| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sergey Karavashkin" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2006 09:10:10 AM |
| Object: |
Wave-particle duality |
Dear Colleagues,
Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
" On the wave-particle duality "
*Abstract*
We will study the phenomena of interference and diffraction of
electrons from the point of modelling of processes, basing on the
quantum-mechanical and classical approaches. We will reveal that when
we represent an electron as some wave function of state or of
probability of location in some region of space, it causes considerable
contradictions producing the wave-particle duality and incorrect
description of the phenomenon. In particular, probabilistic
representation of wave function by Born leads to the fact that such
probabilistic distribution has to exist also when electrons do not
interact with atoms. The probabilistic model premises only positive
values of probability, while the wave function is bipolar, which
additionally distorts the idea of properties of electron.
We will establish that the cause, why in the quantum-mechanical
representation the model is distorted, is that in frames of this
formalism the orbital motion of exterior electrons of atom is neglected
and, consequently, the field of atom is taken stationary. Then
interacting electrons have to have some spectrum of frequencies to
interact in resonance with the atom according to the Schroedinger
equation. This last causes full distortion of the wave function of
electron and factually cancels the spectrum of frequencies and as a
consequence the electron must turn into an EM wave of some resonance
frequency.
As an alternative to this representation, we will model the
electron's interaction with atom from the point of classical physics.
In this model the field of atom will be represented as a field of
skeleton and the field of the exterior orbital electron, due to which
the resulting field becomes dynamic in the near of atom. Basing on the
calculated dynamic field, we will model the interaction of the chain of
electrons with this field and reveal that electrons form the periodic
structure with the wavelength proportional to the product of period of
orbiting of orbital electron into the velocity of interacting
electrons. This wave-like formation propagates from the region of
interaction within some angle, gradually changing its shape because of
difference of velocities of the electrons after their interaction with
the atom. The electrons in this set propagate according to the
Rutherford model of scattering with account of the phase of dynamic
field of the atom. The superimposition of many such wave-like
formations causes the interference and diffraction patterns like the
patterns of X-rays.
This model will fully lift the wave-particle problem together with the
discrepancies inherent in the quantum-mechanical formalism.
Please read the full text here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/contents6_1.html#interference
Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin
Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine
Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: ,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html
.
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
02 Sep 2006 06:30:34 AM |
|
|
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
" On the wave-particle duality "
*Abstract*
We will study the phenomena of interference and diffraction of
electrons from the point of modelling of processes, basing on the
quantum-mechanical and classical approaches. We will reveal that when
we represent an electron as some wave function of state or of
probability of location in some region of space, it causes considerable
contradictions producing the wave-particle duality and incorrect
description of the phenomenon. In particular, probabilistic
representation of wave function by Born leads to the fact that such
probabilistic distribution has to exist also when electrons do not
interact with atoms. The probabilistic model premises only positive
values of probability, while the wave function is bipolar, which
additionally distorts the idea of properties of electron.
We will establish that the cause, why in the quantum-mechanical
representation the model is distorted, is that in frames of this
formalism the orbital motion of exterior electrons of atom is neglected
and, consequently, the field of atom is taken stationary. Then
interacting electrons have to have some spectrum of frequencies to
interact in resonance with the atom according to the Schroedinger
equation. This last causes full distortion of the wave function of
electron and factually cancels the spectrum of frequencies and as a
consequence the electron must turn into an EM wave of some resonance
frequency.
As an alternative to this representation, we will model the
electron's interaction with atom from the point of classical physics.
In this model the field of atom will be represented as a field of
skeleton and the field of the exterior orbital electron, due to which
the resulting field becomes dynamic in the near of atom. Basing on the
calculated dynamic field, we will model the interaction of the chain of
electrons
------------------
welcone to the 'chain of orbitals' idea!!!
Y.Porat
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
02 Sep 2006 05:32:21 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157196634.552913.152740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
" On the wave-particle duality "
*Abstract*
We will study the phenomena of interference and diffraction of
electrons from the point of modelling of processes, basing on the
quantum-mechanical and classical approaches. We will reveal that when
we represent an electron as some wave function of state or of
probability of location in some region of space, it causes considerable
contradictions producing the wave-particle duality and incorrect
description of the phenomenon. In particular, probabilistic
representation of wave function by Born leads to the fact that such
probabilistic distribution has to exist also when electrons do not
interact with atoms. The probabilistic model premises only positive
values of probability, while the wave function is bipolar, which
additionally distorts the idea of properties of electron.
We will establish that the cause, why in the quantum-mechanical
representation the model is distorted, is that in frames of this
formalism the orbital motion of exterior electrons of atom is neglected
and, consequently, the field of atom is taken stationary. Then
interacting electrons have to have some spectrum of frequencies to
interact in resonance with the atom according to the Schroedinger
equation. This last causes full distortion of the wave function of
electron and factually cancels the spectrum of frequencies and as a
consequence the electron must turn into an EM wave of some resonance
frequency.
As an alternative to this representation, we will model the
electron's interaction with atom from the point of classical physics.
In this model the field of atom will be represented as a field of
skeleton and the field of the exterior orbital electron, due to which
the resulting field becomes dynamic in the near of atom. Basing on the
calculated dynamic field, we will model the interaction of the chain of
electrons
Physics can be made difficult, and the reason are the wrong basic ideas and
theories.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
09 Sep 2006 01:57:02 PM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> kirjoitti
viestiss=C3=A4:1157196634.552913.152740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
" On the wave-particle duality "
Physics can be made difficult, and the reason are the wrong basic ideas a=
nd
theories.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Dear Henry, I don=E2=80=99t expect your $ 1000, as this always is a hard
estimation =E2=80=93 =E2=80=9Cproven =E2=80=93 unproven=E2=80=9D. But I wou=
ld like to draw your
attention to the very first your thesis being the statement of your
problem:
<< Gravity appears to be really strange, something inexplicable by
theory. This view has been stated at some time and appears to be well
founded. When an object falls in a gravity field, it seems to be in
accelerating motion. However, this is not so, the acceleration is only
apparent. We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as we
stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the acceleration
as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards. If we could see events
from the "correct" perspective, we would observe that freely falling
objects move forwards at a constant velocity. Gravity is not a force,
but something else. But what is the correct perspective? >>
This is incorrect, and now I will show you, why. You are stating that
it is incorrect to observe the falling body from the Earth surface, as
the observer on the Earth is affected by the opposite buoyant force. If
we look from a =E2=80=98correct=E2=80=99 perspective, we will see the body =
falling
with a constant speed. Let us see. Want we or not, the Earth=E2=80=99s cent=
re
is the centre of gravity, all forces from periphery are directed to it.
