|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
10 Jan 2005 09:26:29 PM |
|
|
nospam wrote:
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:9f181401.0501052257.2111294f@posting.google.com...
Althought SRian refuse to accept my theory, but till now
they did not point out any flaws of the mathematic derivation
of my theory. Perhaps there are something I do'nt know; If
you find any flaws of the mathematic derivation of my theory,
please kindly advise me; it's grateful.
My paper entitled "Magnetic force: Combining drag force
and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics" is at
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
Isn't Bernoulli's equation just an approximation?
Dear nospam,
Thank you for your question. I had the same question
when I was developing the theory. In fluid dynamics,
Bernoulli's equation is an approximation, because energy
is required by vibration, rotation etc of moleculars.
But to energy level, which ether dynamics in vacuum is,
Bernoulli's equation is the ideal case. Please refer to
Halliday's "Fundamentals of Physics", chaper 14, proof
of Bernoulli's equation.
Ka-In Yen
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
07 Feb 2005 04:15:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
nospam wrote:
Isn't Bernoulli's equation just an approximation?
Dear nospam,
Thank you for your question. I had the same question
when I was developing the theory. In fluid dynamics,
Bernoulli's equation is an approximation, because energy
is required by vibration, rotation etc of moleculars.
But to energy level, which ether dynamics in vacuum is,
Bernoulli's equation is the ideal case. Please refer to
Halliday's "Fundamentals of Physics", chaper 14, proof
of Bernoulli's equation.
Dear nospam,
Do you have any further questions?
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
07 Feb 2005 08:44:42 AM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
I just looked at your page:
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
I respond to your explicit invitation:
"If you find any flaws of the mathematical derivation of the theory,
please kindly advise me; it's grateful "
You represent Potential energy, Potential mass, and Linear density as
vector quantities.
A vector potential is not a state function - the total energy change
represented by motion of an affected particle through a vector field is
path-dependent. As a result it cannot represent a closed system as it
would violate conservation of energy.
Potential energy is a scalar field, and the force is the gradient
(vector derivative) of that potential.
Mass (and density) are scalar quantities. To have a directional
component to mass means that one could achieve negative mass in the
opposite direction, and that mass would vanish completely in some
intermediate direction.
Your obvious ignorance of basic the mathematics of physical principles
reduces the substance of your 'paper' to total crap.
Before you start 'deriving' you should become familiar with the basic
differences between scalars, vectors, fields, and forces.
Then study Physics 101 - freshman level college physics for students
who understand elementary calculus.
There have been many good physicists who have seriously considered
aether theories, and all have abandoned the idea based on the Principle
of Parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor). The 'aether' cannot possess *any*
measurable physical properties, and empirically exerts no influence on
matter or energy that could distinguish it from a total vacuum.
No momentum no energy, no flow, no mass, no density, no drag, no
viscosity, no buoyancy, no resistance to the motions of anything
embedded within it, etc...
If you can't *measure* it, and it doesn't *do* anything, it is a waste
of time to even consider it. All empirical data to date is consistent
with the body of theory in which the role of the empty space between
particles is filled with - *empty space*.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
27 Feb 2005 07:32:44 PM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
Ka-In Yen
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
I just looked at your page:
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
I respond to your explicit invitation:
"If you find any flaws of the mathematical derivation of the theory,
please kindly advise me; it's grateful "
Dear Tom,
Thank you for reading my paper, and your comment is highly
appreciated.
Mass (and density) are scalar quantities. To have a directional
component to mass means that one could achieve negative mass in the
opposite direction, and that mass would vanish completely in some
intermediate direction.
When you interact with the force of a spring, the mass of
the spring interacts with you. The force and the mass blend
together, there is no way to separate the force from the mass.
Both the force and the mass of spring are vector.
There have been many good physicists who have seriously considered
aether theories, and all have abandoned the idea based on the
Principle
of Parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor). The 'aether' cannot possess *any*
measurable physical properties, and empirically exerts no influence
on
matter or energy that could distinguish it from a total vacuum.
