| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Douglas Eagleson" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2005 11:21:35 AM |
| Object: |
Absolute Motion in Gravity-A short Comment |
The phrase, "absolute motion in gravity" appears to imply a kind of
movement not yet given a relative interpretation. A simple test for
the proper absolute motion definition is as follows:
"A signal alteration."
A signal without cause to alter is just another motion.
Making the word "absolute" truly only a modifier of subjective utility.
Cahill has defined the absolute motion as always relative to dark
energy, by the way.
And the frame of reference as seen in the interferometer signals is
taken to be that of dark energy in Cahill's work? maybe I forget.
And here is the dilemma of relative measure. A cause would require
another kind of signal to prove. Move some heavy mass! And see the
signal change. And the moving earth is then used to prove the proper
cause. Two signals effect the interferometer, relativity and the
movment of the earth.
Cahill is trying to quite pendantically show the obvious. And he is
plaged by the nonlinear causality of the system. It is hard to grasp as
a single notion. But he is correct.
"A signal from the interferometer is caused by a reference frame
without a mass to define its location." A statement of the dislocation
in cognition used by Cahill.
I interpret the physical mass always in relation to the quanta emitted
and absorbed. And being a seeing person implies a sight of an
electron's quanta, not a gravitational masses'. Allowing the mass to
exist unseen and unfelt and walked through without any sensation.
And the gravity quanta quite necessarily see things differently.
Douglas Eagleson- Gaithersburg, MD USA
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute Motion in Gravity-A short Comment |
13 Jan 2005 12:05:27 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
The phrase, "absolute motion in gravity" appears to imply a kind of
movement not yet given a relative interpretation.
[snip]
Bloviating idiot. How about "yellow-colored blue sky?"
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Deutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute Motion in Gravity-A short Comment |
14 Jan 2005 10:49:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:05:27 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
The phrase, "absolute motion in gravity" appears to imply a kind of
movement not yet given a relative interpretation.
[snip]
Bloviating idiot. How about "yellow-colored blue sky?"
"Just like infra-red is invisible red light, infra-yellow is invisible
yellow light!"
Jim Deutch (Jimbocat)
--
"A sufficiency of state at a non-materially defined apparition
locality is the postulated cause of quantum dot movement."
- Douglas Eagleson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute Motion in Gravity-A short Comment |
13 Jan 2005 02:54:50 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
The phrase, "absolute motion in gravity" appears to imply a kind of
movement not yet given a relative interpretation.
[snip]
Bloviating idiot. How about "yellow-colored blue sky?"
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
A yellow air implies the truth already acceptable. A yellow
observation in the sky requires the alteration of the air to prove
the source.
A good analogy to gravity and the source of force.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute Motion in Gravity-A short Comment |
13 Jan 2005 03:49:30 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
The phrase, "absolute motion in gravity" appears to imply a kind of
movement not yet given a relative interpretation. A simple test for
the proper absolute motion definition is as follows:
"A signal alteration."
A signal without cause to alter is just another motion.
Making the word "absolute" truly only a modifier of subjective utility.
Cahill has defined the absolute motion as always relative to dark
energy, by the way.
Cahill is flawed... And your writing is ILLUCID
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute Motion in Gravity-A short Comment |
13 Jan 2005 04:01:27 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
The phrase, "absolute motion in gravity" appears to imply a kind of
movement not yet given a relative interpretation. A simple test for
the proper absolute motion definition is as follows:
Absolute motion with respect to what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute Motion in Gravity-A short Comment |
13 Jan 2005 07:33:09 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
The phrase, "absolute motion in gravity" appears to imply a kind of
movement not yet given a relative interpretation. A simple test
for
the proper absolute motion definition is as follows:
Absolute motion with respect to what?
I agree the concept of the absolute motion rather than relative
location is a hard topic.
A hidden variable is the best reason for the use of the term absolute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