During observation, the observer on the Earth=E2=80=99s surface does not
change his distance from the centre. This means, he rests with respect
to the centre (we do not speak of the orbital speed). This is because
the gravity affection is just compensated by the counteraction related
to the deformation of the Earth=E2=80=99s shell. Thus, the observer is
affected by two forces, and if we disregard the Earth=E2=80=99s turn which =
is
small for our experiment with the falling body, then, according to the
Galilee law, the observer is in the inertial reference frame. And the
falling body has not the counteraction which the observer has, and its
distance from the centre of the Earth is changed in time. Thus, the
body is really affected by the disbalanced resultant, which causes the
accelerated motion of the body. So the gravity is the force, without
any ifs and buts. And if you are satisfied with such opposition to your
thesis, I=E2=80=99m expecting to receive $ 1000 from you. :) But if you are
interesting to know the physical nature of gravity field, this project
would take $ 10 000 000 and 5 years of work of the team. :)
Best to you,
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
09 Sep 2006 05:18:24 PM |
|
|
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157828222.685540.305520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157196634.552913.152740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
" On the wave-particle duality "
Physics can be made difficult, and the reason are the wrong basic ideas
and
theories.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Dear Henry, I don't expect your $ 1000, as this always is a hard
estimation - "proven - unproven". But I would like to draw your
attention to the very first your thesis being the statement of your
problem:
<< Gravity appears to be really strange, something inexplicable by
theory. This view has been stated at some time and appears to be well
founded. When an object falls in a gravity field, it seems to be in
accelerating motion. However, this is not so, the acceleration is only
apparent. We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as we
stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the acceleration
as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards. If we could see events
from the "correct" perspective, we would observe that freely falling
objects move forwards at a constant velocity. Gravity is not a force,
but something else. But what is the correct perspective? >>
This is incorrect, and now I will show you, why. You are stating that
it is incorrect to observe the falling body from the Earth surface, as
the observer on the Earth is affected by the opposite buoyant force. If
we look from a 'correct' perspective, we will see the body falling
with a constant speed. Let us see. Want we or not, the Earth's centre
is the centre of gravity, all forces from periphery are directed to it.
During observation, the observer on the Earth's surface does not
change his distance from the centre. This means, he rests with respect
to the centre (we do not speak of the orbital speed). This is because
the gravity affection is just compensated by the counteraction related
to the deformation of the Earth's shell. Thus, the observer is
affected by two forces, and if we disregard the Earth's turn which is
small for our experiment with the falling body, then, according to the
Galilee law, the observer is in the inertial reference frame. And the
falling body has not the counteraction which the observer has, and its
distance from the centre of the Earth is changed in time. Thus, the
body is really affected by the disbalanced resultant, which causes the
accelerated motion of the body. So the gravity is the force, without
any ifs and buts. And if you are satisfied with such opposition to your
thesis, I'm expecting to receive $ 1000 from you. :) But if you are
interesting to know the physical nature of gravity field, this project
would take $ 10 000 000 and 5 years of work of the team. :)
Best to you,
Sergey
Dear Sergey
Sorry if I understood something wrong, because my English is not good. I can
read it again with a dictionary in my hands, if it appears to be necessary.
In relativity theory there are some great ideas, like gravity is not a
force, and space is curved, and a falling object is actually moving straight
ahead with a constant speed. All this is accepted in 'falling space', but
Einsteins reasoning concerning the speed of light is proved to be wrong.
Your newtonian ideas are too oldfashioned to me.
Best to you, too
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
10 Sep 2006 03:09:22 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestiss=C3=A4:1157828222.685540.305520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> kirjoitti
viestiss=C3=A4:1157196634.552913.152740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use t=
he
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-parti=
cle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
" On the wave-particle duality "
Physics can be made difficult, and the reason are the wrong basic ideas
and
theories.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Dear Henry, I don't expect your $ 1000, as this always is a hard
estimation - "proven - unproven". But I would like to draw your
attention to the very first your thesis being the statement of your
problem:
<< Gravity appears to be really strange, something inexplicable by
theory. This view has been stated at some time and appears to be well
founded. When an object falls in a gravity field, it seems to be in
accelerating motion. However, this is not so, the acceleration is only
apparent. We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as we
stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the acceleration
as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards. If we could see events
from the "correct" perspective, we would observe that freely falling
objects move forwards at a constant velocity. Gravity is not a force,
but something else. But what is the correct perspective? >>
This is incorrect, and now I will show you, why. You are stating that
it is incorrect to observe the falling body from the Earth surface, as
the observer on the Earth is affected by the opposite buoyant force. If
we look from a 'correct' perspective, we will see the body falling
with a constant speed. Let us see. Want we or not, the Earth's centre
is the centre of gravity, all forces from periphery are directed to it.
