Complex number reality?
Ken S. Tucker
On Mar 3, 12:07 pm, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Thus spake Oz <O...@mailcatch.com>>Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
>
> >>If I was being pedantic I would say that even real numbers are not real.
> >>Mathematicians also deal with complex numbers all the time, but they
> >>are not so
> >>dumb as to think they could be elements of reality.
>
> >Clearly they are. That's why physics is full of them. I'm happy with
> >that.
>
> In fact complex numbers are just a mathematical method, used by
> physicists and engineers because the method can be shown to give correct
> real answers, but having no analogue in empirical fact.
Well the number "1" is analog of the number of noses on my face,
is that an "empirical fact" or a "mathematical method".
Here's a bit of complex,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance
Ancedote 1: I needed to make an efficient circuit running a light
bulb,
that was hard to replace. I placed a 10 microfarad cap in series with
a
60 Watt bulb, and reduced the bulb stress to 40W, and the cap
doesn't heat. Worked.
Ancedote 2: I needed to reduce the speed of a bathroom fan because
it was too noisy, so I placed a 10 microfarad cap in series with the
fan
and it noticeably speeded up by ~50%. Didn't work.
Well in each case the 'reactance' is real, described by 'phase shift'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves)#Phase_shift
It's real alright, one may choose an angular measure or a complex
representation. For fun I have sqrt(-1)^4 noses, that's real to me!
I found the same sort of reasoning applies to GR, where a negative
signature such as (1,-1,-1,-1) or (-1,1,1,1) that involves complex
numbers (taken to the naked units) can be replaced by angles
(nonorthogonal metrics),
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
to eliminate the complex numbers and use a positive signature.
However most use sqrt(-g) = 1 in GR, while I prefer g = 1-v^2,
using the angle method, (that is in the SR limit).
I accept it's a matter of choice, as one can transform to the
other, so by General Covariance, it's not possible one is better
than another if they're equal.
> Regards
> Charles Francis
> moderator sci.physics.foundations.
> charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
> braces)
> http://www.rqgravity.net
Cheers
Ken S. Tucker
BURT
> (from a discussion in SPF).
>
> On Mar 3, 12:07 pm, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Thus spake Oz <O...@mailcatch.com>>Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
>
> > >>If I was being pedantic I would say that even real numbers are not real.
> > >>Mathematicians also deal with complex numbers all the time, but they
> > >>are not so
> > >>dumb as to think they could be elements of reality.
>
> > >Clearly they are. That's why physics is full of them. I'm happy with
> > >that.
>
> > In fact complex numbers are just a mathematical method, used by
> > physicists and engineers because the method can be shown to give correct
> > real answers, but having no analogue in empirical fact.
>
> Well the number "1" is analog of the number of noses on my face,
> is that an "empirical fact" or a "mathematical method".
>
>
> Ancedote 1: I needed to make an efficient circuit running a light
> bulb,
> that was hard to replace. I placed a 10 microfarad cap in series with
> a
> 60 Watt bulb, and reduced the bulb stress to 40W, and the cap
> doesn't heat. Worked.
>
> Ancedote 2: I needed to reduce the speed of a bathroom fan because
> it was too noisy, so I placed a 10 microfarad cap in series with the
> fan
> and it noticeably speeded up by ~50%. Didn't work.
>
> Well in each case the 'reactance' is real, described by 'phase shift'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves)#Phase_shift
>
> It's real alright, one may choose an angular measure or a complex
> representation. For fun I have sqrt(-1)^4 noses, that's real to me!
>
> I found the same sort of reasoning applies to GR, where a negative
> signature such as (1,-1,-1,-1) or (-1,1,1,1) that involves complex
> numbers (taken to the naked units) can be replaced by angles
> to eliminate the complex numbers and use a positive signature.
>
> However most use sqrt(-g) = 1 in GR, while I prefer g = 1-v^2,
> using the angle method, (that is in the SR limit).
>
> I accept it's a matter of choice, as one can transform to the
> other, so by General Covariance, it's not possible one is better
> than another if they're equal.