In 1846, Michael Faraday wrote in his paper: The consideration
of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines
of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant
phenomena. http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
28 Feb 2005 02:09:18 AM |
|
|
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1109554364.055222.67920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tadchem wrote:
Ka-In Yen
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
I just looked at your page:
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
I respond to your explicit invitation:
"If you find any flaws of the mathematical derivation of the
theory,
please kindly advise me; it's grateful "
Dear Tom,
Thank you for reading my paper, and your comment is highly
appreciated.
Mass (and density) are scalar quantities. To have a directional
component to mass means that one could achieve negative mass in
the
opposite direction, and that mass would vanish completely in some
intermediate direction.
When you interact with the force of a spring, the mass of
the spring interacts with you. The force and the mass blend
together, there is no way to separate the force from the mass.
Both the force and the mass of spring are vector.
No.
The problem of the spring with distibuted mass is fully understood in
the case of a spring which obeys ooke's Law.
In 1846, Michael Faraday wrote in his paper: The consideration
of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines
of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant
phenomena. http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
You are about 150 years too late.
Have you heard of Maxwell?
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
27 Mar 2005 09:37:00 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
When you interact with the force of a spring, the mass of
the spring interacts with you. The force and the mass blend
together, there is no way to separate the force from the mass.
Both the force and the mass of spring are vector.
No.
The problem of the spring with distibuted mass is fully understood in
the case of a spring which obeys ooke's Law.
Dear Franz,
When you do math, you must not neglect material. According
to Hook's law, another equation is derived:
kx^2/2=3DMv^2/2 (Potential energy equal to kinetic energy)(1)
M is the mass of a payload, and v is the maximum speed of the
payload.
| MMM
|/////////////MMM
| MMM
fixed end spring payload
But equation(1) is incomplete, the mass of spring is neglected.
We can rewrite it:
kx^2/2=3D(M+m/3)v'^2/2
m is the mass of spring, v' is the maximum speed of payload,
and v'<v. We can consider this is an example of ether dynamics.
In 1846, Michael Faraday wrote in his paper: The consideration
of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines
of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant
phenomena. http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
You are about 150 years too late.
Have you heard of Maxwell?
If my derivation was 150 years earlier, Maxwell would not
give up the lines of force. Maxwell's equation
c=3D1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) is the key link between electric force
and magnetic force. Below is my decipherment:
c =3D 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) =3D sqrt(PE/m) =3D sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
(For detail, please refer to my site below.)
This beautiful equation mathematically proves that lights
are waves on string. Simplicity is beautiful.
--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
27 Mar 2005 10:05:15 PM |
|
|
Dear Ka-In Yen:
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1111981020.308476.6610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
....
c = 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) = sqrt(PE/m) =
sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
(For detail, please refer to my site below.)
This beautiful equation mathematically proves
that lights are waves on string. Simplicity is
beautiful.
Christmas lights, maybe. Does this beautiful math describe the
photoelectric effect?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
27 Mar 2005 10:43:52 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
mass isn't a vector.
Vectors in Euclidean geometry have directions in ordinary language.
For example, when you drive a car or walk in the street or on the
sidewalk, you go in a particular direction with a particular speed, and
that defines a velocity vector v (written in boldface or with an arrow
above it to indicate that it is a vector). Its magnitude is either
written /v/ or v in non-boldface print or without an arrow on top of
it. Since all vectors are parallel to vectors beginning at the origin
(with tails at (0,0,0) in 3-dimensional Euclidean space), any vector in
3-dimensional Euclidean space can be represened as (x, y, z) which is
the vector that starts at the origin (0, 0, 0) where the coordinate
axes meet and has its tip or arrowhead on the point (x, y, z) such that
the perpendicular line segments from the point to the x-axis, y-axis,
and z-axis respectively hit those axes at the points labelled x, y, an
z.
Nobody has found a direction for mass. Weight has a direction
(downward toward the Earth vertically roughly speaking) but weight is a
force or pull of gravity near the Earth for example, and weight = mg (m
times g) where m is mass and g is the acceleration due to gravity. g
is constant near the surface of the Earth more or less. Acceleration
is the change of velocity as time changes, and since velocity is a
vector and time isn't usually taken as a vector, acceleration is a
vector. Since mg already has g as a (relatively constant) vector, mg
doesn't "need" a second "vector m" to have a direction.
