| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Morituri-|-Max" |
| Date: |
05 Feb 2005 08:45:03 PM |
| Object: |
Operation Troll Shoulder Feb 5 2005 |
Hey!
Looks like the trooks are coming out in force.. wave after wave of them
lately.
Aside from a couple of holdouts (Uncle Al to name one, heh heh), the crusade
to ignore the worst trooks seems to be going well... I'm posting this to see
if I can add anyone else to the list of contributers who choose not to bang
their heads against the titanium barricades which these trolls erect almost
daily.
The best thing to do is to kill file or filter them out. If you still want
to read something hilarious, keep them in but PLEASE don't respond to
anything they post, you'll never get anything back any better than "go ahead
show me where I am wrong" ad nauseum.. tj Frazir for example has posted the
same exact stuff for over four years already, and none of it has ever been
any help to anyone wanting to learn physics.
Current list of the worst (ie demented) trooks is:
1st> David Thompson
2nd> Paul Stowe
3rd> tj Frazir
4th> Roland PJ
5th> FrankH
6th> habshi
7th> Nick AKA mitchell
8th> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
8th.5> Danilo J Nonsignore
9th> Jeff Relf
10th> Ken Seto
11th> Henri Wilson
12th> eleaticus
13th> spaceman
14th> ed conrad
15th> Nth Complexity
16th> GRAVITYMECHANIC2 aka Allen C. Goodrich
17th> Eugene Shubert
18th> Y Porat
19th> Laurent
You'll never ever ever ever get a straight answer from them.. a number of
the people who read this forum to learn what is going on in physics have
already joined in to ignore these guys and I am letting others know as I
catch them getting sucked in by these trooks.. join Operation Troll Shoulder
and lets cut these vermin off from any chance to suck anyone else into their
fantasies..
Have a good one.. no need to respond to this.. join in or not, just thought
I'd let 'ya know.. I'll post this every wednesday to cut down on my having
to chase people down and help them out..
8 )
Morituri Max
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Troll Shoulder Feb 5 2005 |
05 Feb 2005 10:53:34 PM |
|
|
Morituri-|-Max wrote:
Hey!
Looks like the trooks are coming out in force.. wave after wave of
them
lately.
Aside from a couple of holdouts (Uncle Al to name one, heh heh), the
crusade
to ignore the worst trooks seems to be going well... I'm posting this
to see
if I can add anyone else to the list of contributers who choose not
to bang
their heads against the titanium barricades which these trolls erect
almost
daily.
The best thing to do is to kill file or filter them out. If you still
want
to read something hilarious, keep them in but PLEASE don't respond to
anything they post, you'll never get anything back any better than
"go ahead
show me where I am wrong" ad nauseum.. tj Frazir for example has
posted the
same exact stuff for over four years already, and none of it has ever
been
any help to anyone wanting to learn physics.
Current list of the worst (ie demented) trooks is:
Honor place: Morituri-|-Max
1st> David Thompson
2nd> Paul Stowe
3rd> tj Frazir
4th> Roland PJ
5th> FrankH
6th> habshi
7th> Nick AKA mitchell
8th> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
8th.5> Danilo J Nonsignore
9th> Jeff Relf
10th> Ken Seto
11th> Henri Wilson
12th> eleaticus
13th> spaceman
14th> ed conrad
15th> Nth Complexity
16th> GRAVITYMECHANIC2 aka Allen C. Goodrich
17th> Eugene Shubert
18th> Y Porat
19th> Laurent
You'll never ever ever ever get a straight answer from them.. a
number of
the people who read this forum to learn what is going on in physics
have
already joined in to ignore these guys and I am letting others know
as I
catch them getting sucked in by these trooks.. join Operation Troll
Shoulder
and lets cut these vermin off from any chance to suck anyone else
into their
fantasies..
Have a good one.. no need to respond to this.. join in or not, just
thought
I'd let 'ya know.. I'll post this every wednesday to cut down on my
having
to chase people down and help them out..