>
> > Regards
> > Charles Francis
> > moderator sci.physics.foundations.
> > charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
> > braces)
> >http://www.rqgravity.net
>
> Cheers
> Ken S. Tucker
Negtives only exist as subtractions of their absolute values. There is
no quantity below zero.
Imaginary math is just that. Its just in imagination.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
[...]
> I found the same sort of reasoning applies to GR, where a negative
> signature such as (1,-1,-1,-1) or (-1,1,1,1) that involves complex
> numbers (taken to the naked units) can be replaced by angles
> (nonorthogonal metrics),
> http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
> to eliminate the complex numbers and use a positive signature.
>
> However most use sqrt(-g) = 1 in GR, while I prefer g = 1-v^2,
> using the angle method, (that is in the SR limit).
1) 'Farewell to "ict"', page 51 "Gravitation", Misner, Thorne, Wheeler.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning?Kruger_effect
[snip rest]
BURT
Sideways doppler? From behind you get a redshift and from ahead you
get a blueshift to light energy. But what about sideways absorptions
and the angles inbetween?
The angle determines the doppler to light energy. The sideways energy
is the fundamental energy of light.
Mitch Raemsch
Ken S. Tucker
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > I found the same sort of reasoning applies to GR, where a negative
> > > signature such as (1,-1,-1,-1) or (-1,1,1,1) that involves complex
> > > numbers (taken to the naked units) can be replaced by angles
> > > (nonorthogonal metrics),
> > >http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
> > > to eliminate the complex numbers and use a positive signature.
>
> > > However most use sqrt(-g) = 1 in GR, while I prefer g = 1-v^2,
> > > using the angle method, (that is in the SR limit).
> Sideways doppler? From behind you get a redshift and from ahead you
> get a blueshift to light energy. But what about sideways absorptions
> and the angles inbetween?
> The angle determines the doppler to light energy. The sideways energy
> is the fundamental energy of light.
> Mitch Raemsch
Yes, that's how it works, it uses 'nonorthogonal dynamic spacetime
metrics', which is a wordy statement to say we can use angles in
place of complex representation that many old GRist's still use.
Anytime I see GRist's begin with sqrt(g) = -1, I know they didn't
get the 1983 memo redefining the definition of length and then they
complain of artifact errors surfacing, like duh, of course they do.
What's being regugitated by institutionalized GR is 30 years old,
and the same old mistakes are endlessly repeated therein.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
eric gisse
Thomas Heger
> (from a discussion in SPF).
>
> It's real alright, one may choose an angular measure or a complex
> representation. For fun I have sqrt(-1)^4 noses, that's real to me!
>
> I found the same sort of reasoning applies to GR, where a negative
> signature such as (1,-1,-1,-1) or (-1,1,1,1) that involves complex
> numbers (taken to the naked units) can be replaced by angles
> (nonorthogonal metrics),
> http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
> to eliminate the complex numbers and use a positive signature.
>
> However most use sqrt(-g) = 1 in GR, while I prefer g = 1-v^2,
> using the angle method, (that is in the SR limit).
>
i like your paper and would agree to your arguments. I personally try
something that is called bi-quaternions or complex-four-vectors. That is
about the interpretation of i as an angle, but 'volumetric'. That means,
you could alter the timeline by multiplying with i and get a static
realm you could call a static field. That is a construct I call
triality. That has an axis, generating a scalar and three directions,
that generate a volume.
My paper you find here:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
The key is the Euler equation or why we do have exponential functions
with i in the exponent.
Greetings
TH
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stop moving your i around.
That is all you are doing in imaginary math's complex plane.
Mitch Raemsch
mike3
Complex numbers are no more/less "imaginary" than real numbers.
Bah!
wugi
> Complex numbers are no more/less "imaginary" than real numbers.
> Bah!
And even complex functions Y=Y(X) can be graphically rendered, see eg my
site:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbComplex.html
Graphics about SR:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
guido
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
All you are doing in the complex plane is moving an i around.