If you find a direction for mass, let me know. I have people who will
pay top dollar for it. :>)
Osher
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
27 Mar 2005 10:55:46 PM |
|
|
OsherD wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
mass isn't a vector.
Vectors in Euclidean geometry have directions in ordinary language.
For example, when you drive a car or walk in the street or on the
sidewalk, you go in a particular direction with a particular speed, and
that defines a velocity vector v (written in boldface or with an arrow
above it to indicate that it is a vector). Its magnitude is either
written /v/ or v in non-boldface print or without an arrow on top of
it. Since all vectors are parallel to vectors beginning at the origin
(with tails at (0,0,0) in 3-dimensional Euclidean space), any vector in
3-dimensional Euclidean space can be represened as (x, y, z) which is
the vector that starts at the origin (0, 0, 0) where the coordinate
axes meet and has its tip or arrowhead on the point (x, y, z) such that
the perpendicular line segments from the point to the x-axis, y-axis,
and z-axis respectively hit those axes at the points labelled x, y, an
z.
Nobody has found a direction for mass. Weight has a direction
(downward toward the Earth vertically roughly speaking) but weight is a
force or pull of gravity near the Earth for example, and weight = mg (m
times g) where m is mass and g is the acceleration due to gravity. g
is constant near the surface of the Earth more or less. Acceleration
is the change of velocity as time changes, and since velocity is a
vector and time isn't usually taken as a vector, acceleration is a
vector. Since mg already has g as a (relatively constant) vector, mg
doesn't "need" a second "vector m" to have a direction.
If you find a direction for mass, let me know. I have people who will
pay top dollar for it. :>)
Osher
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22transverse+mass%22&btnG=Google+Search
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
28 Mar 2005 01:02:47 AM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3apgoeF6e3b84U1@individual.net...
|
|
| OsherD wrote:
|
| >>From Osher Doctorow
| >
| > I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
| > mass isn't a vector.
| >
| > Vectors in Euclidean geometry have directions in ordinary language.
| > For example, when you drive a car or walk in the street or on the
| > sidewalk, you go in a particular direction with a particular speed,
and
| > that defines a velocity vector v (written in boldface or with an
arrow
| > above it to indicate that it is a vector). Its magnitude is either
| > written /v/ or v in non-boldface print or without an arrow on top of
| > it. Since all vectors are parallel to vectors beginning at the
origin
| > (with tails at (0,0,0) in 3-dimensional Euclidean space), any vector
in
| > 3-dimensional Euclidean space can be represened as (x, y, z) which
is
| > the vector that starts at the origin (0, 0, 0) where the coordinate
| > axes meet and has its tip or arrowhead on the point (x, y, z) such
that
| > the perpendicular line segments from the point to the x-axis,
y-axis,
| > and z-axis respectively hit those axes at the points labelled x, y,
an
| > z.
| >
| > Nobody has found a direction for mass. Weight has a direction
| > (downward toward the Earth vertically roughly speaking) but weight
is a
| > force or pull of gravity near the Earth for example, and weight = mg
(m
| > times g) where m is mass and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
g
| > is constant near the surface of the Earth more or less.
Acceleration
| > is the change of velocity as time changes, and since velocity is a
| > vector and time isn't usually taken as a vector, acceleration is a
| > vector. Since mg already has g as a (relatively constant) vector,
mg
| > doesn't "need" a second "vector m" to have a direction.
| >
| > If you find a direction for mass, let me know. I have people who
will
| > pay top dollar for it. :>)
| >
| > Osher
|
|
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22transverse+mass%22&btnG=Google+Search
Heck, no wonder we haven't seen the direction. Dang stuff has been
going sideways on us. ;-)
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
18 Apr 2005 01:53:44 AM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3apgoeF6e3b84U1@individual.net...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22transverse+mass%22&btnG=Google+Search
Heck, no wonder we haven't seen the direction. Dang stuff has been
going sideways on us. ;-)
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Dear FrediFizzx,
Thank you for the information you provide. Bernoulli's equation
is a fine tool to certify a theory of dynamics. I suggest that
physicists apply Bernoulli's equation to field theory; they can
try their best effort to avoid the ether dynamics.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
24 Apr 2005 08:01:03 PM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Dear FrediFizzx,
Thank you for the information you provide. Bernoulli's equation
is a fine tool to certify a theory of dynamics. I suggest that
physicists apply Bernoulli's equation to field theory; they can
try their best effort to avoid the ether dynamics.
