| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hanson" |
| Date: |
31 May 2007 12:16:00 AM |
| Object: |
Andro: Newton/Leibnitz + 300 years = Einstein |
was: --- re: Question: Why Is Particle Decay Probabilistic? ---
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:l127i.36769$4a.36238@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/msg/2ddce6782a0be026
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:RYY6i.6071$XC3.4017@trnddc04...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/msg/3ded9a181d0c840e
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/msg/1bbc564720bf7977
: Louis Savain"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
: news:nm8o5314foubkg3ae7onbvglvh2io5sr1m@4ax.com...
: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/msg/51a1c9112bae9501
[Andro]
I quite enjoy your style,
[hanson]
Aye, thank you Sir, likewise. You comment is balsam for my soul.
[Andro]
....but I have to say your personal wannabe, Louis Insane,
who constantly cranks himself with such statements as "no such
thing as time" and "Have I cranked you?"(thereby stealing your
thunder), is a hahaha fucking lunatic.
Still, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I suppose he's
harmless.
[hanson]
.... ahaha.. AHAHAHAHA...AHAHAHA... This is one of the
nicest compliments I have received on the Usenet: "People
stealing my thunder"... I have news for you: Anybody can
have any and all of my posted notions... for their private
or public use... for free, ... even without any attribution. ...
.....ahahaha... To issue #2:... I don't think that Louis Savain
is neither personal nor lunatic,.... Excentric , yes. ...a class.
into which you yourself do belong to also, Andro. And I do
like excentric people. They are the shakers and the movers.
Basically, Savain tries to describe nature from the pov of a
particle instead of the commonly used pov of an anthropic
observer notion. In the process of doing so he simply transfers
some of the observer noted properties (like time & distance)
INTO the body-particle itself and labels then as their intrinsic
properties.
So, that makes him by no means dangerous, although many of
NG posters do perceive it/him that way... a perception that
he clearly relishes and cleverly amplifies by calling anyone who
does not subscribe to his set of ideas as an ***** kisser....
ahahaha....
When it comes to the free exchange of ideas, that do not involve
my money, I enjoy almost everything for the sheer fun of it.
My own prejudices and preferences on this level of musing
about nature do go back to Ernst Mach, who according
to Phillip Frank once said:
----- "This is not physics. It is NOT radial enough!" -------
To me there is nothing more boring than these traditional, trite
and endless repetitions of quarrels by REL specialists and
-teachers over the same lame issues of "Lorentz transformation"
and whether there is or is not an FLT or c'=c+v. ... ahahaha...
For obvious reasons there is an ominous paucity about the known
fact that , since the time of Newton and Leibnitz, that when/if
one describes the mass-energy increase associated cause by/
with speed increases in small additive steps of dm/m = dv/ve^2
and then expresses the process as a series, which then, after
summing/integrating it from initial (v) to the final speed (ve), one
ends up with a (parabolic) cosh-function, that is the very same
equation that Einstein, ~300 years later, stole from his wife, Mileva
Maric's manuscript, that became "his" infamous 1905 paper. The
only difference is that Einstein's SR, by choice, is limited to one
single terminal velocity of ve = c, making SR a subset of the older
Newton/Leibnitz views which are valid for ANY terminal velocity,
and not limited to a fixed "c". ---- So, SR is nothing new at all.
Einstein Dingleberries often and proudly point out that SR/GR
has been confirmed by many experiments. True, but theories
just being stories do have the innate and intrinsic ability to be
adaptable to any chosen environment given enough money,
time and other resources needed to confirm the story. IOW,
ANY theory into which as much money, time and manpower is
infused into, as was and is done for SR/GR will be confirmed
by equally many experiments. So, SR/GR is not even unique in
that respect, except that its relentless promotion made it into
the heuristically accepted catechism for Einstein's Dingleberries,
that affected their mentation a much as their religious scriptures.