Mitch Raemsch
Ken S. Tucker
>
>
>
> > (from a discussion in SPF).
>
> ..
> > It's real alright, one may choose an angular measure or a complex
> > representation. For fun I have sqrt(-1)^4 noses, that's real to me!
>
> > I found the same sort of reasoning applies to GR, where a negative
> > signature such as (1,-1,-1,-1) or (-1,1,1,1) that involves complex
> > numbers (taken to the naked units) can be replaced by angles
> > (nonorthogonal metrics),
> >http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
> > to eliminate the complex numbers and use a positive signature.
>
> > However most use sqrt(-g) = 1 in GR, while I prefer g = 1-v^2,
> > using the angle method, (that is in the SR limit).
>
> i like your paper and would agree to your arguments.
Based on that is a addendum, predicting a negative result
for GP-b's (Gravity Probe-b)search for frame-dragging
that has yeilded a null result, giving strong credence to
Modern Space Time, supporting the International Community's
view of relativity,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
> I personally try
> something that is called bi-quaternions or complex-four-vectors. That is
> about the interpretation of i as an angle, but 'volumetric'. That means,
> you could alter the timeline by multiplying with i and get a static
> realm you could call a static field. That is a construct I call
> triality. That has an axis, generating a scalar and three directions,
> that generate a volume.
> My paper you find here:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> The key is the Euler equation or why we do have exponential functions
> with i in the exponent.
That's more of a book than paper, to your credit :-).
What's your favorite application?
> Greetings
> TH
Cheers
Ken S. Tucker
BURT
> On Mar 4, 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker schrieb:
>
> > > (from a discussion in SPF).
>
> > ..
> > > It's real alright, one may choose an angular measure or a complex
> > > representation. For fun I have sqrt(-1)^4 noses, that's real to me!
>
> > > I found the same sort of reasoning applies to GR, where a negative
> > > signature such as (1,-1,-1,-1) or (-1,1,1,1) that involves complex
> > > numbers (taken to the naked units) can be replaced by angles
> > > (nonorthogonal metrics),
> > >http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
> > > to eliminate the complex numbers and use a positive signature.
>
> > > However most use sqrt(-g) = 1 in GR, while I prefer g = 1-v^2,
> > > using the angle method, (that is in the SR limit).
>
> > i like your paper and would agree to your arguments.
>
> Based on that is a addendum, predicting a negative result
> for GP-b's (Gravity Probe-b)search for frame-dragging
> that has yeilded a null result, giving strong credence to
> Modern Space Time, supporting the International Community's
>
> > I personally try
> > something that is called bi-quaternions or complex-four-vectors. That is
> > about the interpretation of i as an angle, but 'volumetric'. That means,
> > you could alter the timeline by multiplying with i and get a static
> > realm you could call a static field. That is a construct I call
> > triality. That has an axis, generating a scalar and three directions,
> > that generate a volume.
> > My paper you find here:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> > The key is the Euler equation or why we do have exponential functions
> > with i in the exponent.
>
> That's more of a book than paper, to your credit :-).
> What's your favorite application?
>
> > Greetings
> > TH
>
> Cheers
>
> - Show quoted text -
The i is for show.
Mitch Raemsch
Thomas Heger
> On Mar 4, 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker schrieb:
>>
>>
>>
>>> (from a discussion in SPF).
>> ..
>>> It's real alright, one may choose an angular measure or a complex
>>> representation. For fun I have sqrt(-1)^4 noses, that's real to me!
>>> I found the same sort of reasoning applies to GR, where a negative
>>> signature such as (1,-1,-1,-1) or (-1,1,1,1) that involves complex
>>> numbers (taken to the naked units) can be replaced by angles
>>> (nonorthogonal metrics),
>>> http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
>>> to eliminate the complex numbers and use a positive signature.
>>> However most use sqrt(-g) = 1 in GR, while I prefer g = 1-v^2,
>>> using the angle method, (that is in the SR limit).