Can we derive Bernoulli force from a gas of virtual photons?
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
Paper: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
Home: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
12 Apr 2005 08:08:19 PM |
|
|
OsherD wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
mass isn't a vector.
Dear Osher,
Thank you for your e-course of geometry, it's helpfull.
All equations come from material, this is a major difference
between physics and mathematics. If the potential mass of
spring can be confirmed experimentally, the mass of a compressed
spring heavier than the mass of the spring relaxed, than
we should say the physical potential-mass gives the force
a direction.
If you find a direction for mass, let me know. I have people who
will
pay top dollar for it. :>)
PLEASE, let me know who are those people.
--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
21 Apr 2005 02:21:41 AM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen wrote:
OsherD wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
mass isn't a vector.
Dear Osher,
Thank you for your e-course of geometry, it's helpfull.
All equations come from material, this is a major difference
between physics and mathematics. If the potential mass of
spring can be confirmed experimentally, the mass of a compressed
spring heavier than the mass of the spring relaxed, than
we should say the physical potential-mass gives the force
a direction.
Dear Osher,
Do you have any further questions? Is mass vector
acceptable? Your comment is highly appreciated.
Ka-In Yen
--
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
01 May 2005 10:00:48 PM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen wrote:
OsherD wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
mass isn't a vector.
Dear Osher,
Thank you for your e-course of geometry, it's helpfull.
All equations come from material, this is a major difference
between physics and mathematics. If the potential mass of
spring can be confirmed experimentally, the mass of a compressed
spring heavier than the mass of the spring relaxed, than
we should say the physical potential-mass gives the force
a direction.
The physics of 20th century was incomplete, mass vector
was absent. Einstein's STR was based on an incomplete
physics.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
Paper: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
Home: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
02 May 2005 12:12:06 AM |
|
|
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1115002848.925178.264010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Ka-In Yen wrote:
OsherD wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
mass isn't a vector.
Dear Osher,
Thank you for your e-course of geometry, it's helpfull.
All equations come from material, this is a major difference
between physics and mathematics. If the potential mass of
spring can be confirmed experimentally, the mass of a compressed
spring heavier than the mass of the spring relaxed, than
we should say the physical potential-mass gives the force
a direction.
The physics of 20th century was incomplete, mass vector
was absent. Einstein's STR was based on an incomplete
physics.
Since the STR is based on the POR how it can be made more complete without
going to GR is beyond me.
Bill
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
Paper: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
Home: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "yen, ka-in" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
09 May 2005 12:11:43 AM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen wrote:
OsherD wrote:
From Osher Doctorow
If you find a direction for mass, let me know. I have people who
will pay top dollar for it. :>)
PLEASE, let me know who are those people.
Dear Osher,
Do you have any further question? Is mass vector
acceptable? Can I get the said top dollar?
Ka-In Yen
--
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
Paper: http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
Home: http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
12 Apr 2005 07:57:29 PM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Ka-In Yen:
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1111981020.308476.6610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
c =3D 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) =3D sqrt(PE/m) =3D
sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
(For detail, please refer to my site below.)
This beautiful equation mathematically proves
that lights are waves on string. Simplicity is
beautiful.
Christmas lights, maybe. Does this beautiful math describe the
photoelectric effect?
Dear David,
Thank you for your question. I had the same question when
I was developing this theory. A wave on string is honestly
transported from emitting end to receiving end without
dispersion(Here we neglect the friction of string). It is
differnet from a sound wave.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
12 Apr 2005 10:34:35 PM |
|
|
Dear Ka-In Yen:
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1113353849.125991.206830@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Ka-In Yen:
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1111981020.308476.6610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
c = 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) = sqrt(PE/m) =
sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
(For detail, please refer to my site below.)