The longer I hang around with the Einstein Dingleberry crowd the
clearer it becomes to me why that SR/GR stuff was labeled as
"überspitzte Juden physik in the 1930s.... ahahaha... But not only
they but also these luminaries expressed similar notions: see # 1-8
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/614e2af5427ad4cb
which include the words: "In the future, Humanity will see in our
Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially associated with the
names of Marx, Freud and Einstein.. in which the last seven
decades of the 20th century will be characterized in history as the
dark ages of physics, which cannot be based on the field concept"
(the latter part & view is by Einstein himself, some 25 years later)
Notions from the golden age of physics are described in here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a63cf4e48f52faca
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/238affeb3f3aa1e3
wherein wild ideas are being tossed around Mach's comment, that:
"When the subway jerks, it's the fixed stars that throw you down", &
the spread-velocity or the feeler-speed of the gravitational force that
is estimated to be around 6.02E+71 cm/s, some 10^61 times faster
then "c"... and hence does not produce any retardation of effects and
luckily simplifies Newton's equation to the standard form of
F = GmM/r^2.
In my view all the stuff we discuss(ed) here are mental flights of fancy
which Max Planck has cast into different words with same meaning:
=== "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
=== disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/432bc804e66daab2
So, let us continue with rhyming and chiming and cussing... ahahaha...
Take care, Andro,
ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: Andro: Newton/Leibnitz + 300 years = Einstein |
10 Jun 2007 03:03:19 PM |
|
|
well, that's cool, guys.
thus quoth:
As with Amp=E8re, Weber chose to present the results in the mathematical
format of a force law, in this case as the force between pairs of
electrical particles. On the suggestion of Gustav Fechner, the
epistemological psychologist and student of the Zend Avesta who was
later to influence Bernhard Riemann, Weber chose to represent current
flow in a wire as the motion in opposite directions of oppositely
charged electrical particles. By analysis of their relative velocities
and accelerations, the anomaly expressed by Amp=E8re as an angular term
now appeared as a diminution in the force of attraction or repulsion
due to relative motion. Taking into account the laws of induction,
unknown to Amp=E8re in 1826, Weber developed a universal expression for
the electrical action, in which the static electric (Coulomb) forces
were merely the degenerate case in which the relative motion has gone
to zero.
Weber's results meant that there was some relative velocity at which
the force of replusion between oppositely charged electrical particles
would fall to zero. Mathematically, this took the form of a constant
within his expression for the force, and for the potential, between
the particle pairs. That value was known throughout most of the 19th
Century as the Weber constant. In a remarkable series of experiments
which he carried out in 1855 upon his return to G=F6ttingen University,
the value of the Weber constant was found to be the product of the
velocity of light times the square root of 2. The experiments, at
which Riemann was an observer and sometime assistant, were conducted
with Rudolf Kohlrausch.
That determination of a universal "speed limit," usually associated
with Einstein's 1905 formulation of Special Relativity, was already
implicit in entries in Gauss's notebooks dating to 1833, where Gauss
had proposed the relativistic formulation of the electrodynamic law.
Einstein's later formulation derived from his unique conception of the
relativity of simultaneity, but unfortunately was formulated as an
attempt to save the appearances of the Maxwellian formulation.
Maxwell's rejection of the Amp=E8re-Gauss-Weber work had by then become
codified within the teaching of physics in Germany, thanks largely to
the undermining efforts of Helmholtz.
The replacement of the Amp=E8re-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics by the
Maxwell formulations, is usually justified on the ground that it
permitted the unification of electrical with optical phenomena, under
the concept of electromagnetic waves. However, an examination of the
1845 Gauss-Weber correspondence shows that Gauss had already
entertained the idea of electrical waves in the ether, but rejected it
only on the grounds that a "constructible representation" of the
phenomena was lacking. Riemann recognized the deep significance of the
1855 Weber-Kohlrausch experiments, and in an 1858 paper, "A
Contribution to Electrodynamics,"[6] whose publication was suppressed
by Rudolf Clausius, Riemann formulated a relativistic wave theory,
based on a concept of retarded propagation of potential.
