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 66 of 67 [993 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 64, 65, 66, 67 Next
Author Message
Bill Hobba
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:03 am    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

"S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:44ACFED9.5040205@sdrodrian.com...
Quote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
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?

Kindergarten English: '?' means question.

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.

If you can't see both are models then - well take up finger-painting -
science is not for you.

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.

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!

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!

Sure - I readily admit it and also believe since those that closely study
what it is (philosphers of a certain persuasion) can not agree on it then it
is obvious you don't either.

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.

I did. But since you obviously have trouble determining what a '?' means
your comment is no surprise.

Bill

Quote:
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


? 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: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:26 am    Post subject: Re: 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
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Where is the flaw? Reply with quote

Quote:
The proper time is the elapsaed time along a world line
as measured by a clock traversing that world line.
$$

$$ And ONLY that clock is at THAT point-in-time AT ONCE, dimwit.
$$ [This, WHY any GR-"clock" & "various TiME" are GR-oxyMORONs].
-=-SNiP-=-
Quote:
Your concept of ``real time'' must obviously be different from the
rest of us who use the standard timepieces manufactured on this
planet as a measure of time. [There ARE various GR-"time-ZONEs".]
-=-
Anyone who follows your explanation will certainly not understand
the lorentz transforms. [Likewise for ANY COHERENT "explanation".]

Lorentz Transform violates the Principle of Simultaneity.

There is no such thing as the ``Principle of Simultaneity.''
Simultaneity in relativity is _defined_ by the poincare transforms
(of which the lorentz transforms are a [albeit, previously-DECLARED
by yourself, Bilge, to be UN-reachable via-POiNCARE ..duh] subset).
-=-
SR is actually the study of inertial reference frames -=- -=-

$$ REST (inertial) frames are *BARYCENTER-centred* ..NOT Galilean;
$$ M1 & m1 in Newton's G*M1*m1, are *moving* REST-mass magnitudes.
$$ M1 has acceleration to barycentre; m1 has another acceleration.
$$ There is NO COHERENT way to see M1 & m1 .. EACH from the OTHER.
$$ [The Newton context here is a three-dimensional SPACE in TiME].
$$ [There is NO COHERENT way to see m1, from M1 ..mathematically].
$$ [There is NO COHERENT way to see M1, from m1 ..mathematically].

Quote:
The hyperbolic Lagrangian remains invariant under Lorentz
transformations, which are actually hyperbolic rotations.

$$ But, are *NOT* "invarient" in the REST frame of the BARYCENTRE.

Quote:
What is hyperbolic Lagrangian?
A lagrangian extremized by a metric for a hyperolic space.

$$ Define (explain) "extremized" in BOTH near-&-far-field context?

$$ General Universal Equation-of-State System (GUESS iSS) ANALYSiS:
$$ Classical OLD Lagrangian: || The Classical OLD Hamiltonian:
$$ L = H - 2*eP || H = L + 2*eP
$$ = eK - eP || = eK + eP
$$ = eK - Potential; || = eK + Potential (energy) eP;
$$ in GUESS = eK - Volt*A*sec || = eK + eM ..as per ADDENDUM;
$$ = eK - eV ..energy || = L + Gibb's eG .. " " "
$$ = eM - Helmholtz eF || = eK + iNTRiNSiC REST eM " " "
$$ = E - Gibb's eG. || = GUESS iSS ENTHALPY energy E.
$$
$ COMPLETELY combines all CHEMiSTRY equations-of-state, COHERENTLY.
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:23 am    Post subject: Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims Reply with quote

Randy Poe writes Henri Wilson:
Quote:
On 8 Jul 2006 19:41:33 -0700, "Randy Poe" wrote:

[-=-SNiP-=-] (the GR-corrected rate) [-=-SNiP-=-] results.

$$ Show GR-gamma in ANY "GR-corrected" GPS equation ..dimwit.
$$
$$ We'll tolerate 1 or 2 jpg's ..or are you SiMPLY trolling?.

Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims. End of POST.
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:57 am    Post subject: Re: It's all Soooo Amusing! Reply with quote

Tom Roberts wrote: > > Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
Many SRians here refer to 'movement through time'.

