| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mitchell" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 05:23:44 PM |
| Object: |
From 3D to 2D |
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
15 Aug 2004 07:37:22 AM |
|
|
"Mitchell" <macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:9c3da975.0408131423.60ca4952@posting.google.com...
| If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
| your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
| If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
| You would be 2 dimensional.
Two dimensional beings come in halves. There is no connection bridging the
gap from mouth to *****, and hot air escapes from each end. With this
observation I conclude you are farting out of the mouth.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 12:08:11 AM |
|
|
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| PLEASE | | BEST TO IGNORE ATTENTION SEEKING TROLLS |
| DO NOT | | LIKE SETO & RAEMSCH -- THEY DRY |
| FEED | | UP AND BLOW AWAY WITHOUT FEEDBACK |
| DA | | |
| TROLLS | | http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ |
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
`\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' /
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 03:52:48 PM |
|
|
(Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0408131423.60ca4952@posting.google.com>...
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
To make the relationship obey nature is the inverted
relativity of Einstein. Nature is found to obey
relativity.
So the dimension obeys like you say. A lost
dimension is implied. And so the capacity to meet
or exceed the speed of light is the next relation
of theory to consider.
Can the particle be accelerated beyond c? And the
blue light emitting electron is found to be doing
just this. It exceeds the speed of light in the
medium.
But, in vacumn the electron just begins to emitt.
And it will emmit to the infinite power level of the
source of acceleration. Meaning the lost dimension
is forever a boundary solution of the partial.
What partial differential states this system?
And here c is a constant of integration only.
A solution constant of nature.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
So the relation is then transformed to the
relative acceleration. And here the blue light
is inverted to decelerate.
So quanta emission is implied as the inverted speed.
Speed relative to c in the medium.
And here, getting the particle to emitted in a vacumn
is the question. Is it possible? And so the meaning
of absolute dimensional loss is the resolution.
Space will litterally flatten to 2d instead of
light emission.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 08:46:23 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<43d9f575.0408141252.6b89cd10@posting.google.com>...
macromitch@internetCDS.com (Mitchell) wrote in message news:<9c3da975.0408131423.60ca4952@posting.google.com>...
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
To make the relationship obey nature is the inverted
relativity of Einstein. Nature is found to obey
relativity.
So the dimension obeys like you say. A lost
dimension is implied. And so the capacity to meet
or exceed the speed of light is the next relation
of theory to consider.
Can the particle be accelerated beyond c? And the
blue light emitting electron is found to be doing
just this. It exceeds the speed of light in the
medium.
But, in vacumn the electron just begins to emitt.
And it will emmit to the infinite power level of the
source of acceleration. Meaning the lost dimension
is forever a boundary solution of the partial.
So the relation is then transformed to the
relative acceleration. And here the blue light
is inverted to decelerate.
So quanta emission is implied as the inverted speed.
Speed relative to c in the medium.
And here, getting the particle to emitted in a vacumn
is the question. Is it possible? And so the meaning
of absolute dimensional loss is the resolution.
Space will litterally flatten to 2d instead of
light emission.
What partial differential states this system?
And here c is a constant of integration only.
A solution constant of nature.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
Sorry the thing was split up the first time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Oneagle" |
|
| Title: Morituri Max |
03 Sep 2004 09:33:02 PM |
|
|
I apologize for busting in to a topic/conversation I know nothing
about, but are you the Morituri Max I know from Alternity.net and
Tequilastarrise.net?
If so, I've been trying very hard to contact you. Please e-mail me
at and let me know if I've found the right man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
13 Aug 2004 05:28:46 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
but you can't
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
13 Aug 2004 07:07:29 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
You are an idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Wellpoth" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
13 Aug 2004 05:31:13 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably the first right thing i here from you. Now give me a derivation of
the Lorentz contraction.
mw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
13 Aug 2004 07:48:05 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
Az die bobbah hat baytzim, gevaynee mein zedah.
If my grandma had balls, she would be my grandpa.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
13 Aug 2004 08:47:27 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Mitchell wrote:
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
Az die bobbah hat baytzim, gevaynee mein zedah.
If my grandma had balls, she would be my grandpa.
This is more formally wrought Yiddish - I checked it out.
"Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim, volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 12:41:17 AM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
Not in your own reference frame. In your own reference frame every
thing would appear normal and your clocks would continue to keep perfect
time.
It's all relative, see?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 12:57:06 PM |
|
|
dkomo wrote:
Not in your own reference frame. In your own reference frame every
thing would appear normal and your clocks would continue to keep perfect
time.
It's all relative, see?
Nah, he's retarded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 04:56:51 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<SnsTc.10950$nu2.3816@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
dkomo wrote:
Not in your own reference frame. In your own reference frame every
thing would appear normal and your clocks would continue to keep perfect
time.
It's all relative, see?
Nah, he's retarded.
Not everything is relative. Einstein regreted calling his theory
Relativity and afterword thought that Invariance theory would be better.
The end of time is absolute.
Time dilation is absolute.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 05:44:50 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
The end of time is absolute.
Time dilation is absolute.
ILLUCID
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 08:46:34 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<411E95E0.EB4DD018@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
The end of time is absolute.