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3415weber.html
----- "This is not physics. It is not RADIAL enough!" -------
To me there is nothing more boring than these traditional, trite
and endless repetitions of quarrels by REL specialists and
-teachers over the same lame issues of "Lorentz transformation"
and whether there is or is not an FLT or c'=3Dc+v. ... ahahaha...
For obvious reasons there is an ominous paucity about the known
fact that , since the time of Newton and Leibnitz, that when/if
one describes the mass-energy increase associated cause by/
with speed increases in small additive steps of dm/m =3D dv/ve^2
and then expresses the process as a series, which then, after
summing/integrating it from initial (v) to the final speed (ve), one
ends up with a (parabolic) cosh-function, that is the very same
equation that Einstein, ~300 years later, stole from his wife, Mileva
Maric's manuscript, that became "his" infamous 1905 paper. The
only difference is that Einstein's SR, by choice, is limited to one
single terminal velocity of ve =3D c, making SR a subset of the older
Newton/Leibnitz views which are valid for ANY terminal velocity,
and not limited to a fixed "c". ---- So, SR is nothing new at all.
Einstein Dingleberries often and proudly point out that SR/GR
has been confirmed by many experiments. True, but theories
just being stories do have the innate and intrinsic ability to be
adaptable to any chosen environment given enough money,
time and other resources needed to confirm the story. IOW,
ANY theory into which as much money, time and manpower is
infused into, as was and is done for SR/GR will be confirmed
by equally many experiments. So, SR/GR is not even unique in
that respect, except that its relentless promotion made it into
the heuristically accepted catechism for Einstein's Dingleberries,
that affected their mentation a much as their religious scriptures.
The longer I hang around with the Einstein Dingleberry crowd the
clearer it becomes to me why that SR/GR stuff was labeled as
"=FCberspitzte Juden physik in the 1930s.... ahahaha... But not only
they but also these luminaries expressed similar notions: see # 1-8http:/=
/groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/614e2af5427ad4cb
which include the words: "In the future, Humanity will see in our
Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially associated with the
names of Marx, Freud and Einstein.. in which the last seven
decades of the 20th century will be characterized in history as the
dark ages of physics, which cannot be based on the field concept"
(the latter part & view is by Einstein himself, some 25 years later)
thus:
you are interpolating the notation for the integer, one,
with that of the "real number,"
1=2E0000...,
which is exactly equal to 0.9999...,
by definition circa 15cce in _The Decimals_;
get over it!...
so, 3.14259999... is the same
as 3.14160000..., and so on,
with a possible quibble about "places of accuracy;"
the problem is inherent to "digitization,"
except for the base of one --
Duh Queda?
thus:
ah, this looks like a good exercise
for comprehending "absolute value" function,
as well as of the trilateral inequality.
know the tetrahedral version?
| x - y | >=3D | |x| - |y| |
means these two things:
| x - y | >=3D |x| - |y|
| x - y | >=3D |y| - |x|
both of which are pretty clear from the triangle inequality.
thus:
I don't get your notation;
are you also referring to the trisectors
of the exterior angle of C, the supplement, and
are all of the points on the same line, but C?
In a triangle ABC trisectors of vertex angle C intersect AB at ta and
tb internally & TB and TA externally. What well known or interesting
(choosing your own definition of what that could be) circles could
pass through three or more of the points C, ta, tb,TA and TB if their
positions are to remain fixed on AB? (Attempt to generalize
thus:
according to _17 Essays on the Fermat Numbers_
from the SMC, Fermat retracted this conjecture
in a letter to Frenecle (sp.?).
false. Fermat numbers are of the form 2^2^n+1 and the
thus:
in Sudan, Iran and possibly all other once and
future British quagmires.... Belize, Canada, Trinidad
AND Tobago; when we get there,
be sure to ask if it's more than one country, and
did we miss Trinidad andOR Tobago?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_s
tudy_says_oil_reliance_strains_military?mode=3DPF
thus:
look, up in the sky -- it's Googoltude (TM) ?!?
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
--n~nerfman~n!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