8 )
Morituri Max
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
07 Feb 2005 03:25:13 PM |
|
|
Of course we are all very much aware that the level of
confidence that many now hold and share in the current
modern series of physics theories is often extreme. This
level of confidence of course may be quite justified. ;-)
OTOH there always remains those who do not share
this confidence in the current series of physics theories,
those who may not even subscribe to them, and those
who in fact subscribe to other interpretations, some
of which may be consistent and original.
The former party, claiming the higher moral ground
and the standard party line is historically statistically
dominant in responding to the posts of the latter, and
those threads in many instances resolve essentially to
the invocation of "crackpot".
In an historical context it should be mentioned that
the term "crackpot index" was used, and in fact was
a simple method of rating potentially revolutionary
contributions to physics. Here is an early version:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news95_e.html
The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
So we find the current situation wherein there now
seems to be routinely promulgated by a profile, a
hanger on, or a member of the former party, a list
of posters and profiles constituting the latter party.
Therefore, because the discernment of balance is
essential to all things, this list of "crackpots" should
in fact be balanced by a list of those of "The
Crackpot Patrol", the former party, and hangers on.
Who are these brave knights in glittering ascii?
Who are those purists who ride to defend the faith?
Who are they who roam the threads to eek out crackpots?
Who are the members of the sci.physics crackpot patrol?
* Alan Schwartz
* Sam Wormley
* Franz Heymann
* Bill Hobba
* David Semon (Bilge)
* Robert Kolker
* OLd Man
* Peter Kinane
* Bjoren Feuerbacher
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote:
....[snip]...
Have a nice day,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
07 Feb 2005 04:02:07 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Of course we are all very much aware that the level of
confidence that many now hold and share in the current
modern series of physics theories is often extreme. This
level of confidence of course may be quite justified. ;-)
OTOH there always remains those who do not share
this confidence in the current series of physics theories,
those who may not even subscribe to them, and those
who in fact subscribe to other interpretations, some
of which may be consistent and original.
[snip crap]
Pete Brown
1) Hey Brown, if empirical reality says you are an idiot, then you
are an empirical idiot.
2) Hey Brown, you are an empirical idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 03:57:32 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4207E55F.6A84FEB@hate.spam.net...
mountain man wrote:
Of course we are all very much aware that the level of
confidence that many now hold and share in the current
modern series of physics theories is often extreme. This
level of confidence of course may be quite justified. ;-)
OTOH there always remains those who do not share
this confidence in the current series of physics theories,
those who may not even subscribe to them, and those
who in fact subscribe to other interpretations, some
of which may be consistent and original.
[snip crap]
Pete Brown
1) Hey Brown, if empirical reality says you are an idiot, then you
are an empirical idiot.
Hey Schwartz, do you really believe for even one fleeting
moment that the man-made empiricism operates w/o theory?
Crackpot Patrolmen swallow theory hook, line and sinker.
And expect everyone else to be led around like sheep.
They cannot look outside the cave of context.
2) Hey Brown, you are an empirical idiot.
Hey Schwartz, you are a logical idiot.
Logically, even if you are the best physicist the planet has
ever known, it is impossible to show empirically that there
is "no aether", rather all it can say is, "no aether in vacuum
and solid state devices to at least 10^-14".
You sound like a betting man. The odds are open for
what's happening down below 10^-15, or indeed in
the realm of gas-mode devices. Or are *you* an
impirical idiot?
Have a noice day,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
07 Feb 2005 06:44:54 PM |
|
|
Then ,,tell us how gravity moves mass.
Spill it out once and for all.
Make evryone understand what you wrote.
ILL tell you ...
UP is still a gain in mass.
=A0gravity is a push to less mass.
=A0=A0Gravity is the energy gain pushing the atom.
=A0=A0F is identical to the mass gain pushing the wieght of the atom.
=A0=A0Identical as in THE LAW.
Re: gravitons are for dumbasses.
The gain in mass is F pushing te wieght of the atom. =A0=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Newton had is right, F =3D dp/dt is right on!
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"
=A0=A0F is the gain in mass and up is a gain in mass M is the wieght of
the atom befor the gain in mass .