This beautiful equation mathematically proves
that lights are waves on string. Simplicity is
beautiful.
Christmas lights, maybe. Does this beautiful
math describe the photoelectric effect?
Dear David,
Thank you for your question. I had the same
question when was developing this theory.
A wave on string is honestly transported
from emitting end to receiving end without
dispersion(Here we neglect the friction of
string). It is differnet from a sound wave.
It doesn't describe the photoelectric effect. Two "waves" can
arrive simultaneously, yet not boost an electron. Even though
together they should have enough energy to do so. Waves on
string(s) can be additive.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
18 Apr 2005 01:31:36 AM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1113353849.125991.206830@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for your question. I had the same
question when was developing this theory.
A wave on string is honestly transported
from emitting end to receiving end without
dispersion(Here we neglect the friction of
string). It is differnet from a sound wave.
It doesn't describe the photoelectric effect. Two "waves" can
arrive simultaneously, yet not boost an electron. Even though
together they should have enough energy to do so. Waves on
string(s) can be additive.
Dear David,
You ask a good question, and I can not answer your question
in a short time. To add two waves on two strings across an
electron, you have to consider the polarization of light,
the incident angle, and photon-to-electron ration etc.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
27 Mar 2005 10:46:09 PM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Ka-In Yen" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
When you interact with the force of a spring, the mass of
the spring interacts with you. The force and the mass blend
together, there is no way to separate the force from the mass.
Both the force and the mass of spring are vector.
No.
The problem of the spring with distibuted mass is fully understood in
the case of a spring which obeys ooke's Law.
Dear Franz,
When you do math, you must not neglect material. According
to Hook's law, another equation is derived:
kx^2/2=Mv^2/2 (Potential energy equal to kinetic energy)(1)
M is the mass of a payload, and v is the maximum speed of the
payload.
| MMM
|/////////////MMM
| MMM
fixed end spring payload
But equation(1) is incomplete, the mass of spring is neglected.
We can rewrite it:
kx^2/2=(M+m/3)v'^2/2
m is the mass of spring, v' is the maximum speed of payload,
and v'<v. We can consider this is an example of ether dynamics.
In 1846, Michael Faraday wrote in his paper: The consideration
of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines
of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant
phenomena. http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
You are about 150 years too late.
Have you heard of Maxwell?
If my derivation was 150 years earlier, Maxwell would not
give up the lines of force. Maxwell's equation
c=1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) is the key link between electric force
and magnetic force. Below is my decipherment:
c = 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) = sqrt(PE/m) = sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
(For detail, please refer to my site below.)
I took me a minute to figure out what you were saying. This is very
interesting, OTOH, a mathematical relationship does not a cause equal.
Perhaps the linear density is just an artifact of SR??
Richard Perry
This beautiful equation mathematically proves that lights
are waves on string. Simplicity is beautiful.
--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
18 Apr 2005 07:42:20 PM |
|
|
RP wrote:
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Franz Heymann wrote:
It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
You are about 150 years too late.
Have you heard of Maxwell?
If my derivation was 150 years earlier, Maxwell would not
give up the lines of force. Maxwell's equation
c=3D1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) is the key link between electric force
and magnetic force. Below is my decipherment:
c =3D 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) =3D sqrt(PE/m) =3D sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
(For detail, please refer to my site below.)
I took me a minute to figure out what you were saying. This is very
interesting, OTOH, a mathematical relationship does not a cause
equal.
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your comment. It is a high probability that
a flawless derivation has some physical meaning. Beside
the controversive mass-vector, do you find any flaw of
the mathematic derivation of this theory? Your comment is
highly appreciated.
Perhaps the linear density is just an artifat of SR??
--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
21 Apr 2005 11:39:14 PM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Franz Heymann wrote:
You are about 150 years too late.
Have you heard of Maxwell?
If my derivation was 150 years earlier, Maxwell would not
give up the lines of force. Maxwell's equation
c=3D1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) is the key link between electric force
and magnetic force. Below is my decipherment:
c =3D 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) =3D sqrt(PE/m) =3D sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
(For detail, please refer to my site below.)
