| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 12:15:57 AM |
| Object: |
E = wLF Precedents |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
E = wLF Precedents
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005.
I introduced E = wLF on recent threads (with somewhat different
applications) in various sci. and other forums recently including
sci.physics, and one physicist in particular blew his wig and
accused me more or less of being an algebraic-obsessed incompe-
tent too old to compete with the real brains. In my curiosity
to figure out what was disturbing him (aside from his own
brain), since I couldn't even complete a conversation with him
by email without being insulted, I've spent a last few hours
looking through the internet to see whether a complex variable
w (the Schrodinger/Schroedinger wave function) is really so
unprecedented in dimensional analysis, and likewise complex
energy E = E1 + iE2 with E2 the Bohm quantum potential, and
despite the lack of an index on the internet I already have
one "hit": "A biologically inspired passive antenna for steering
control of a running robot," by Noah J. Cowan, Emily J. Ma,
Mark Cutkosky, and Robert J. Full (respectively Johns Hopkins,
Stanford, U.C. Berkeley, with grants from NSF, ONR, and DARPA/
ONR), http://limbo.me.jhu.edu/~ncowan/Publications/cowan-issr03
..pdf, 2003. The paper uses a dimensional complex frequency
among other things as well as a dimensionless complex frequency.
A contributor to scientific or mathematical discussion groups
or forums should not have to defend orientation toward dimension-
al analysis in part of his/her work as opposed to tensors, and
in fact some of the equations that can be derived from E = wLF
or /E/^2 = PL^2/F/^2 by setting pairs of variables equal to a
constant in toy models are interesting non-trivial differential
equations even if not tensors. Fortunately, nobody on sci.physics
has been so rude on sci.physics, but it is curious that even
an extremist like the person referred to above shares a
prejudice of some people on the .research groups who more
politely refer to dimensional analysis as "over-elementary" more
or less. If discrete spacetime and a discrete universe are
what we may expect from the "non-elementary" people, it may well
be time for us all to become more elementary and fundamental. I
should add that discrete spacetime has come at a cost in private
grants per main investigator of about $1,000,000 per year more
or less for many years.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: E = wLF Precedents |
20 Jan 2005 01:32:04 PM |
|
|
OsherD wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
E = wLF Precedents
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005.
I introduced E = wLF on recent threads (with somewhat different
applications) in various sci. and other forums recently including
sci.physics, and one physicist in particular blew his wig and
accused me more or less of being an algebraic-obsessed incompe-
tent too old to compete with the real brains.
[snip]
Trolling ineducable idiot. If empirical reality disagrees with your
maunder, then your maunder is *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: E = wLF Precedents |
20 Jan 2005 08:02:50 PM |
|
|
Well, well, the troll himself! I'll run away (see Campbell's analysis
of troll type myths). While I'm running, Aunt Al (or should I say
Jack), take a look at how your tensors and matrices relate to P(A-->B)
on sci.stat.math (they weren't supposed to according to your clipped
abbreviated Lenny Bruce type replies, were they?).
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: E = wLF Precedents |
21 Jan 2005 09:01:43 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, OsherD
<mdoctorow@comcast.net>
wrote
on 20 Jan 2005 18:02:50 -0800
<1106272970.034442.85610@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Well, well, the troll himself! I'll run away (see Campbell's analysis
of troll type myths). While I'm running, Aunt Al (or should I say
Jack), take a look at how your tensors and matrices relate to P(A-->B)
on sci.stat.math (they weren't supposed to according to your clipped
abbreviated Lenny Bruce type replies, were they?).
UncleAl is as much a troll as I am a physicist. :-P
(My career is software engineering. I hang out here as a hobby. :-) )
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