=A0=A0Gravity is the energy slope across the atom. all the mass of the
atom falls twards its center. Atoms change mass at C. =A0=A0So the tom
has more mass falling twards its center from one side than the other and
the atom pushes its self down the energy slope . =A0=A0V will be the
same for evry atom as the mass gain pushes the wieght and the gain is
allways proportinal to the mass. =A0=A0=A0=A0 SAM =A0=A0wrote
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
F
=3D ma
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Here F is the applied force, m is the mass of the
particle, and =A0 a =3D dv/dt is the particle's acceleration, with v being=
the particle's =A0 velocity. This equation, together with the principle
that bodies act =A0 symmetrically on one another--so that the force
particle A feels from =A0 particle B is equal to the force B feels from
A--is the basis for =A0 understanding particle dynamics".
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"Newton's law completely describes all the phenomena
of classical =A0 mechanics...."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
07 Feb 2005 09:35:08 PM |
|
|
tj Frazir wrote:
Then ,,tell us how gravity moves mass.
Haven't you been reading here for a while?
Re: gravitons are for dumbasses.
Gravitons are mind candy. Distinguish 'Ontology' from physics. Einstein
did a brilliant job using the tool. Gravitons are a tool.
The gain in mass is F pushing te wieght of the atom.
Newton had is right, F = dp/dt is right on!
Newton did a brilliant job using the tool.
Here F is the applied force...
Force is a human invention to describe what humans observe, nothing more.
"Newton's law completely describes all the phenomena
of classical mechanics...."
No, it doesn't. (Or) Einstein's GR would not have superseded it to
better predict what is observable.
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
07 Feb 2005 09:53:18 PM |
|
|
Dan ,,did yo fail math ?
Do you understand up is a gain in mass ?
The gain of mass is proportional to the mass ?
And using the gain in mass as the force F in f--ma pushing the wieght
of the atom V is idnentical to a rate of fall for evry atom ??
The atom is across an energy slope and its orbiting parts hav more
mass when on one side of the atoms center than the other.
The atom has more mass on itss high side tan te low side of its center
where its orbiting parts are falling.
The atom pushes its self down the energy slope. Down is a push to
less mass.
A push to less energy .
Don't you understand F is identical to the gain in mass ,,thats a math
fact.
because it is a math fact that the gain in mass is identical to F and V
is the same for evry atom because the gain in mass is proportional.
No thierory just basic physics and thee facts .
Gravity is a push to less mass.
The atom pushess its self because the atom gained more mass on one
side than the other.
Gravity can not be explained any simpler and you fuckheads still dont
have a fucking clue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 12:23:21 AM |
|
|
tj Frazir wrote:
Dan...
Gravity can not be explained any simpler and you fuckheads still dont
have a fucking clue.
Sorry you don't know how to communicate. Snip and proclaim doesn't make
a conversation. Please go back and address my 'explanation' rather than
rant. Otherwise, you are no more a troll than the others I have tried to
communicate with.
Last was, Paul Stowe and Androcles.
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 06:59:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:23:21 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
tj Frazir wrote:
Dan...
Gravity can not be explained any simpler and you fuckheads still dont
have a fucking clue.
Sorry you don't know how to communicate. Snip and proclaim doesn't make
a conversation. Please go back and address my 'explanation' rather than
rant. Otherwise, you are no more a troll than the others I have tried to
communicate with.
Last was, Paul Stowe and Androcles.
Now how in the world is,
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/95bc9d46dd630fc1?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6d6fed956a894f41?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4d09c9c0c7c6fdb2?dmode=source
by any rational definition, trolling?
"What exactly is an internet troll? The basic definition for a
troll is any remark designed to attract predictable responses,
actions, or flames. It can be argued that any flame is a form
of trolling, however all troll posts are not necessarily flames.
Insults and flames, while very effective, are simply one
element of trolling. The term troll derives from the phrase
"trolling for victims" which in turn comes from mainstream
trolling. Mainstream trolling is to fish by trailing a lure or
baited hook from a moving boat. The particular bait used by a
newsgroup troll varies depending on his targets and intentions.