During observation, the observer on the Earth's surface does not
change his distance from the centre. This means, he rests with respect
to the centre (we do not speak of the orbital speed). This is because
the gravity affection is just compensated by the counteraction related
to the deformation of the Earth's shell. Thus, the observer is
affected by two forces, and if we disregard the Earth's turn which is
small for our experiment with the falling body, then, according to the
Galilee law, the observer is in the inertial reference frame. And the
falling body has not the counteraction which the observer has, and its
distance from the centre of the Earth is changed in time. Thus, the
body is really affected by the disbalanced resultant, which causes the
accelerated motion of the body. So the gravity is the force, without
any ifs and buts. And if you are satisfied with such opposition to your
thesis, I'm expecting to receive $ 1000 from you. :) But if you are
interesting to know the physical nature of gravity field, this project
would take $ 10 000 000 and 5 years of work of the team. :)
Best to you,
Sergey
Dear Sergey
Sorry if I understood something wrong, because my English is not good. I =
can
read it again with a dictionary in my hands, if it appears to be necessar=
y=2E
In relativity theory there are some great ideas, like gravity is not a
force, and space is curved, and a falling object is actually moving strai=
ght
ahead with a constant speed. All this is accepted in 'falling space', but
Einsteins reasoning concerning the speed of light is proved to be wrong.
Your newtonian ideas are too oldfashioned to me.
Best to you, too
Henry Haapalainen
Dear Henry, it looks illogical from your side to dissociate yourself
from the Newtonian theory and at the same time to use the formulas of
classical theory of potentials based on Newtonian ideas. :) The same,
no difference in which way you are trying to substantiate the gravity
field. The experimental fact that I gave you says, the distance between
the observer and centre of gravitating body does not change, and the
distance between the studied body and centre changes. This evidences
that the body moves with acceleration, i.e. the force affects it. If
you want to work in the reference frame of falling spaces, the observer
has to be in this frame, too. Actually, the studied body can move
uniformly with respect to the observer, because the acceleration of
free fall in the quasi-homogeneous region of gravity field is same for
all bodies. This last is not the discovery of Relativity but the
corollary of Galilee experiments and generalisation of the Newtonian
theory. But with it, working in the falling spaces, you have to account
that the observer also has acceleration with respect to the inertial
frame. So, to be correct, you have to re-calculate all laws of
dynamics. Finally, if you apply the force to the observer, putting him
on the surface of the Earth that in the falling spaces will move with
the acceleration, the mutual motion of the observer and body will be
accelerated anyway. This is caused by the passing from the inertial
frame to the frame of falling spaces. And you have to do this passing
namely in frames of classical Newtonian theory. To make sure, it is
sufficient to do not confine yourself to a simple motion of falling
frame and to exceed the limits of homogeneous region of gravity field.
The gravity field is still known to be generally central and Relativity
did not change it. What happens with it, you can analyse on the example
shown in one of our papers,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/blackhole/blackhole15/blackhole15.html
especially see Fig. 10. :)
Thus, don=E2=80=99t be in hurry to dissociate yourself from the regularities
which you use, doing not understanding it. :)
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
10 Sep 2006 05:46:57 PM |
|
|
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157875762.239858.29070@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157828222.685540.305520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157196634.552913.152740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use
the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the
wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
" On the wave-particle duality "
Physics can be made difficult, and the reason are the wrong basic ideas
and
theories.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Dear Henry, I don't expect your $ 1000, as this always is a hard
estimation - "proven - unproven". But I would like to draw your
attention to the very first your thesis being the statement of your
problem:
<< Gravity appears to be really strange, something inexplicable by
theory. This view has been stated at some time and appears to be well
founded. When an object falls in a gravity field, it seems to be in
accelerating motion. However, this is not so, the acceleration is only
apparent. We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as we
stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the acceleration
as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards. If we could see events
from the "correct" perspective, we would observe that freely falling
objects move forwards at a constant velocity. Gravity is not a force,
but something else. But what is the correct perspective? >>
This is incorrect, and now I will show you, why. You are stating that
it is incorrect to observe the falling body from the Earth surface, as
the observer on the Earth is affected by the opposite buoyant force. If
we look from a 'correct' perspective, we will see the body falling
with a constant speed. Let us see. Want we or not, the Earth's centre
is the centre of gravity, all forces from periphery are directed to it.
During observation, the observer on the Earth's surface does not
change his distance from the centre. This means, he rests with respect
to the centre (we do not speak of the orbital speed). This is because
the gravity affection is just compensated by the counteraction related
to the deformation of the Earth's shell. Thus, the observer is
affected by two forces, and if we disregard the Earth's turn which is
small for our experiment with the falling body, then, according to the
Galilee law, the observer is in the inertial reference frame. And the
falling body has not the counteraction which the observer has, and its
distance from the centre of the Earth is changed in time. Thus, the
body is really affected by the disbalanced resultant, which causes the
accelerated motion of the body. So the gravity is the force, without
any ifs and buts. And if you are satisfied with such opposition to your
thesis, I'm expecting to receive $ 1000 from you. :) But if you are
interesting to know the physical nature of gravity field, this project
would take $ 10 000 000 and 5 years of work of the team. :)
Best to you,
Sergey
Dear Sergey
Sorry if I understood something wrong, because my English is not good. I
can
read it again with a dictionary in my hands, if it appears to be
necessary.
In relativity theory there are some great ideas, like gravity is not a
force, and space is curved, and a falling object is actually moving
straight
ahead with a constant speed. All this is accepted in 'falling space', but
Einsteins reasoning concerning the speed of light is proved to be wrong.
Your newtonian ideas are too oldfashioned to me.