You are mistaken. Many cranks and idiots say that, not people
knowledgeable about SR or the use of the English language.

As I said before, this is not any sort of "movement" at all.
You are reading too much into a _metaphor_ (spacetime as a
geometrical manifold).

The questions I'm asking are: How is movement through time
assessed?

It isn't.
$$ <snicker>.


Quote:
A human being, and a clock, and any other object, experience
elapsed proper time, and perhaps that's what you are thinking
of. This is not "movement", this is _time_elapsing_. <shrug
$$ <adjust crotch


$$ The "_time_elapsing_" without "movement" is TiME at REST in GR;
$$ [So "movement" without "_time_elapsing_" is @ REST in SR & GR].
$$ <snicker adjusting crotch again>
$$ That's WHY some scientists claim "NOTHiNG moves, in SPACE-time.
$$ [REST mass is at REST in TiME as well as SPACE ..in SR and GR].

Quote:
What are the dimensions of the answer?

To any specific observer, clock, or object, time elapses at a rate
of 1 second per second. How could it be otherwise? > > Tom Roberts.

Re: WHY GR-coup, E=m*c^2, does NOT equate with Einstein's, m = E/c^2:
Re: [WHY a "moving" REST-mass is the *VELOCiTY-iNCREASED* REST-mass].
Re: [This is because REST-mass is "mass" which iNCREASEs with SPEED].
Re: [ANY SR & GR REST mass is at REST in TiME ..as well as in SPACE].
Re: [COUNTLESS smasher experiments confirm an *iNCREASED* REST-mass].
Re: The GR coup ..after Einstein died, REVERTED to "invariant" mass].

Re: It's all Soooo Amusing! <lingering bow> End of POST.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:56 am    Post subject: Re: It's all Soooo Amusing! Reply with quote

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:57:19 GMT, brian a m stuckless <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Quote:
Tom Roberts wrote: > > Henri Wilson wrote:
Many SRians here refer to 'movement through time'.

You are mistaken. Many cranks and idiots say that, not people
knowledgeable about SR or the use of the English language.

As I said before, this is not any sort of "movement" at all.
You are reading too much into a _metaphor_ (spacetime as a
geometrical manifold).

The questions I'm asking are: How is movement through time
assessed?

It isn't.
$$ <snicker>.

A human being, and a clock, and any other object, experience
elapsed proper time, and perhaps that's what you are thinking
of. This is not "movement", this is _time_elapsing_. <shrug
$$ <adjust crotch

$$ The "_time_elapsing_" without "movement" is TiME at REST in GR;
$$ [So "movement" without "_time_elapsing_" is @ REST in SR & GR].
$$ <snicker adjusting crotch again
$$ That's WHY some scientists claim "NOTHiNG moves, in SPACE-time.
$$ [REST mass is at REST in TiME as well as SPACE ..in SR and GR].

What are the dimensions of the answer?

To any specific observer, clock, or object, time elapses at a rate
of 1 second per second. How could it be otherwise? > > Tom Roberts.

Re: WHY GR-coup, E=m*c^2, does NOT equate with Einstein's, m = E/c^2:
Re: [WHY a "moving" REST-mass is the *VELOCiTY-iNCREASED* REST-mass].
Re: [This is because REST-mass is "mass" which iNCREASEs with SPEED].
Re: [ANY SR & GR REST mass is at REST in TiME ..as well as in SPACE].
Re: [COUNTLESS smasher experiments confirm an *iNCREASED* REST-mass].

No they don't. They show that a large amount energy is stored in the 'reverse
field bubble' around a fast moving charge.

Quote:
Re: The GR coup ..after Einstein died, REVERTED to "invariant" mass].

Re: It's all Soooo Amusing! <lingering bow> End of POST.

What's it feel like to be a genuine eccentric?