Trolling can mean a lot of things to different people, and the
methods employed by trolls can also be applied to other areas
as well. However, the term "trolling" in the context of this
article refers to the most common form of trolling; which is
trolling for entertainment purposes and treating it as a game.
Like all games, there is a goal. Trolling is not that
dissimilar to a typical Role Playing Game. In this game the
Trolls are the predators/villains while the civilians are
unarmed participants to be manipulated and controlled as the
troll sees fit. ..." Ref: http://brawl-hall.com/pages/trolls.php
Or, http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp
In fact, as can be seen in the above exchange, I drop the discussion
that was distinctly leading to a intractible difference of opinion.
As far as I can tell by search, or memory, this is the ONLY discussion
we have ever had?
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 07:29:16 PM |
|
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:23:21 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
Last was, Paul Stowe and Androcles.
Now how in the world is,
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/95bc9d46dd630fc1?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6d6fed956a894f41?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4d09c9c0c7c6fdb2?dmode=source
by any rational definition, trolling?
You are right, my apologies.
In fact, as can be seen in the above exchange, I drop the discussion
that was distinctly leading to a intractible difference of opinion.
Not at all. It is not my opinion how science is done. But you wrote the
likes of:
"Science is all about zeroing in on an explanation of natural processes."
Now, I may be wrong, but I can't think of a single example in physical
science that fits your definition. And maybe my assumption of what you
call an explanation is wrong. If you mean model, I agree. But you
previously wrote:
"If anyone presents an alternate view or claims. or, heaven forbide
state they think QM, SR, GR is somehow wrong, BAM!"
Well, there are no alternative views. Science is about modeling and only
one model can be the most correct. If QM, SR, or GR were wrong, they
would be falsified by observation. If those that claim something is
wrong with say, SR, would only bother to understand this, there would be
a lot less BAMing going on.
As far as I can tell by search, or memory, this is the ONLY discussion
we have ever had?
I don't recall if we have. But I've been here on and off for some time.
I've learned an awful lot by reading stuff by the folks that really do
science.
Paul Stowe
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 09:02:25 PM |
|
|
Excentric ..
I might move off the ice breaker in a few years.
I bought a $ 120 million just in case .
One that wount get lost in the crowd in the med.
ShipExpo.com
Address:http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2004
Audio:http://shipexpo.com/_content/sounds/hummer.wav
I have allot of friends and faimly and they all like to sail.
I figer In a few years Ill have to arange a NG cruise and take evryone
some place.
Like a tour of my islands in the south pac.
Smoke a 20 pound bud and sit under a palm tree .
Eat eat and eat .
I gota spend the next 1/2 of y life giving all this money away ..well
most of it.
besides all the ***** I own I have 22 billion in cash .
It might require years of thought.
And still adding 1 bill a year to it .
It takes me a month to give away 100 million to the red cross.
I buy up land and islands for fun .
I buy corperations ad colect ships.
I paid 1 million for a car and never drove it.
The very best cooks on the planet spoil me .
I should waer a tux but I wear cut offs and Ts .
I dont do nothing the TV thinks a billionaire does. But this ship is
beond thier imagination.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
10 Feb 2005 11:44:39 AM |
|
|
Gosh dan, you should feel honored that two of the biggest crackpots in the
group, nick and tj frazir, are trying to coach you on what grvity is...
*snicker*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 04:14:45 PM |
|
|
Your a dumbass dan.
No what in the crap you wrote is there and answer to " how does
gravity move mass "
dumbass.
Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol
Group: sci.physics Date: Mon, Feb 7, 2005, 10:53pm From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
Dan ,,did yo fail math ?
=A0=A0Do you understand up is a gain in mass ? The gain of mass is
proportional to the mass ? And using the gain in mass as the force F in
f--ma pushing the wieght
of the atom V is idnentical to a rate of fall for evry atom ?? The atom
is across an energy slope and its orbiting parts hav more
mass when on one side of the atoms center than the other. The atom has
more mass on itss high side tan te low side of its center
where its orbiting parts are falling.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The atom pushes its self down the energy slope. Down is a
push to less mass.