Best to you, too
Henry Haapalainen
Dear Henry, it looks illogical from your side to dissociate yourself
from the Newtonian theory and at the same time to use the formulas of
classical theory of potentials based on Newtonian ideas. :) The same,
no difference in which way you are trying to substantiate the gravity
field. The experimental fact that I gave you says, the distance between
the observer and centre of gravitating body does not change, and the
distance between the studied body and centre changes. This evidences
that the body moves with acceleration, i.e. the force affects it. If
you want to work in the reference frame of falling spaces, the observer
has to be in this frame, too. Actually, the studied body can move
uniformly with respect to the observer, because the acceleration of
free fall in the quasi-homogeneous region of gravity field is same for
all bodies. This last is not the discovery of Relativity but the
corollary of Galilee experiments and generalisation of the Newtonian
theory. But with it, working in the falling spaces, you have to account
that the observer also has acceleration with respect to the inertial
frame. So, to be correct, you have to re-calculate all laws of
dynamics. Finally, if you apply the force to the observer, putting him
on the surface of the Earth that in the falling spaces will move with
the acceleration, the mutual motion of the observer and body will be
accelerated anyway. This is caused by the passing from the inertial
frame to the frame of falling spaces. And you have to do this passing
namely in frames of classical Newtonian theory. To make sure, it is
sufficient to do not confine yourself to a simple motion of falling
frame and to exceed the limits of homogeneous region of gravity field.
The gravity field is still known to be generally central and Relativity
did not change it. What happens with it, you can analyse on the example
shown in one of our papers,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/blackhole/blackhole15/blackhole15.html
especially see Fig. 10. :)
Thus, don't be in hurry to dissociate yourself from the regularities
which you use, doing not understanding it. :)
Sergey
There may be some interesting things on your pages, but to me it is too
heavy to read. I prefer talking shortly. If you don't understand difference
between acceleration and relative acceleration, it is very difficult to say
anything to you. Maths is important but physics must be understood.
Attraction between masses is impossible, and that is the fact generally
understood. Why don't you read 'falling space' from the beginning to the end
and try to earn the money as promised.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 02:55:36 AM |
|
|
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inertia,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the very
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 03:18:12 AM |
|
|
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157961336.141749.25350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inertia,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the very
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is relative
if you can not feel it yourself.
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our discussion.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 04:33:24 AM |
|
|
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:aZ8Ng.9405$7H6.5917@reader1.news.jippii.net...
| Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
FALSE.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 09:46:49 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestiss=C3=A4:1157961336.141749.25350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inertia,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the very
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is relati=
ve
if you can not feel it yourself.
Dear Henry, as you want to discuss just the physical meaning and I do
so, I would like to draw your attention that there exist two kinds of
forces =E2=80=93 mass forces and contact forces. To the mass forces the
gravity force relate, and for a charged cloud =E2=80=93 the electric force.
This force affects equally all elementary volumes of the body. So it is
not felt when the body=E2=80=99s motion in the fields being the sources of
mass forces. The contact force affects the body in the vicinity of
contact with the source of force. Such is the surface on which we
stand. This surface fixes only the position of our feet, not of the
whole body. All the rest body remains resting due to the counteraction
of the elastic forces of the body. If these elastic forces are absent,
as for example in a water column above the surface, the water will fall
until it spreads in a thin layer above the surface. The same with a
car. If its front bumper has encountered a hindrance, there stops only
the point that collided with the hindrance. All other parts of the car,
in that number the parts of bumper that are not in contact with the
hindrance, go on moving until they come to balance with the elastic
forces that arise because some parts of the car become resting at the
moment of collision, while the rest parts go on moving. Here you will
not confuse me, Henry. Don=E2=80=99t confuse yourself. :)
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our discussi=
on.
Henry Haapalainen
If this is the end of discussion in which you clearly have understood
the falsehood of your statements and don=E2=80=99t want to admit it, this is
the end of your reputation. To say truly, it is boresome for me to
discuss with you, as you don=E2=80=99t know the initials of physics of which
you make so loud claims, and when you are said how things go in
reality, you even don=E2=80=99t dare to grasp. I can repeat, the falling
spaces have a sense only in case of gravity interaction between the
bodies. Then the studied body falls onto the gravitating centre and
moves with acceleration with respect to this centre. When you pass to
the accompanying frame of the body, you pass to the non-inertial frame.
Just so in Fig. 10 which I showed you, the arbitrarily moving body will
move in this frame in a complicated way. This is practice =E2=80=93 the
practice which you are trying to ignore for sake of your loud claims.
Sergey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 03:46:43 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestiss=E4:1157961336.141749.25350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inertia,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the very
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is relati=
ve
if you can not feel it yourself.
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our discussi=
on.
Henry Haapalainen
I have read your theory, and ironically Sergey cut right to the heart
of the matter without reading it. He already understood that you were
simply playing a mathematical trick, which is really just the same one
that Einstein played. Just because you can assume an accelerated frame
from which to work out the laws of physics, this doesn't necessarily
make it the de facto correct approach. If a man that is stationary on
the surface of the Earth is accelerating, then what is he accelerating
wrt ? He is accelerating only wrt to those things that are in freefall.
Conversely, from his FoR, it is the things in freefall that are
accelerating, and he is at rest. What follows is that wrt the
freefalling things the man is accelerating, but even wrt that frame the
man is still at rest wrt the Earth. So then, from either viewpoint,
the man is at rest wrt the Earth, and thus not accelerating wrt it.
QED. It is as Sergey said, there is no net force acting on the man.
There is however tension on his body due to opposing forces, and that
is what he feels rather than acceleration.
Relativity is as simple as "It is the motions of particles wrt each
other that matters." Frames of reference have no bearing whatsoever
upon the outcome, they only determine what we see, and what we see is
subject to any number of interpretations.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 04:45:20 PM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157964403.837532.273770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157961336.141749.25350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inertia,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the very
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is
relative
if you can not feel it yourself.
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our
discussion.
Henry Haapalainen
I have read your theory, and ironically Sergey cut right to the heart
of the matter without reading it. He already understood that you were
simply playing a mathematical trick, which is really just the same one
that Einstein played. Just because you can assume an accelerated frame
from which to work out the laws of physics, this doesn't necessarily
make it the de facto correct approach. If a man that is stationary on
the surface of the Earth is accelerating, then what is he accelerating
wrt ? He is accelerating only wrt to those things that are in freefall.
