Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 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

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:46 pm    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics

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

science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:25 pm    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics

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
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:15 pm    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics

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

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:16 pm    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics

 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
Timo Nieminen
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 244

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

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
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.

--
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
Cheng Cosine
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 168

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

"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 z0 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
Timo Nieminen
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 244

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

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).

--
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
tony fleming
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 196

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:51 am    Post subject: Re: SFT and Nuclear Physics

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:

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
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:29 am    Post subject: 'EMPTY Matters iN Vacu' by jOE.

$$Phineas T Puddleduck [ jOE < 'EMPTY Matters iN Vacu' > Fischer? ]:  Quote: Article in <1151204513.768975.284520@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com Eric Gisse wrote: You have NO JUSTiFiABLE REASON to believe what you are observing is the result of a gravitational "anisotropy". -=- "-=- the ESTABLiSHMENT MAN!!! They're hushing up my exciting new discovery. They know its the secret of the .... UNiVERSE.....'" 10/1 on - thats the gist of the reply. -- The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. jAFFA cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "CULT OF iNSANE SCiENCE". Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. Relf's Law? > "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses."$$ "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.
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:58 pm    Post subject: Re: MASS OF THE PHOTON

** 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].
$$[TEST mass m1, ORBiT distance rA, PLANCK mass Mp & Higg's {mph}]. Re: REST mass m_o is mass that increases with the velocity v, NOT c. Re: [MASS Of The PHOTON, m_ph = m_o/sqrt{1 - (v^2/c^2)} = h*fL/c^2]. > _______________________ > > Barry [End of POST]. brian a m stuckless science forum Guru Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Posts: 2024 Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: *Go-go* Mr Parot.!!$$ *Go-go* Mr Parot.!! *Go-go* Mr Parot.!! *Go-go* Mr Parot.!!
Y.Porat wrote: > > T Wake wrote:

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

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

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

Bilge wrote: > > Koobee Wublee, still the stupid Bumbling Boobie:
 Quote: "Bilge" wrote in message news:slrneae378.5j.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... Koobee Wublee, the bumbling boobie: "Phineas T Puddleduck"

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

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

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 5

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:53 am    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

 Quote: On 5 Jul 2006 17:28:48 -0700, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.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"

Unless your "lines" are the thickness of a Planck's
Length's Planck's Length's Planck's Length's Planck's
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

Voila!

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

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 5

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

Bill Hobba wrote:
 Quote: sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message news:1152073626.890445.244790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... Bill Hobba wroteth: "S D Rodrian" 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
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

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

$$Between adjacent gluons ..theoretically.$$ [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>.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 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 Mar 19, 2019 5:18 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Some general Hidden Markov questions kox Prediction 0 Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:51 pm Karl Hess (hidden variables) Pieter Kuiper Research 4 Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:33 pm Any hidden variables ? contra@tdcspace.dk New Theories 1 Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:32 am Electromagnetism and str - what's wrong in my formulas? Ken S. Tucker Electromagnetics 11 Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:54 am Some Electromagnetism questions EMy Electromagnetics 4 Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:50 pm