=A0=A0=A0=A0A push to less energy .
=A0=A0Don't you understand F is identical to the gain in mass ,,thats a
math fact.
=A0=A0because it is a math fact that the gain in mass is identical to F
and V is the same for evry atom because the gain in mass is
proportional.
=A0=A0=A0=A0No thierory just basic physics and thee facts . Gravity is a
push to less mass.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The atom pushess its self because the atom gained more mass
on one side than the other.
=A0=A0Gravity can not be explained any simpler and you fuckheads still
dont have a fucking clue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 06:58:36 PM |
|
|
tj Frazir wrote:
Your a dumbass dan.
No what in the crap you wrote is there and answer to " how does
gravity move mass "
If you mean I didn't explain 'how' gravity works, you are right. I don't
think anybody knows. Well, yea, you claim to know. But I haven't heard
of a way to test this claim. And why just gravity? Why does the universe
have an inertial frame? Why does an electron mass .511mev? How can a
photon go through two slits at the same time? Why spacetime, c?
dumbass.
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 07:30:58 PM |
|
|
Let test it then .
Is up a gain in mass ..yup it is.
Will evry gain in mass be proportioal to evry atom ,,Yup again.
is the gain in mass identical to F pushing the wieght of the atom
F--MA .. yup again.
So the atoms top gains more mass than its bottom in the energy slope .
More mass is falling to the atoms center from one side than the other.
The atom is pushing its self.
1/2 the atom has more mass than the other 1/2 .
And its speed of fall is identical to the gain in mass pushing the
atom .
Its just mathmatic truth .
Gravity is a push to less mass.
ienstien knew what gravity is.
But no one understands it.
Its simple.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 07:12:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:58:36 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
tj Frazir wrote:
Your a dumbass dan.
No what in the crap you wrote is there and answer to " how does
gravity move mass "
If you mean I didn't explain 'how' gravity works, you are right.
I don't think anybody knows. Well, yea, you claim to know. But
I haven't heard of a way to test this claim. And why just gravity?
Why does the universe have an inertial frame?
Because it doesn't. It has numerous...
Why does an electron mass .511mev?
Because the bulk background is at ~2.8 °K...
How can a photon go through two slits at the same time?
It can't... http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae444.cfm
Why spacetime, c?
What's the question?
dumbass.
I'll agree that Frazir is VERY excentric...
BTW, this post is MUCH closer to the concept of trolling :)
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 07:38:19 PM |
|
|
Paul ,,yer a moron ,,now post some physics .
paul you post some physics or your a troll.
IF your post had any physicss in it it would not be troll
Now paul ..how does gravity move mass ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 10:06:24 PM |
|
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:58:36 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
Why does the universe have an inertial frame?
Because it doesn't. It has numerous...
Consider Foucault's Pendulum. There is one.
Why does an electron mass .511mev?
Because the bulk background is at ~2.8 °K...
I haven't heard that one before. But it doesn't mean I don't have
something to learn.
How can a photon go through two slits at the same time?
It can't... http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae444.cfm
The question in your link:
'Is it possible for a single photon to produce diffraction pattern?'
Does not address my question.
Why spacetime, c?
What's the question?
Why spacetime, c?
BTW, this post is MUCH closer to the concept of trolling :)
Not if you read it in context, IMHO.
Paul Stowe
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
08 Feb 2005 11:12:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:06:24 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:58:36 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
Why does the universe have an inertial frame?
Because it doesn't. It has numerous...
Consider Foucault's Pendulum. There is one.
That's not inertial...
Why does an electron mass .511mev?
Because the bulk background is at ~2.8 °K...
I haven't heard that one before. But it doesn't mean I don't have
something to learn.
hq/m = 3kT
Where, h, q, k are Planck's, elemental charge, Boltzmann's constants
T is 2.8 °K, solve for m...
How can a photon go through two slits at the same time?
It can't... http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae444.cfm
The question in your link:
'Is it possible for a single photon to produce diffraction pattern?'