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:48 am    Post subject: Vu=10*("e")*Volt = POTENTiAL @ UNiT LENGTH from "UNiT CHARGE". Reply with quote

| Bilge wrote: > > guskz@hotmail.com: > >Bilge wrote:
-=-SNiP-=-
Quote:
eV means electron volt, which is defined as the change in
the energy of an electron when accelerated through a potential
difference of 1 volt. [10*("e")*{e}*Volt = Hartree energy eH.]
1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joules. [Where, Hartree eH = Vu*{e} Joules.]

$$ [Bilge forgets the "SPECiFiC" DUALiTY of eV.]
$$
$$ 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joule = SI STANDARD "electron-volt", energy.
$$
$$ 1.6 x 10^-19 Joule
$$ 1 eV = ------------------ = SI Quantum CHARGE {e} -> SI Amp*sec.
$$ SI unit Volt
$$
$$ This is BECAUSE the SI icon eV is ALSO the GENERAL Volt*Amp*sec.
$$
$$ The SI (Giorgi) System including a GENERAL, has a TRiNiTY of eV.
$$ The OTHER two "GENERAL Volt*Amp*sec energy" & SI "electronvolt".
$$ One of them is SI STANDARD electromagnetic "QUANTUM CHARGE {e}".
$$ [Vu=10*("e")*Volt = POTENTiAL @ UNiT LENGTH from "UNiT CHARGE"].
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Why don't protons attract due to gluons and only with neutrons? Reply with quote

| Bilge wrote: > > guskz@hotmail.com: > >Bilge wrote:
-=-SNiP-=-
Quote:
eV means electron volt, which is defined as the change in
the energy of an electron when accelerated through a potential
difference of 1 volt. [10*("e")*{e}*Volt = Hartree energy eH.]
1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joules. [Where, Hartree eH = Vu*{e} Joules.]

$$ [Bilge forgets the "SPECiFiC" DUALiTY of eV.]
$$
$$ 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joule = SI STANDARD "electron-volt", energy.
$$
$$ 1.6 x 10^-19 Joule
$$ 1 eV = ------------------ = SI Quantum CHARGE {e} -> SI Amp*sec.
$$ SI unit Volt
$$
$$ This is BECAUSE the SI icon eV is ALSO the GENERAL Volt*Amp*sec.
$$
$$ The SI (Giorgi) System including a GENERAL, has a TRiNiTY of eV.
$$ The OTHER two "GENERAL Volt*Amp*sec energy" & SI "electronvolt".
$$ One of them is SI STANDARD electromagnetic "QUANTUM CHARGE {e}".
$$ [Vu=10*("e")*Volt = POTENTiAL @ UNiT LENGTH from "UNiT CHARGE"].
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:27 am    Post subject: Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims Reply with quote

|Henri Wilson wrote: > > On 10 Jul 2006 19:49:49 -0700, "Randy Poe"
-=-SNiP-=-
Quote:
Andersen once claimed they are accurate to 4.6 parts
in 10^[-]10 to better than 1%. [That's 4.6*10^-10.]

$$ SHOW gamma as-applied for GPS Orbit/Surface air RATiO 4.6*10^-10.
$$ SHOW sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}="gamma", as-applied for, N_gps = 4.6*10^-10.
$$ SHOW sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}="gamma", as-applied for N_gps = ppm_A/ppm_3.
$$ SHOW sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}="gamma", as-applied in Orbital/STP, density.
$$ SHOW sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}="gamma" in a GPS atomic clock PREset factor.
$$ There is NO "gamma" term incorporated in any GR GPS "prediction".
$$ [SHOW "gamma" *EXACTLY* incorporated ..in a GR GPS "prediction"].

Quote:
- Randy
HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
$$ De-capitalization & brackets, mine. End of POST.
Back to top
ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org
science forum beginner


Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

S D Rodrian wrote:
[...]
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 one-line syllogism cannot exist.
A three-line syllogism is three times as impossible as a one-line
syllogism.
Therefore a three-line syllogism cannot exist.


fathom that


cordially

Y.T.

--
Remove YourClothes before you email me.
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:59 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

In article <1152660639.169171.304930@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
<ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org> wrote:

Quote:
S D Rodrian wrote:
[...]
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 one-line syllogism cannot exist.
A three-line syllogism is three times as impossible as a one-line
syllogism.
Therefore a three-line syllogism cannot exist.


fathom that


cordially

Y.T.

Poor Rodrian has been divorced from sanity for a long while. I hear it
was a messy separation too.