Conversely, from his FoR, it is the things in freefall that are
accelerating, and he is at rest. What follows is that wrt the
freefalling things the man is accelerating, but even wrt that frame the
man is still at rest wrt the Earth. So then, from either viewpoint,
the man is at rest wrt the Earth, and thus not accelerating wrt it.
QED. It is as Sergey said, there is no net force acting on the man.
There is however tension on his body due to opposing forces, and that
is what he feels rather than acceleration.
Relativity is as simple as "It is the motions of particles wrt each
other that matters." Frames of reference have no bearing whatsoever
upon the outcome, they only determine what we see, and what we see is
subject to any number of interpretations.
Richard Perry
Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can you
feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be a
force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
12 Sep 2006 11:07:42 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can you
feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be a
force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
Henry Haapalainen
Which on the Earth words have we, Richard and me, to find, you, Mr
Physicist, to grasp a simple thing: the Earth resists to the force of
gravity. I explained you already at the school level the difference
between the contact force of Earth=E2=80=99s reaction and mass force of
gravity. You are resting on the surface because of balance of these two
forces, and as the gravity force affects all elementary volumes of your
body while the Earth=E2=80=99s reaction =E2=80=93 only your feet, here appe=
ars just
the deformation which you feel. If you publish your four journals on
cosmetics, such crying misunderstanding of the initials of physics can
be excused, but if on some scientific or engineering field...=20
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
12 Sep 2006 05:17:33 PM |
|
|
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1158077262.527194.189980@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can you
feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be a
force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
Henry Haapalainen
Which on the Earth words have we, Richard and me, to find, you, Mr
Physicist, to grasp a simple thing: the Earth resists to the force of
gravity. I explained you already at the school level the difference
between the contact force of Earth's reaction and mass force of
gravity. You are resting on the surface because of balance of these two
forces, and as the gravity force affects all elementary volumes of your
body while the Earth's reaction - only your feet, here appears just
the deformation which you feel. If you publish your four journals on
cosmetics, such crying misunderstanding of the initials of physics can
be excused, but if on some scientific or engineering field...
Sergey
I told you that our discussion is ended. HH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
13 Sep 2006 02:25:03 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestiss=C3=A4:1158077262.527194.189980@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can =
you
feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must b=
e a
force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
Henry Haapalainen
Which on the Earth words have we, Richard and me, to find, you, Mr
Physicist, to grasp a simple thing: the Earth resists to the force of
gravity. I explained you already at the school level the difference
between the contact force of Earth's reaction and mass force of
gravity. You are resting on the surface because of balance of these two
forces, and as the gravity force affects all elementary volumes of your
body while the Earth's reaction - only your feet, here appears just
the deformation which you feel. If you publish your four journals on
cosmetics, such crying misunderstanding of the initials of physics can
be excused, but if on some scientific or engineering field...
Sergey
I told you that our discussion is ended. HH
Well, this evidences, you really are incorrect, understand it and have
no excuses to get out. You violate your obligation claimed on your
website. This means, your claim of your impeccable reputation is an
idle sound.
Sergey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 06:22:04 PM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestiss=E4:1157964403.837532.273770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestiss=E4:1157961336.141749.25350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inerti=
a,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the ve=
ry
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is
relative
if you can not feel it yourself.
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our
discussion.
Henry Haapalainen
I have read your theory, and ironically Sergey cut right to the heart
of the matter without reading it. He already understood that you were
simply playing a mathematical trick, which is really just the same one
that Einstein played. Just because you can assume an accelerated frame
from which to work out the laws of physics, this doesn't necessarily
make it the de facto correct approach. If a man that is stationary on
the surface of the Earth is accelerating, then what is he accelerating
wrt ? He is accelerating only wrt to those things that are in freefall.
Conversely, from his FoR, it is the things in freefall that are
accelerating, and he is at rest. What follows is that wrt the
freefalling things the man is accelerating, but even wrt that frame the
man is still at rest wrt the Earth. So then, from either viewpoint,
the man is at rest wrt the Earth, and thus not accelerating wrt it.
QED. It is as Sergey said, there is no net force acting on the man.
There is however tension on his body due to opposing forces, and that
is what he feels rather than acceleration.
Relativity is as simple as "It is the motions of particles wrt each
other that matters." Frames of reference have no bearing whatsoever
upon the outcome, they only determine what we see, and what we see is
subject to any number of interpretations.
Richard Perry
Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can you
feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be a
force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
Henry Haapalainen
There IS a force pushing me upwards, it's the electromagnetic force
between the molecules making up the Earth's surface and the bottom
surface of my shoes. If not for that force I would sucked down into the
Earth. The fact that removing the Earth below me would result in my
downward acceleration shows me that the upward force acting on me is
only a reaction force and not some independent force acting to
accelerate me upward. If gravity were to cease I would not be
accelerated upward anymore, there would simply be no more force acting
on me anymore. In other words I'm in equilibrium when standing on the
surface of the Earth and I'm not accelerating either upward or
downward.
If on the other hand the force of gravity were just a fiction, then I
could conclude that I was actually being accelerated upward by an
expanding Earth. This theory has been tried, and it simply doesn't
pan out. The only way to account for such an expansion is to have the
entire universe uniformly expanding--not just planets and stars away
from each other, but the planets and stars themselves expanding at a
rate that is proportional to their separation from one another. The
gravitational acceleration would then require some master frame with
which to reference acceleration, since wrt a person on Mars you would
be accelerating at a much greater rate than you would from the FoR of
the center of the Earth. It simply doesn't even come close to working
out. From this we have to conclude that there is a force of gravity
associated with the masses, as Newton predicted, or else defer to the
general theory of relativity, which is just Newton plus the special
theory of relativity. Either way, Newton wins the argument.