Does not address my question.
The answer to your question is above. It (as in _a_ photon) can't!
"If you're really talking about JUST ONE PHOTON, and say
you're going to shoot it a two-slit apparatus and measure
where it winds up somewhere beyond the slits, you will
only measure one impact position - you won't really see a
'diffraction pattern' because there's only one photon.
...
It is not possible for a single photon to produce a
diffraction pattern. However, this is only because it
would be impossible to extrapolate a pattern with only one
data point."
Since one photon makes ONE impact point the trajectory goes through
only ONE of the two slits. At issue is the pattern WHEN sequential
single photons pass, creating the pattern. There IS a important
difference here. No one has ever observed the pattern from just
ONE photon.
Why spacetime, c?
What's the question?
Why spacetime, c?
As in, why is the speed of light finite?
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
09 Feb 2005 12:24:19 AM |
|
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:06:24 GMT, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:58:36 GMT, Dan Bloomquist>wrote:
Why does the universe have an inertial frame?
Because it doesn't. It has numerous...
Consider Foucault's Pendulum. There is one.
That's not inertial...
Why not? Looks inertial since Newton's first law so far.
Why does an electron mass .511mev?
Because the bulk background is at ~2.8 °K...
I haven't heard that one before. But it doesn't mean I don't have
something to learn.
hq/m = 3kT
Where, h, q, k are Planck's, elemental charge, Boltzmann's constants
T is 2.8 °K, solve for m...
I'll look at this tomorrow. 2.1.4.0 is out!!!!!!!!!!!!
Be nice if you could provide a .edu link to such.
How can a photon go through two slits at the same time?
It can't... http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae444.cfm
The question in your link:
'Is it possible for a single photon to produce diffraction pattern?'
Does not address my question.
The answer to your question is above. It (as in _a_ photon) can't!
"If you're really talking about JUST ONE PHOTON, and say
you're going to shoot it a two-slit apparatus and measure
where it winds up somewhere beyond the slits, you will
only measure one impact position - you won't really see a
'diffraction pattern' because there's only one photon.
You missed my point. The photon still has the probability of impact as
if it has gone through both slits. It is a simple observation.
It is not possible for a single photon to produce a
diffraction pattern. However, this is only because it
would be impossible to extrapolate a pattern with only one
data point."
Address my point. Please Don't go on a tangent.
Since one photon makes ONE impact point the trajectory goes through
only ONE of the two slits. At issue is the pattern WHEN sequential
single photons pass, creating the pattern. There IS a important
difference here. No one has ever observed the pattern from just
ONE photon.
I have not talked about the pattern of one photon. I am talking about
the probability of where that -one- photon will hit. You have said you
have been here for ten years. Why do you try to play this game?
Why spacetime, c?
What's the question?
Why spacetime, c?
As in, why is the speed of light finite?
Is this one of those 'why' questions? Do you See?
Paul Stowe
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
09 Feb 2005 06:49:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:24:19 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:06:24 GMT, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:58:36 GMT, Dan Bloomquist>wrote:
Why does the universe have an inertial frame?
Because it doesn't. It has numerous...
Consider Foucault's Pendulum. There is one.
That's not inertial...
Why not? Looks inertial since Newton's first law so far.
I'm sorry, how does the pendulum work? Gravity right?
If you need gravity to work, it is by definition, not
inertial...
Why does an electron mass .511mev?
Because the bulk background is at ~2.8 °K...
I haven't heard that one before. But it doesn't mean I don't
have something to learn.
hq/m = 3kT
Where, h, q, k are Planck's, elemental charge, Boltzmann's
constants T is 2.8 °K, solve for m...
I'll look at this tomorrow. 2.1.4.0 is out!!!!!!!!!!!!
Be nice if you could provide a .edu link to such.
Using Maxwell's model & the observational fact that the EM
fields cannot be of the mathematical incompressible type
lead to the realization that the very essence of charge
comes from or arrises from this fact. This leads to a
derivation of charge that gives the Coulomb in SI physical
mundane dimensions of mass/time (a linear harmonic oscillator
[LHO]). This rather quickly leads one to the realization
that, IF this interpretation of charge is correct, it makes
the charge to mass ratio a fundamental basic frequency.