>> i like your paper and would agree to your arguments.
>
> Based on that is a addendum, predicting a negative result
> for GP-b's (Gravity Probe-b)search for frame-dragging
> that has yeilded a null result, giving strong credence to
> Modern Space Time, supporting the International Community's
> view of relativity,
> http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
>
much 'grip' on this kind of math, but try to work on this. So in the
meantime, I helped myself with drawings. That isn't such a bad idea,
because you can transfer ideas and understanding without dealing with
difficult mathematical constructs.
>> I personally try
>> something that is called bi-quaternions or complex-four-vectors. That is
>> about the interpretation of i as an angle, but 'volumetric'. That means,
>> you could alter the timeline by multiplying with i and get a static
>> realm you could call a static field. That is a construct I call
>> triality. That has an axis, generating a scalar and three directions,
>> that generate a volume.
>> My paper you find here:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>> The key is the Euler equation or why we do have exponential functions
>> with i in the exponent.
>
> That's more of a book than paper, to your credit :-).
> What's your favorite application?
Sorry, application of what? That 'book'? Possibly you read it..
Maybe You could give some comments.
Or do You mean software?
Greetings
TH
Ken S. Tucker
Agreed. Well done math applied to science is a clear legalese
expression
is something to be highly respected, but the math can get tough and
sometimes (often) has fudge factors.
> >> I personally try
> >> something that is called bi-quaternions or complex-four-vectors. That is
> >> about the interpretation of i as an angle, but 'volumetric'. That means,
> >> you could alter the timeline by multiplying with i and get a static
> >> realm you could call a static field. That is a construct I call
> >> triality. That has an axis, generating a scalar and three directions,
> >> that generate a volume.
> >> My paper you find here:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >> The key is the Euler equation or why we do have exponential functions
> >> with i in the exponent.
>
> > That's more of a book than paper, to your credit :-).
> > What's your favorite application?
>
> Sorry, application of what? That 'book'? Possibly you read it..
A bit, I found a typo on pg 142, ('forge't).
Your book is a lot like how Isaac Asimov writes, appeals to a
wider audience.
> Maybe You could give some comments.
You've covered a great deal of territory, if you care to focus
on your favorite chapter to discuss, pick that for discussion.
> Or do You mean software?
Well I personally think your delivery is just fine.
Thomas Heger
> On Mar 5, 7:02 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker schrieb:
>>> That's more of a book than paper, to your credit :-).
>>> What's your favorite application?
>> Sorry, application of what? That 'book'? Possibly you read it..
>
> A bit, I found a typo on pg 142, ('forge't).
> Your book is a lot like how Isaac Asimov writes, appeals to a
> wider audience.
>
>> Maybe You could give some comments.
>
> You've covered a great deal of territory, if you care to focus
> on your favorite chapter to discuss, pick that for discussion.
>
>> Or do You mean software?
>
> Well I personally think your delivery is just fine.
>
Thanks for your kind reply. But you know, it is just a hobby and nobody
took any notice or gave any sign of interest. So I think, that was just
enough and do something else. But maybe there are still people
interested in my ideas. So I leave it as it is, even with typos and my
not so perfect english (actually I'm german).
Greetings
TH
eric gisse
[...]
> Based on that is a addendum, predicting a negative result
> for GP-b's (Gravity Probe-b)search for frame-dragging
> that has yeilded a null result, giving strong credence to
> Modern Space Time, supporting the International Community's
> view of relativity,
> http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
Gravity Probe B didn't null you fucking moron.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning?Kruger_effect
[...]
Ken S. Tucker
As I said, I thought it was well written, I only mentioned the typo
to prove I read the book.
The TETrahedron idea is one I looked at too, but in less detail.
Suppose we constructed a TET model of an electron, then how do we
test it !?!
Well one can using an e- + e+ anhilation to produce gamma rays, if
that works, it would be a very excellent achievement (IMO).
