Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
Author Message
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:26 am    Post subject: Bi-focal FoR stereoscopic.

\$\$ Sue... wrote: > > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > > Dear Sue:
 Quote: "Sue..." wrote in message news:1150691649.542392.312190@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... -=- There is only one object in the box containing the gun and the rabbit with the kind of structure we normally associate with the storage of energy. The atomic structure of the bullet is where students of relativity that speak of particle accelerators and pair anhilation should be able to localise the mass/energy equivalent of the expended gunpowder. They'd be making a mistake. "Relativity" implies "between two frames".

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

 Quote: -=- Not just a bullet, but a bullet and everything at rest wrt the gun (and/or rabbit). The frames can still be defined as coherent matter. The induction barycentre is one FoR. The centre of mass is another FoR. In 'freefall' the barycenter lies between the centre of mass and the attractor.

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

 Quote: I am still wrestling with how the barycentre should move when a batter strikes his self-pitched baseball. The bat has insufficient mass to effect the displacement of an induction center (the ball could, as well, fire a rocket booster) so some advancing and retarding of the cohering signals to affect molecular structure seems necessary. I seem to recall some of the Tajmar - de Matos papers had some calculations involving retarded time Some review might give some insight how such a mechanism could work in terms of a Maxwell field's advanced and retarded time.

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

 Quote: Ahhh ...when I get my chores caught up. > > > Sue... If you build your bullet with these: http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html and couple them to the remainder of the mass in the universe then you can plot the energy within the ball as the centre of mass and barycenter move in relation with each other.

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

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

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
 The time now is Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:03 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 How find focal length of lens at home? Waffa Physics 11 Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:39 pm Stereoscopic bi-focal FoR. brian a m stuckless Electromagnetics 0 Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:57 pm Focal length of lens and power Andres E Physics 7 Mon May 23, 2005 4:22 pm