That does not however mean that the problem of gravity is solved, since
as it so happened Newton "framed no hypothesis." He only quantified
the interaction, which is as far as we know a description of the
surface events only, or in other words a formula that is valid only in
the macroscopic domain. As far as I know the electron has not yet been
shown to exhibit the property of gravitational mass.
There is still plenty of room to describe Gravity in terms of a complex
series of electromagnetic interactions, or perhaps on a level even
subtler than that. In any case, it is a force by definition. If a mass
accelerates then it is changing in momentum and it must therefore have
force acting on it, because force is just that very thing, shorthand
for dp/dt.
Of course we don't necessarily need to include the concept of force
in order to describe trajectories, but as long as we have defined it as
dp/dt, then we have it whether we like it or not. The only way to rid
ourselves of it is to rid ourselves of mass and time.=20
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
12 Sep 2006 02:37:10 AM |
|
|
Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can you
feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be a
force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
Henry Haapalainen
There IS a force pushing me upwards, it's the electromagnetic force
between the molecules making up the Earth's surface and the bottom
surface of my shoes. If not for that force I would sucked down into the
Earth. The fact that removing the Earth below me would result in my
downward acceleration shows me that the upward force acting on me is
only a reaction force and not some independent force acting to
accelerate me upward. If gravity were to cease I would not be
accelerated upward anymore, there would simply be no more force acting
on me anymore. In other words I'm in equilibrium when standing on the
surface of the Earth and I'm not accelerating either upward or
downward.
If on the other hand the force of gravity were just a fiction, then I
could conclude that I was actually being accelerated upward by an
expanding Earth. This theory has been tried, and it simply doesn't
pan out. The only way to account for such an expansion is to have the
entire universe uniformly expanding--not just planets and stars away
from each other, but the planets and stars themselves expanding at a
rate that is proportional to their separation from one another. The
gravitational acceleration would then require some master frame with
which to reference acceleration, since wrt a person on Mars you would
be accelerating at a much greater rate than you would from the FoR of
the center of the Earth. It simply doesn't even come close to working
out. From this we have to conclude that there is a force of gravity
associated with the masses, as Newton predicted, or else defer to the
general theory of relativity, which is just Newton plus the special
theory of relativity. Either way, Newton wins the argument.
That does not however mean that the problem of gravity is solved, since
as it so happened Newton "framed no hypothesis." He only quantified
the interaction, which is as far as we know a description of the
surface events only, or in other words a formula that is valid only in
the macroscopic domain. As far as I know the electron has not yet been
shown to exhibit the property of gravitational mass.
There is still plenty of room to describe Gravity in terms of a complex
series of electromagnetic interactions, or perhaps on a level even
subtler than that. In any case, it is a force by definition. If a mass
accelerates then it is changing in momentum and it must therefore have
force acting on it, because force is just that very thing, shorthand
for dp/dt.
Of course we don't necessarily need to include the concept of force
in order to describe trajectories, but as long as we have defined it as
dp/dt, then we have it whether we like it or not. The only way to rid
ourselves of it is to rid ourselves of mass and time.
Richard Perry
Let's keep that in mind, Richard Perry. Your reason to stay on the ground of
the Earth is the electromagnetic force. That is science!!!!
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
12 Sep 2006 05:57:59 AM |
|
|
Jump off a cliff, idiot.
You WILL accelerate, you will NOT feel a force (until to reach
the ground) and we will be rid of your stupidity.
Androcles
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:IstNg.10146$su2.5137@reader1.news.jippii.net...
|
|
| > Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can
you
| > feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be
a
| > force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
| >
| > Henry Haapalainen
|
| There IS a force pushing me upwards, it's the electromagnetic force
| between the molecules making up the Earth's surface and the bottom
| surface of my shoes. If not for that force I would sucked down into the
| Earth. The fact that removing the Earth below me would result in my
| downward acceleration shows me that the upward force acting on me is
| only a reaction force and not some independent force acting to
| accelerate me upward. If gravity were to cease I would not be
| accelerated upward anymore, there would simply be no more force acting
| on me anymore. In other words I'm in equilibrium when standing on the
| surface of the Earth and I'm not accelerating either upward or
| downward.
|
| If on the other hand the force of gravity were just a fiction, then I
| could conclude that I was actually being accelerated upward by an
| expanding Earth. This theory has been tried, and it simply doesn't
| pan out. The only way to account for such an expansion is to have the
| entire universe uniformly expanding--not just planets and stars away
| from each other, but the planets and stars themselves expanding at a
| rate that is proportional to their separation from one another. The
| gravitational acceleration would then require some master frame with
| which to reference acceleration, since wrt a person on Mars you would
| be accelerating at a much greater rate than you would from the FoR of
| the center of the Earth. It simply doesn't even come close to working
| out. From this we have to conclude that there is a force of gravity
| associated with the masses, as Newton predicted, or else defer to the
| general theory of relativity, which is just Newton plus the special
| theory of relativity. Either way, Newton wins the argument.
|
| That does not however mean that the problem of gravity is solved, since
| as it so happened Newton "framed no hypothesis." He only quantified
| the interaction, which is as far as we know a description of the
| surface events only, or in other words a formula that is valid only in
| the macroscopic domain. As far as I know the electron has not yet been
| shown to exhibit the property of gravitational mass.
|
| There is still plenty of room to describe Gravity in terms of a complex
| series of electromagnetic interactions, or perhaps on a level even
| subtler than that. In any case, it is a force by definition. If a mass
| accelerates then it is changing in momentum and it must therefore have
| force acting on it, because force is just that very thing, shorthand
| for dp/dt.
| Of course we don't necessarily need to include the concept of force
| in order to describe trajectories, but as long as we have defined it as
| dp/dt, then we have it whether we like it or not. The only way to rid
| ourselves of it is to rid ourselves of mass and time.
|
| Richard Perry
|
| Let's keep that in mind, Richard Perry. Your reason to stay on the ground
of
| the Earth is the electromagnetic force. That is science!!!!
|
| Henry Haapalainen
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
12 Sep 2006 11:11:44 AM |
|
|
RP =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
There IS a force pushing me upwards, it's the electromagnetic force
between the molecules making up the Earth's surface and the bottom
surface of my shoes. If not for that force I would sucked down into the
Earth. The fact that removing the Earth below me would result in my
downward acceleration shows me that the upward force acting on me is
only a reaction force and not some independent force acting to
accelerate me upward. If gravity were to cease I would not be
accelerated upward anymore, there would simply be no more force acting
on me anymore. In other words I'm in equilibrium when standing on the
surface of the Earth and I'm not accelerating either upward or
downward.