This beautiful equation mathematically proves that lights
are waves on string. Simplicity is beautiful.
Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
Do you have any further questions?
Is mass-vector acceptable?
Beside the controversive mass-vector, do you find any
flaws of the mathematic derivation of this theory?
your comment is highly expected.
Ka-In Yen
--
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ka-In Yen" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
24 Apr 2005 07:49:50 PM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
Do you have any further questions?
Is mass-vector acceptable?
Beside the controversive mass-vector, do you find any
flaws of the mathematic derivation of this theory?
your comment is highly expected.
Hello guys,
What's the meaning of silence?
Ka-In Yen
--
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "yen, ka-in" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
09 May 2005 10:47:30 PM |
|
|
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
Do you have any further questions?
Is mass-vector acceptable?
Beside the controversive mass-vector, do you find any
flaws of the mathematic derivation of this theory?
your comment is highly expected.
SRians always describe themselves to be vastly superior to
crackpots, but the mass vector is beyond their superiority.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
09 May 2005 11:22:40 PM |
|
|
"yen, ka-in" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1115696850.854431.193120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
Do you have any further questions?
Is mass-vector acceptable?
Beside the controversive mass-vector, do you find any
flaws of the mathematic derivation of this theory?
your comment is highly expected.
SRians always describe themselves to be vastly
superior to crackpots, but the mass vector is
beyond their superiority.
Look mommy! It is a troll in sheep's clothing...
What's the matter, nobody want to pet your pet theory?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "yen, ka-in" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
03 Jun 2005 08:51:51 PM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"yen, ka-in" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1115696850.854431.193120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
SRians always describe themselves to be vastly
superior to crackpots, but the mass vector is
beyond their superiority.
Look mommy! It is a troll in sheep's clothing...
What's the matter, nobody want to pet your pet theory?
Dear David,
Thank you for your comment. The principle of identity
is very important to logic, and logic is the foundation
of science. The principle of identity:
If A=3DB and B=3DC, then A=3DC.
Now let us measure the length of an embankment of a train
station.
1) L0 is the length of the embankment measured by an observer
in the rest frame s0.
(A=3DB, L0 is A, length of embankment is B)
2) L1 is the length of the embankment measured by an observer
in an inertial frame s1.
(B=3DC, length of embankment is B, L1 is C)
3) Then L0=3DL1.
(A=3DC)
It seems that lenghth contraction is illogical.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
Paper: http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee/mdb2.html
Home: http://www.geocities.com/redlo=ADrikee
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
04 Jun 2005 01:48:22 AM |
|
|
Dear yen, ka-in:
"yen, ka-in" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1117849910.972071.153500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"yen, ka-in" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1115696850.854431.193120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ka-In Yen wrote:
Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
SRians always describe themselves to be vastly
superior to crackpots, but the mass vector is
beyond their superiority.
Look mommy! It is a troll in sheep's clothing...
What's the matter, nobody want to pet your pet theory?
Thank you for your comment. The principle of identity
is very important to logic, and logic is the foundation
of science. The principle of identity:
If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
Rather than your misapplication of logic, why don't you
concentrate on the postulates? What is it about Maxwell's
equations that you disagree with? Because they provide for OWLS
= c, and special relativity only says the laws of physics is the
same for all inertial observers. Maxwell's equations equate to
"laws of physics".
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "yen, ka-in" |
|
| Title: Re: Flaws wanted |
25 Jun 2005 10:49:40 PM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear yen, ka-in:
"yen, ka-in" <yenkain@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1117849910.972071.153500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for your comment. The principle of identity
is very important to logic, and logic is the foundation
of science. The principle of identity:
If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
Rather than your misapplication of logic, why don't you
concentrate on the postulates? What is it about Maxwell's
Dear David,
Thank you for your comment. Einstein suggest that photon
is massless, but according Poincare's derivation the mass
of photon is m=E/c^2. please refer to
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einx.htm
equations that you disagree with? Because they provide for OWLS
^^^^^^^^
Lines of force vs field.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics.
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
= c, and special relativity only says the laws of physics is the
same for all inertial observers. Maxwell's equations equate to
"laws of physics".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