> Greetings
> TH
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Based on that is a addendum, predicting a negative result
> > for GP-b's (Gravity Probe-b)search for frame-dragging
> > that has yeilded a null result, giving strong credence to
> > Modern Space Time, supporting the International Community's
> > view of relativity,
> >http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
>
> Gravity Probe B didn't
work, yes that's old news.
KEN
[snip the village idiot]
BURT
Negative unlimited's are nonsense.
There are no quantities below zero.
Negatives are just subtractions of their absolute values.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
What's the matter, Ken? Can't even stand to discuss the link from the
mission team that explicitly proves you wrong?
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
I know you like to lie about trivially checked things, but it impresses
nobody. It is actually rather pathetic.
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 1:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > Based on that is a addendum, predicting a negative result
> >> > for GP-b's (Gravity Probe-b)search for frame-dragging
> >> > that has yeilded a null result, giving strong credence to
> >> > Modern Space Time, supporting the International Community's
> >> > view of relativity,
> >> >http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
>
> >> Gravity Probe B didn't
>
> > work, yes that's old news.
> > KEN
>
> > [snip the village idiot]
>
> What's the matter, Ken? Can't even stand to discuss the link from the
> mission team that explicitly proves you wrong?
Our team has been proven correct.
GP-b, conceived using 1960's technology, has been surpassed
~ 1000x in accuracy by 'International Experiments' and NO
frame-dragging has been detected there either.
Ken
Thomas Heger
The big problem with my model is, that it is about symmetries in a
continuum. Those I can describe. But I assume, that this continuum
called spacetime is all there is. So, I can only show, that this idea is
consistent with currently excepted models about -say- particles. To do
so, I tried to find models for known behavior, that utilize quaternions.
That was possible in most cases. E.g. Maxwell used Quaternions in his
first paper (guess it was 1868). Relativity is possible, too. But the
interesting thing is, that you could model particles with this
bi-quaternion system, too. So, there would be little left to model.
My plan was, to extent relativity in a kind of fractal manner, and than
show, that you need only a relatively simple mechanism, to generate
known effects. To put that into equations, you first had to 'quantize'
everything, because it is build out of a smooth continuum. Than you
reenter quantum physics. But I wanted to show, that you could base qm on
GR and not the other way round.
Than the math isn't particularly easy. But I found some papers, that
successfully did it for certain parts. So I stick with my pictures and
hope, somebody with significant skills in this kind of math would pick
up some of my ideas.
Greetings
TH
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are no square root quantities below zero.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> On Mar 6, 8:24 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On Mar 6, 1:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > Based on that is a addendum, predicting a negative result
>> >> > for GP-b's (Gravity Probe-b)search for frame-dragging
>> >> > that has yeilded a null result, giving strong credence to
>> >> > Modern Space Time, supporting the International Community's
>> >> > view of relativity,
>> >> >http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
>>
>> >> Gravity Probe B didn't
>>
>> > work, yes that's old news.
>> > KEN
>>
>> > [snip the village idiot]
>>
>> What's the matter, Ken? Can't even stand to discuss the link from the
>> mission team that explicitly proves you wrong?
YOU SNIPPED THE LINK AGAIN
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
>
> Our team has been proven correct.
There's no 'team', and no you have not been proved correct. In fact, you are
wrong. Delusional old man.
> GP-b, conceived using 1960's technology, has been surpassed
> ~ 1000x in accuracy by 'International Experiments' and NO
> frame-dragging has been detected there either.
> Ken
Really, Ken? Which experiments might those be? The ones that exist only in
your head?
YOU http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
ARE http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
A http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
LIAR http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Negative numbers are only subtractions of their absolute values from
an equal or greater quantity.
Mitch Raemsch
Ralph Garbage
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Negative numbers are only subtractions of their absolute values from
> an equal or greater quantity.
There are these places called "schools" where they will teach you how
to count (and also what negative number actually are).
For example, you say that since 10 is a quantity that is equal to or
greater than -9:
-9 = 10 - 9.
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that your smart enough to be able to chew
your food.