If on the other hand the force of gravity were just a fiction, then I
could conclude that I was actually being accelerated upward by an
expanding Earth. This theory has been tried, and it simply doesn't
pan out. The only way to account for such an expansion is to have the
entire universe uniformly expanding--not just planets and stars away
from each other, but the planets and stars themselves expanding at a
rate that is proportional to their separation from one another. The
gravitational acceleration would then require some master frame with
which to reference acceleration, since wrt a person on Mars you would
be accelerating at a much greater rate than you would from the FoR of
the center of the Earth. It simply doesn't even come close to working
out. From this we have to conclude that there is a force of gravity
associated with the masses, as Newton predicted, or else defer to the
general theory of relativity, which is just Newton plus the special
theory of relativity. Either way, Newton wins the argument.
That does not however mean that the problem of gravity is solved, since
as it so happened Newton "framed no hypothesis." He only quantified
the interaction, which is as far as we know a description of the
surface events only, or in other words a formula that is valid only in
the macroscopic domain. As far as I know the electron has not yet been
shown to exhibit the property of gravitational mass.
There is still plenty of room to describe Gravity in terms of a complex
series of electromagnetic interactions, or perhaps on a level even
subtler than that. In any case, it is a force by definition. If a mass
accelerates then it is changing in momentum and it must therefore have
force acting on it, because force is just that very thing, shorthand
for dp/dt.
Of course we don't necessarily need to include the concept of force
in order to describe trajectories, but as long as we have defined it as
dp/dt, then we have it whether we like it or not. The only way to rid
ourselves of it is to rid ourselves of mass and time.
Richard Perry
Dear Richard, I thought, I=E2=80=99m the last mammoth knowing the classical
physics. I=E2=80=99m so happy that I=E2=80=99m not in one here. You fairly =
explain
to Henry what he, seemingly, basically does not want to understand,
because it would reveal the silliness of relativistic conception that
wholesome postulated the identity of physical laws in inertial and
non-inertial reference frames.
Now we are in two here; this gives a hope. :)
Sergey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 04:58:36 AM |
|
|
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157964403.837532.273770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157961336.141749.25350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inertia,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the very
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is
relative
if you can not feel it yourself.
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our
discussion.
Henry Haapalainen
I have read your theory, and ironically Sergey cut right to the heart
of the matter without reading it. He already understood that you were
simply playing a mathematical trick, which is really just the same one
that Einstein played.
Just because you can assume an accelerated frame
from which to work out the laws of physics, this doesn't necessarily
make it the de facto correct approach. If a man that is stationary on
the surface of the Earth is accelerating, then what is he accelerating
wrt ? He is accelerating only wrt to those things that are in freefall.
Conversely, from his FoR, it is the things in freefall that are
accelerating, and he is at rest. What follows is that wrt the
freefalling things the man is accelerating, but even wrt that frame the
man is still at rest wrt the Earth. So then, from either viewpoint,
the man is at rest wrt the Earth, and thus not accelerating wrt it.
QED. It is as Sergey said, there is no net force acting on the man.
There is however tension on his body due to opposing forces, and that
is what he feels rather than acceleration.
Relativity is as simple as "It is the motions of particles wrt each
other that matters." Frames of reference have no bearing whatsoever
upon the outcome, they only determine what we see, and what we see is
subject to any number of interpretations.
Richard Perry
[Androcles]
Yes, but those interpretations must be self consistent.
Aside from individual crackpots such as Haapalainen, Wilson
and Seto who only agree with themselves there are only three
competing theories to consider:
They are:
1) Newtonian - the velocity is light is objectively source dependent
2) Einsteinian - the velocity of light is subjectively time dependent
3) Maxwellian - the velocity of light is objectively media dependent.
The aether theory was thrown out by Michelson, but Maxwell is
still correct for any real media such as air, water, glass, diamond.. etc.
2) is discarded as not being self consistent:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
leaving 1):
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Haapalainen's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body."
Einstein's second postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. "
Karavashkin's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed."
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 09:50:04 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157964403.837532.273770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestiss=C3=A4:1157961336.141749.25350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inerti=
a,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the ve=
ry
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is
relative
if you can not feel it yourself.
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our
discussion.
Henry Haapalainen
I have read your theory, and ironically Sergey cut right to the heart
of the matter without reading it. He already understood that you were
simply playing a mathematical trick, which is really just the same one
that Einstein played.
Just because you can assume an accelerated frame
from which to work out the laws of physics, this doesn't necessarily
make it the de facto correct approach. If a man that is stationary on
the surface of the Earth is accelerating, then what is he accelerating
wrt ? He is accelerating only wrt to those things that are in freefall.
Conversely, from his FoR, it is the things in freefall that are
accelerating, and he is at rest. What follows is that wrt the
freefalling things the man is accelerating, but even wrt that frame the
man is still at rest wrt the Earth. So then, from either viewpoint,
the man is at rest wrt the Earth, and thus not accelerating wrt it.
QED. It is as Sergey said, there is no net force acting on the man.