Given the base assumption of a LHO then a prediction of this
is that a basic property must be a frequency of q/m. The
equation above simply equates this base energy state h(q/m)
to a corresponding thermal equalibrium state 3kT. The rest
my dear fellow is, as they say, what naturally falls out from
this chain. Solve for m, you'll get 9.12E-31 kg...
How can a photon go through two slits at the same time?
It can't... http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae444.cfm
The question in your link:
'Is it possible for a single photon to produce diffraction pattern?'
Does not address my question.
The answer to your question is above. It (as in _a_ photon) can't!
"If you're really talking about JUST ONE PHOTON, and say
you're going to shoot it a two-slit apparatus and measure
where it winds up somewhere beyond the slits, you will
only measure one impact position - you won't really see a
'diffraction pattern' because there's only one photon.
You missed my point. The photon still has the probability of impact as
if it has gone through both slits. It is a simple observation.
I'm sorry, 'as if' isn't the same as, does...
It is not possible for a single photon to produce a
diffraction pattern. However, this is only because it
would be impossible to extrapolate a pattern with only one
data point."
Address my point. Please Don't go on a tangent.
I did address your specifically stated point. However, IF instead
you meant to ask why does a coarse single stream of photons behave
LIKE some have gone through either slit then that answer is also
possible to explain in a rather mundane manner BUT, not in just a
few short paragraphs.
Since one photon makes ONE impact point the trajectory goes through
only ONE of the two slits. At issue is the pattern WHEN sequential
single photons pass, creating the pattern. There IS a important
difference here. No one has ever observed the pattern from just
ONE photon.
I have not talked about the pattern of one photon. I am talking about
the probability of where that -one- photon will hit. You have said you
have been here for ten years. Why do you try to play this game?
Because one photon can only go through one physical slot. Where it
ends up on the other side IS the result of its interaction with the
slot it passed through AND the field behind the plate.
Why spacetime, c?
What's the question?
Why spacetime, c?
As in, why is the speed of light finite?
Is this one of those 'why' questions? Do you See?
If I clearly understood WHAT you were asking I wouldn't be asking
for clarification...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
09 Feb 2005 09:34:13 PM |
|
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:24:19 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 04:06:24 GMT, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:58:36 GMT, Dan Bloomquist>wrote:
Why does the universe have an inertial frame?
Because it doesn't. It has numerous...
Consider Foucault's Pendulum. There is one.
That's not inertial...
Why not? Looks inertial since Newton's first law so far.
I'm sorry, how does the pendulum work? Gravity right?
If you need gravity to work, it is by definition, not
inertial...
Take a grandfather clock and turn it on its base. The pendulum will
strike the front and back of the case. It has a free path in space. This
free path is the subject. Using a pendulum keeps the mass, with a free
path, local for observation. That is all.
So, we can spiral down talking about the irrelevance of pendulum
mechanics, (which this is part of), or get on with the observation. If
the pendulum won't do, there are the orbits of all the planets and
moons. It just isn't as clear as Foucault's Pendulum.
If that won't do, there is the Sagnac Effect, it works as well with
light as it does with mass.
Or, you can tell me how to test your hypothesis that there are numerous
inertial frames.
Why does an electron mass .511mev?
Because the bulk background is at ~2.8 °K...
I haven't heard that one before. But it doesn't mean I don't
have something to learn.
hq/m = 3kT
I did a little searching on this. Sorry, but I have not had the time to
exercise it. Curious, where does the 3 come from?
How can a photon go through two slits at the same time?
It can't... http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae444.cfm
The question in your link:
'Is it possible for a single photon to produce diffraction pattern?'
Does not address my question.
The answer to your question is above. It (as in _a_ photon) can't!
"If you're really talking about JUST ONE PHOTON, and say
you're going to shoot it a two-slit apparatus and measure
where it winds up somewhere beyond the slits, you will
only measure one impact position - you won't really see a
'diffraction pattern' because there's only one photon.
