a zillion dimensions other than their only "2."

As I've said: I don't mind Mathematics describing
every point in a circumference. But do not let then
Mathematics try to describe the "dimensions" of
reality! (Because, as I said, it's absurd to limit them
in any way... in effect, by any number. It offends
the laws of physics.)

Quote:
However, from your perspective,
these people are limited to
something very close to two dimensional
space. Granted, the image
has some thickness, albeit very small.

Ah! A little bit of sanity creeps into this petty pace!
Not much, but a little bit does. That's a start.

Quote:
Now, in your imagination, shrink the
image's thickness on down to
less than a Planck Length.

Does it really matter how thick the image is?
And, who sez when we get to a Planck's Length's
thickness we won't get bitten by an even tinier tick?

Quote:
From your perspective it is no longer
discernable, but it is still there.

"In your imagination" everything is possible, yes.

Quote:
From your perspective, their
third dimension is rolled up to less
than a Planck Length. But,
from their perspective their third
dimension is no different than
their other two dimensions.

A truly "really" three-dimensional "thing" could
only be observed from "six" very specific, very
specifically placed very infinitely infinitesimal
"impossible" positions (hint: no such positions
are possible in reality, ole boy):

BEGIN QUOTE

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth's...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

END QUOTE

Repeat after me: IF A ONE-DIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO-
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE.

Quote:
This is not a real-world kind of thing,

There ya go! THAT's my whole point in a
banana peel.

Quote:
but it does provide a
rather nice way of getting the concept.

I'm sure that as long as you understand, Gordon,
the world/the universe will sleep soundly tonight.

Quote:
Those other dimensions
could very well be right her in our midst,

There ya go! THAT's the whole problem right there
out of the safety of its banana peel:

The instant you even so much as HINT at the
mere possibility that it's possible to assign a
(necessarily limiting) number to the dimensions
of "anything" you are literally knocking all sorts
of bits from "it" OUT of existence (in our reality).

And THAT would be a jolly nice trick indeed. Gordon!

Quote:
but if they are less
than a Planck Length, they are completely
indiscernible to us.
Gordon

Gordon, if something exists, it does (or, if it doesn't
it doesn't). But you can't cheat on the rule by ANY
means. (And I should think CERTAINLY NOT by merely
shrinking the thing out of sight... or tossing a hanky
over it and hollering, "Abracadabra!")

Voila!

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
Back to top
S D Rodrian
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

Bill Hobba wrote:
Quote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:1152073626.890445.244790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wroteth:
"S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:44AAB880.2040906@sdrodrian.com...
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

So models have no connection to realty?

Such an absolute statement! ]

It was a question not a statement.

Was it?

Quote:
Since you are a person
obviously lacking the gift of subtlety, I shall be more
categorical still, for your sake:

"Some models do have a connection to reality, but
not all of them." NOTE that my paragraph specifies
those models which use so-called "dimensions."
Specifically: NONE of those "models" have any
connection with reality whatsoever (they lose all
connection to reality the instant the term "dimension"
is a mention):

Then linear programming and operations
research are out and those that make
a living from it selling their expertise are
fooling themselves and their
clients.

If they are using "math shorthand" to expedite
their work they're worth the money. If they are
telling their clients the universe is rules by
supersymmetry or some other such nonsense
then they are thieves... and/or crackers.

Quote:
And out goes QM because it uses a Hilbert space
which has - wonder
of wonders - an infinite number of dimensions.

As long as there's an infinite number of them
it's hardly likely to be limited to any number of them
is it! You should really use your noodle, ole boy.

Quote:
You are obviously ignorant of very basic stuff.

This is true: I've never fried a steak yet that turned out
the way I would have had it turned out!

Quote:
Why? Because if the mind can conceive of any
"conceivable" manifold (or, so-called dimension), then
that "dimension" can exist in our reality as part of
our so-called three-dimensional reality WITHOUT
having to "add anything to it" (to our 3-D reality).

"Pushing" it OUT of our reality is an unnecessary
artificiality perpetrated ("mathematically") via the
common confusion that arises when we speak of our
reality as somehow strictly "3" dimensional. Or,

HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality,

Your proof that our reality (whatever that is)

I thought you wouldn't know what that is!

Quote:
is 3d and, for example, extra
dimensions are not curled up on a scale
too small to directly perceive is
eagerly awaited. Bill

I'm going to take your word that you tried
to write a cohesive paragraph there, Bill. Let's see
if I can straighten it out properly: You tried to say
that ... no, it's totally irrational ... maybe your dog
bit you while you were typing it out...

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com


Quote:
? there is no
need for it to exist outside it. Therefore it adds nothing
to speak of it as "an additional" dimension (it adds
nothing to our reality). DOUBLE HINT:

There is nothing "1" dimensional in our reality.

Therefore it's nonsense to try to speak of
anything being "2" dimensional, and therefore
even more absurd to speak of anything being "3"
dimensional (in reality), and so on & so on...
the sequence becoming more and more absurd
as it goes on.

Hope this simplificationalism helps, but I know from
experience that simpletons are not necessarily always
the first to grasp the simplest things.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:08 am    Post subject: Between adjacent gluons, w & z particles, etc ..theoretically. Reply with quote

$$ Between adjacent gluons ..theoretically.
$$ [i.e. BETWEEN adjacent w & z particles, etc ..THEORETiCALLY.]
Bilge wrote: > > guskz@hotmail.com: > > > >Bilge wrote:
Quote:
since the pion mass is 135 MeV, it's a little strange the use
of electric charge force (eV) to determine a stronger and
different force.

eV is a measure of energy (or mass). It has nothing to do with
electric charge.

$$ This is an excellent EXAMPLE of your "professional incompetence".
$$ [Note SI MKSA units of electronvolt, eV -> Volt*Amp*sec, energy].
-=-
Re: Why don't protons attract due to gluons and only with neutrons?.
Re: [What's THEORETiCALLY between ADjACENT gluons at ANY distance?].
Re: [What's THEORETiCALLY between w & z particles at ANY distance?].
Re: [Between adjacent gluons, w & z particles, etc ..theoretically].
$$ <Re-adjust crotch and snicker>.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 65 of 67 [993 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:23 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Some general Hidden Markov questions kox Prediction 0 Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:51 pm
No new posts Karl Hess (hidden variables) Pieter Kuiper Research 4 Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:33 pm
No new posts Any hidden variables ? contra@tdcspace.dk New Theories 1 Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:32 am
No new posts Electromagnetism and str - what's wrong in my formulas? Ken S. Tucker Electromagnetics 11 Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:54 am
No new posts Some Electromagnetism questions EMy Electromagnetics 4 Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:50 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: 0.5108s ][ Queries: 16 (0.4606s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]