Time dilation is absolute.
ILLUCID
Why?
Because you never read it in a book Worm?
You Slimey bookWorm.
I don't bother with you.
All you do is regurgitate what you read.
Not an individual brain cell in your body.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 09:05:05 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<411E95E0.EB4DD018@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
The end of time is absolute.
Time dilation is absolute.
ILLUCID
Why?
Because you never read it in a book Worm?
You Slimey bookWorm.
I don't bother with you.
All you do is regurgitate what you read.
Not an individual brain cell in your body.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
You should read more--educate yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
15 Aug 2004 01:32:23 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<411EC4CF.67276A3C@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<411E95E0.EB4DD018@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
The end of time is absolute.
Time dilation is absolute.
ILLUCID
Why?
Because you never read it in a book Worm?
You Slimey bookWorm.
I don't bother with you.
All you do is regurgitate what you read.
Not an individual brain cell in your body.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
You should read more--educate yourself.
I don't care about what is already known. I can learn that anytime.
I am more interested in my own thoughts. They do not mislead me.
What ever I have wanted to know has just come to me without any
will on my part. Its been a journey.
That's the way it's supposed to be.
I am not beholden to anyone - professionals and teachers alike.
Farewell Sam
Mitch Raemsch -- Energy Moves --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
15 Aug 2004 02:34:35 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<411EC4CF.67276A3C@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<411E95E0.EB4DD018@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
The end of time is absolute.
Time dilation is absolute.
ILLUCID
Why?
Because you never read it in a book Worm?
You Slimey bookWorm.
I don't bother with you.
All you do is regurgitate what you read.
Not an individual brain cell in your body.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
You should read more--educate yourself.
I don't care about what is already known. I can learn that anytime.
I am more interested in my own thoughts. They do not mislead me.
What ever I have wanted to know has just come to me without any
will on my part. Its been a journey.
That's the way it's supposed to be.
I am not beholden to anyone - professionals and teachers alike.
Farewell Sam
Mitch Raemsch -- Energy Moves --
You'll just have to ***** off then, Mitch. Your thoughts are trapped
in your own cesspool without education as evidenced in your postings.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
15 Aug 2004 02:55:18 AM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
I am not beholden to anyone - professionals and teachers alike.
Getting an education and being beholden to anyone are two different issues..
your retardedness is showing again, plus how lazy you are.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
15 Aug 2004 02:54:21 AM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
I don't care about what is already known. I can learn that anytime.
Do you even comprehend how retarded that makes you sound?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
15 Aug 2004 05:09:39 AM |
|
|
On 14 Aug 2004 23:32:23 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<411EC4CF.67276A3C@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<411E95E0.EB4DD018@mchsi.com>...
Mitchell wrote:
The end of time is absolute.
Time dilation is absolute.
ILLUCID
Why?
Because you never read it in a book Worm?
You Slimey bookWorm.
I don't bother with you.
All you do is regurgitate what you read.
Not an individual brain cell in your body.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
You should read more--educate yourself.
I don't care about what is already known. I can learn that anytime.
No, you can't. You are stupid.
I am more interested in my own thoughts. They do not mislead me.
I understand...everyone else's thoughts are so hard for you to
understand so your only alternative is to seek answers within your
mind.
What ever I have wanted to know has just come to me without any
will on my part. Its been a journey.
Delusions of grandeur.
With luck, your journey will end when you have a thought that suggets
to play with explosives.
That's the way it's supposed to be.
I agree. Hopefully your journey will end soon and you can go away.
I am not beholden to anyone - professionals and teachers alike.
You are in a technical newsgroup, so you are - whether you like it or
not.
Farewell Sam
Does that mean you are going to kill yourself and end our suffering?
Mitch Raemsch -- Energy Moves --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 09:58:47 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
Why?
Because you never read it in a book Worm?
You Slimey bookWorm.
I don't bother with you.
All you do is regurgitate what you read.
Not an individual brain cell in your body.
See? Mitchell is retarded. That's why all he can read is the Bible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 10:51:43 PM |
|
|
On 14 Aug 2004 18:46:34 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:
[snip]
No.
In order to talk about books, you have to read them instead of burn
them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 09:58:13 PM |
|
|
Mitchell wrote:
Nah, he's retarded.
Not everything is relative. Einstein regreted calling his theory
Relativity and afterword thought that Invariance theory would be better.
The end of time is absolute.
Time dilation is absolute.
See? Retarded.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
14 Aug 2004 06:14:29 PM |
|
|
On 14 Aug 2004 14:56:51 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:
[snip]
Your stupidity is not only absolute, it is infinite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: From 3D to 2D |
13 Aug 2004 06:47:17 PM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2004 15:23:44 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:
If you were able to catch up to light the space dimension in
your direction of travel would be squashed flat.
1) You cannot catch up to light. Stupid assertion by a stupid person.
2) SR is defined only in terms of inertial reference frames.
If you could catch up to light you would literally loose a dimension.
You would be 2 dimensional.
If I had a pony, I would be able to have a pony.
BTW, for the umpteenth fucking time, its 'lose' not 'loose'. One more
set of objects you cannot tell the difference between...'coordinate
time' and 'proper time', 'lose' and 'loose', etc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