You missed my point. The photon still has the probability of impact as
if it has gone through both slits. It is a simple observation.
I'm sorry, 'as if' isn't the same as, does...
As if is the observation.
It is not possible for a single photon to produce a
diffraction pattern. However, this is only because it
would be impossible to extrapolate a pattern with only one
data point."
Address my point. Please Don't go on a tangent.
I did address your specifically stated point. However, IF instead
you meant to ask why does a coarse single stream of photons behave
LIKE some have gone through either slit then that answer is also
possible to explain in a rather mundane manner BUT, not in just a
few short paragraphs.
I'll search over the next week as I'm sure you have explained it before.
Or, a google link if you'd like.
Since one photon makes ONE impact point the trajectory goes through
only ONE of the two slits. At issue is the pattern WHEN sequential
single photons pass, creating the pattern. There IS a important
difference here. No one has ever observed the pattern from just
ONE photon.
I have not talked about the pattern of one photon. I am talking about
the probability of where that -one- photon will hit. You have said you
have been here for ten years. Why do you try to play this game?
Because one photon can only go through one physical slot. Where it
ends up on the other side IS the result of its interaction with the
slot it passed through AND the field behind the plate.
The field behind the plate sounds like Bohm's quantum pilot wave. Still
a human invention to this day. The observation says the photon goes
through both slits, or at the least, 'knows' about the other slit, if
just one. You may believe that the photon can only go through just one
slit, but without an observation to say, you can't know it.
Why spacetime, c?
What's the question?
Why spacetime, c?
As in, why is the speed of light finite?
Is this one of those 'why' questions? Do you See?
If I clearly understood WHAT you were asking I wouldn't be asking
for clarification...
Go back to my first post in this thread about 'explanations' being tools
and human inventions. Every time the dust settles, we have no clue as to
the 'why' of nature. We are fortunate that mathematics and nature do
coexist, ' conspire to agree if you will :) ', or we would also feel as
clueless as we really are.
Paul Stowe
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
10 Feb 2005 01:36:27 AM |
|
|
Nick ,,Ill tell you what ienstien said.
Ill say it so a cave man can understand it.
Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol
Group: sci.physics Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2005, 8:30pm From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
Let test it then .
=A0Is up a gain in mass ..yup it is.
=A0=A0Will evry gain in mass be proportioal to evry atom ,,Yup again. is
the gain in mass identical to F pushing the wieght of the atom
F--MA .. yup again.
=A0=A0So the atoms top gains more mass than its bottom in the energy
slope . More mass is falling to the atoms center from one side than the
other.
=A0=A0The atom is pushing its self.
=A0=A0=A0=A01/2 the atom has more mass than the other 1/2 . And its
speed of fall is identical to the gain in mass pushing the
atom .
=A0Its just mathmatic truth .
=A0=A0=A0=A0Gravity is a push to less mass.
ienstien knew what gravity is.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0But no one understands it.
=A0=A0=A0Its simple.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
10 Feb 2005 12:30:37 AM |
|
|
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
tj Frazir wrote:
Then ,,tell us how gravity moves mass.
Haven't you been reading here for a while?
Re: gravitons are for dumbasses.
Gravitons are mind candy. Distinguish 'Ontology' from physics.
Einstein
did a brilliant job using the tool. Gravitons are a tool.
I'll give you a tool Dan -
Gravity is a continuum.
The gain in mass is F pushing te wieght of the atom.
Newton had is right, F = dp/dt is right on!
Newton did a brilliant job using the tool.
Here F is the applied force...
Force is a human invention to describe what humans observe, nothing
more.
"Newton's law completely describes all the phenomena
of classical mechanics...."
No, it doesn't. (Or) Einstein's GR would not have superseded it to
better predict what is observable.
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...
It should be: what can you see if you can't see for yourself?
That's my response to authority and any who claim that mantle.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
07 Feb 2005 10:20:38 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
[snip]
* David Semon (Bilge)
At last I have a real name to associate to Bilge. Yay!
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