There is however tension on his body due to opposing forces, and that
is what he feels rather than acceleration.
Relativity is as simple as "It is the motions of particles wrt each
other that matters." Frames of reference have no bearing whatsoever
upon the outcome, they only determine what we see, and what we see is
subject to any number of interpretations.
Richard Perry
[Androcles]
Yes, but those interpretations must be self consistent.
And they are self-consistent in frames of Newtonian theory. The
Einsteinian theory is a tangle among three trees; Maxwellian theory has
nothing to do here, as we consider a mere mechanical aspect of the
issue. Non-simultaneity of event and of detection of this event by an
observer is really the theme =E2=80=98eaten=E2=80=99 long time ago =E2=80=
=93 from the
moment when the science has experimentally proven that the light
propagates in space with a final speed.
Aside from individual crackpots such as Haapalainen, Wilson
and Seto who only agree with themselves there are only three
competing theories to consider:
They are:
1) Newtonian - the velocity is light is objectively source dependent
2) Einsteinian - the velocity of light is subjectively time dependent
3) Maxwellian - the velocity of light is objectively media dependent.
The aether theory was thrown out by Michelson, but Maxwell is
still correct for any real media such as air, water, glass, diamond.. etc.
2) is discarded as not being self consistent:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
leaving 1):
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Haapalainen's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body."
Einstein's second postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c whi=
ch
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. "
Karavashkin's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed."
Androcles.
We have checked again: our links work well. If some pages did not open,
try later or apply to your provider. If necessary, we can send you any
paper by e-mail. And second: you cannot find first, second or following
postulates by Karavashkin, as we work in frames of classical physics
based not on postulates but on phenomena and regularities. This is you,
Androcles, who bases on postulates, and I showed you it not once.
Please, don=E2=80=99t conflict on threads.=20
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
11 Sep 2006 10:35:37 AM |
|
|
"Sergey Karavashkin" <> wrote in message
news:1157986204.185143.265990@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer ?????(?):
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157964403.837532.273770@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Sergey Karavashkin" < > kirjoitti
viestissä:1157961336.141749.25350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of
inertia,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the
very
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is
relative
if you can not feel it yourself.
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our
discussion.
Henry Haapalainen
I have read your theory, and ironically Sergey cut right to the heart
of the matter without reading it. He already understood that you were
simply playing a mathematical trick, which is really just the same one
that Einstein played.
Just because you can assume an accelerated frame
from which to work out the laws of physics, this doesn't necessarily
make it the de facto correct approach. If a man that is stationary on
the surface of the Earth is accelerating, then what is he accelerating
wrt ? He is accelerating only wrt to those things that are in freefall.
Conversely, from his FoR, it is the things in freefall that are
accelerating, and he is at rest. What follows is that wrt the
freefalling things the man is accelerating, but even wrt that frame the
man is still at rest wrt the Earth. So then, from either viewpoint,
the man is at rest wrt the Earth, and thus not accelerating wrt it.
QED. It is as Sergey said, there is no net force acting on the man.
There is however tension on his body due to opposing forces, and that
is what he feels rather than acceleration.
Relativity is as simple as "It is the motions of particles wrt each
other that matters." Frames of reference have no bearing whatsoever
upon the outcome, they only determine what we see, and what we see is
subject to any number of interpretations.
Richard Perry
[Androcles]
Yes, but those interpretations must be self consistent.
And they are self-consistent in frames of Newtonian theory. The
Einsteinian theory is a tangle among three trees; Maxwellian theory has
nothing to do here, as we consider a mere mechanical aspect of the
issue. Non-simultaneity of event and of detection of this event by an
observer is really the theme 'eaten' long time ago - from the
moment when the science has experimentally proven that the light
propagates in space with a final speed.
Idiot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Aside from individual crackpots such as Haapalainen, Wilson
and Seto who only agree with themselves there are only three
competing theories to consider:
They are:
1) Newtonian - the velocity is light is objectively source dependent
2) Einsteinian - the velocity of light is subjectively time dependent
3) Maxwellian - the velocity of light is objectively media dependent.
The aether theory was thrown out by Michelson, but Maxwell is
still correct for any real media such as air, water, glass, diamond.. etc.
2) is discarded as not being self consistent:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
leaving 1):
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Haapalainen's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body."
Einstein's second postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. "
Karavashkin's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed."
Androcles.
We have checked again: our links work well. If some pages did not open,
try later or apply to your provider.
http:// :
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
a.. Open the home page, and then look for links
to the information you want.
b.. If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that
it is spelled correctly.
If you still cannot open the page, click the Internet Explorer
Search button to look for similar sites.
Internet Explorer
If necessary, we can send you any
paper by e-mail.
No thanks, I'm not interested in crackpot aether theories.
And second: you cannot find first, second or following
postulates by Karavashkin, as we work in frames of classical physics
based not on postulates but on phenomena and regularities. This is you,
Androcles, who bases on postulates, and I showed you it not once.
Please, don't conflict on threads.
Please, *****, idiot.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergey Karavashkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
12 Sep 2006 02:01:04 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):
We have checked again: our links work well. If some pages did not open,
try later or apply to your provider.
http://selftrans@yandex.ru :
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed.
..=2E............
Androcles.
I believe, Androcles, that you will do us all a favour confining
yourself to studying postulates in the page http://selftr...@yandex.ru
that you have invented. D)
Sergey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave-particle duality |
12 Sep 2006 05:54:06 AM |
|
|
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1158044464.242020.120140@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer ?????(?):
We have checked again: our links work well. If some pages did not open,
try later or apply to your provider.
http://selftrans@yandex.ru :
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed.
...............
Androcles.
I believe, Androcles, that you will do us all a favour confining
yourself to studying postulates in the page http://selftr...@yandex.ru
that you have invented. D)
Sergey
I don't give a ***** what you believe, you *****.
The page cannot be di | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