What's truly sad is that this was probably your most intelligent post
ever.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 8:24 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> > On Mar 6, 1:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> > Based on that is a addendum, predicting a negative result
> >> >> > for GP-b's (Gravity Probe-b)search for frame-dragging
> >> >> > that has yeilded a null result, giving strong credence to
> >> >> > Modern Space Time, supporting the International Community's
> >> >> > view of relativity,
> >> >> >http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
>
> >> >> Gravity Probe B didn't
>
> >> > work, yes that's old news.
> >> > KEN
>
> >> > [snip the village idiot]
>
> >> What's the matter, Ken? Can't even stand to discuss the link from the
> >> mission team that explicitly proves you wrong?
> > Our team has been proven correct.
>
> There's no 'team',
NASA review
A review by a panel of 15 experts commissioned by NASA has recommended
against extending the data analysis phase beyond 2008. They warn that
the required reduction in noise level (due to classical torques and
breaks in data collection due to solar flares) "is so large that any
effect ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome
considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) skepticism in the
scientific community".[25]
Ken
eric gisse
YOU SNIPPED THE LINK AGAIN
Ken S. Tucker
Well young Eric, I see your repetition, 4x above.
Scientific FACT is based on that repetition, such that
the EU, Russia, Japs, Canucks etc can all agree to that
as fact, however our team including NASA finds it's NOT
a FACT, indeed I certified the math disproving Kerr's
metric that 'frame-dragging' is founded on.
One person can look at a cloud and see a cloud,
but another might see the cloud looks like a
human face like Jesus or sumfink, then claim Jesus
evidentially exists.
Young Eric needs to know what science means.
Ken
eric gisse
Well Ken, first off you are not a part of any such team. This is what is
known as a 'lie'. That you are unable to document this but continue to make
the claim proves my point.
Next, science is not based on repetition but is based on repeatability and
independent confirmation. Frame dragging has *ALSO* been observed in the
LAGEOS I and II missions, which has been explained to you multiple times in
the past five years. The repetition simply comes from you being unwilling to
discuss the evidence.
Finally, you have not 'disproved' the Kerr metric in any way. Your claims
are not recognized by the scientific community, or anyone other than
yourself for that matter.
Hell, you continue to repeat fundamental mistakes in your asinine 'charge
couple' paper you've been posting for years, thus establishing your lack of
understanding of the subject.
Ken S. Tucker
> the best theoretician I'ver met
Thanks right wee Eric
Ken
[...]
eric gisse
[snip]
Since you can't even bear to quote what I wrote, I think my point has been
validated.
Ken S. Tucker
> > Scientific FACT is based on that repetition, such that
> > the EU, Russia, Japs, Canucks etc can all agree to that
> > as fact, however our team including NASA finds it's NOT
> > a FACT, indeed I certified the math disproving Kerr's
> > metric that 'frame-dragging' is founded on.
>
> Well Ken, first off
Yes that's correct, I usually am a leader.
Ken
BURT
The Earth turns in its circular geometry without drag. Round turning
is anti weight to gravity force strength.
Mitch Raemsch
Thomas Heger
>>> Well one can using an e- + e+ anhilation to produce gamma rays, if
Thats true, because the term 'quantum' stems from Latin for counting,
and means something like how much. But in nature we have a different
behavior and it takes observers to count. Nature 'multiplies'. That You
could imagine like a rotation of a state, that twists into another one.
This is a bit counter-intuitive, but not very much. I tried to show,
that you could boil down all kinds of relations to such a simple
mechanism. It is even possible to model certain behaviors with those
bi-quaternions mathematically, but that wasn't, what I wanted to do, but
to develop and describe this idea.
Multiplication with i could be nicely interpreted as a rotation of a
vector over a complex plane by 90°. Than you had to think in volume (not
in a plane) and relativistic. Than you could twist the time-axis, too,
what gives a very intuitive picture of relativity, but is a very
contrary view on the rest of physics. The problem is, that you don't
have countable things then anymore, because this idea is based on a
continuum called spacetime to model particles.
TH