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
sdr
science forum addict


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:21 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org wrote:
Quote:
S D Rodrian wrote:
[...]
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 one-line syllogism cannot exist.
A three-line syllogism is three times as impossible as a one-line
syllogism.
Therefore a three-line syllogism cannot exist.
fathom that

cordially

Y.T.

DID: If A SINGLE BEACH BALL CANNOT EXIST....

Quote:
Remove YourClothes before you email me.

DID. Now my existence in this house is in question!

Darn,

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: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:18 am    Post subject: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzschild solution? Reply with quote

RePOST:
Quote:
IOW: this discussion is not in a vacuum, it is in the context of GR

$$ Any SPACE with "discussion" going on in it, clearly isN'T EMPTY.

Quote:
Do you "suspend your belief" that 1+1=2? Why ask me to "suspend
belief" for a concept equally well established?

$$ That BOTH (ALL) ones are identical is an ARBiTRARY *assumption*.
$$ [That 1+1=2, is a totally ARBiTRARY *ANTHROPOLOGiCAL* STANDARD].
$$ [Argument against SI (international) ARBiTRARY STANDARDs apply].
$$ [No MORE arbitrary to ASSUME SI than ASSUME all ONEs are EXACT].
$$ ASSUMPTiON that ALL ONEs are EXACT ..totally a HUMAN convention.
$$ [NATURE has no such LAW saying, "All ONEs _must_ be iDENTiCAL"].
$$ <adjust crotch>

Quote:
And you agreed that:
"In general relativity, above an event horizon of a black hole,
an object falling freely from REST at infinity passes each
altitude at a directly measured velocity equal to the escape
velocity there."

Yes. Given my other caveats.
[#] Relative to the succession of locally inertial frames
I discussed before. They only exist for r>2M.

In the region r>2M, escape velocity is always < c [Even for light].

$$ Mathematically in GR, the concept, (escape velocity)^2 is, 2*v1^2.
$$ Mathematically in GUESS iSS, (escape velocity)^2 = 2*(n - 1)*v1^2.
$$ [Where escape velocity, vesc, equals orbit velocity, v1, @ n=3/2].
$$
$$ There is NO iNERTiAL (REST) frame AT iNFiNiTY for a GR Black Hole.
$$ There can be nothing EXTERiOR to a GR Black Hole ..on a TiME-line.
$$
$$ You have STARTED CONTRADiCTiNG YOURSELF ..in the SAME essay, Tom!.

REPLY to:
| You don't seem to realize that there are _TWO_SET_ of Schwarzschild
| coordinates. One set is valid for r>2M and the other is valid for
| r<2M. They have no intersection. Yes, the exterior coordinates are
| not valid in the region r<2M. <shrug> | Tom Roberts.

$$ You have BEGUN to CONTRADiCT YOURSELF ..*per essay*, lately, Tom!.

Re: A Flaw of General Relativity, a New Metric and Cosmological Imps.
Back to top
gaiawars@webtv.net
science forum beginner


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com wrote:
Quote:
ytyourclothes@p.zapto.org wrote:
S D Rodrian wrote:
[...]
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 one-line syllogism cannot exist.
A three-line syllogism is three times as impossible as a one-line
syllogism.
Therefore a three-line syllogism cannot exist.
fathom that

cordially

Y.T.

DID: If A SINGLE BEACH BALL CANNOT EXIST....

Remove YourClothes before you email me.

DID. Now my existence in this house is in question!

Darn,

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


are you familiar, Rodrian, with current weather control technology?
Energetics is what the Russians call it. Do you understand the
bioelectromagnetics of changing a vine into a tree? If you can honestly
say yes and discourse on the associations between the two then you are
credible. If not, your detractors are credible.

-Gaiawar the Echosyn
Back to top
sdr
science forum addict


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

Echosyn wrote:

Quote:
are you familiar, Rodrian, with current weather control technology?
Energetics is what the Russians call it. Do you understand the
bioelectromagnetics of changing a vine into a tree? If you can honestly
say yes and discourse on the associations between the two then you are
credible. If not, your detractors are credible. -Gaiawar the Echosyn

Thank Goodness!

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

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 66 of 67 [993 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 64, 65, 66, 67 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:17 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: 0.0493s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0108s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]