Anomalous Fiber Optic Gyroscope Signals Observed above Spinning Rings at Low Temperature
Sue...
M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu, B. Seifert
(Submitted on 13 Jun 2008 (v1), last revised 25 Jun 2008 (this
version, v2))
Abstract: Precision fiber optic gyroscopes were mounted
mechanically de-coupled above spinning rings inside a cryostat. Below
a critical temperature (typically <30 K), the gyroscopes measure a
significant deviation from their usual offset due to Earth's rotation.
This deviation is proportional to the applied angular ring velocity
with maximum signals towards lower temperatures. The anomalous
gyroscope signal is about 8 orders of magnitude smaller than the
applied angular ring velocity, compensating about one third of the
Earth rotation offset at an angular top speed of 420 rad/s. Moreover,
our data shows a parity violation as the effect appears to be dominant
for rotation against the Earth's spin. No systematic effect was found
to explain this effect including the magnetic environment, vibration
and helium gas friction suggesting that our observation is a new low
temperature phenomenon. Tests in various configurations suggest that
the rotating low temperature helium may be the source of our anomalous
signals.
<< 3. Conclusions
Anomalous signals from two different fiber-optic
gyroscopes (KVH DSP-3000 and Optolink
SRS-1000) were observed above spinning
rings at temperatures below 30 K. Results from different
configurations suggest that the origin is probably
connected to the rotating helium and not the angular
momentum of the spinning samples as it was
suspected from earlier measurements. Our observed
signal strengths are not ruled out by any other
experiment up to our knowledge [17-18] and systematic
effects appear to be at least two orders of
magnitude below all reported measurements for the various
setups. The gyro signal seems to follow the
rotating ring velocity with high correlation.
Compared to classical frame-dragging spin-coupling
predictions our signals are up to 18 orders of magnitude
larger. This suggests that the observed
phenomenon is new and without explanation so far. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271
Cwatters
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4db3ed49-380a-47e0...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Abstract:
> M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu, B. Seifert
> (Submitted on 13 Jun 2008 (v1), last revised 25 Jun 2008 (this
> version, v2))
>
> Abstract: Precision fiber optic gyroscopes were mounted
> mechanically de-coupled above spinning rings inside a cryostat. Below
> a critical temperature (typically <30 K), the gyroscopes measure a
> significant deviation from their usual offset due to Earth's rotation.
Interesting. I'm no expert but since gravity bends light could this be
related to the Gravitomagnetic London Moment or that too far fetched?
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033
Sue...
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
Yes. It is the next chapter in Tajmar/deMatos'
investigation of the Tate mass anomaly. There
seems to be a good number of surprises comparing
big Sagnac devices, GP-B data and spinning supercondutors
so if you are a big fan of "breaking news" then
something has to break sooner or later.
A fair collection of relevant papers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Tajmar
Sue...
Eric Gisse
[....]
I can post random stuff from arXiv too. Do you have a point?
Edward Green
I don't know... does the same criticism apply to Sam Wormley?
Assuming that the explanation is not some boring and very un-
unexpected systemic error, it at least looks like an interesting
effect (acting as if I had standing to comment): quantum frame
dragging?
Edward Green
By George, it sounds like the very thing! Your citation is quietly
fantastic, IMHO. A measurable gravitomagnetic field from a laboratory
source? I would have guessed you needed a spinning neutron star.
If only I were alive today, in these exciting times. :-)
Eric Gisse
Sam's postings have a clearly defined and relevant point that merits
posting. Dennis' postings are often off-topic, irrelevant, and never
have any analysis that isn't quotemined and copypasta'd to cloak the
fact he doesn't know WTF he is talking about.
Sam Wormley
>> I can post random stuff from arXiv too. Do you have a point?
>
> I don't know... does the same criticism apply to Sam Wormley?
>
> Assuming that the explanation is not some boring and very un-
> unexpected systemic error, it at least looks like an interesting
> effect (acting as if I had standing to comment): quantum frame
> dragging?
I've been accused of answering with links for years, but I
do make the assumption that the poster I respond to is genuinely
interested in learning... and the references I post are intended
as resources for those the truly want to learn.
I do expect the other guy to make some good faith effort.
-Sam
Sue...
How absent minded of me to think that anomalies
discovered by "Gravity Probe B" could have
any relevance to Einstein's relativity theory.
My bad.
Sue...
Eric Gisse
Since GPB discovered no such anomalies an GPB was not mentioned in
what you posted....what am I supposed to conclude, exactly?
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 18, 9:15 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
> > How absent minded of me to think that anomalies
> > discovered by "Gravity Probe B" could have
> > any relevance to Einstein's relativity theory.
>
> Since GPB discovered no such anomalies an GPB was not mentioned in
> what you posted....what am I supposed to conclude, exactly?
GR’s so-called predictions were totally based on Newtonian results so
far. Yes, thank you for reminding us that GR’s prediction is
absolutely nonsense. It is finally proven false by high-tech. That
castle in the air is crumbling. <shrug>
Even Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who had
contributed nothing had prophesized the demise of GR.
“I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the
field concept --- (ie.) on continuous structures. In that case nothing
remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
[and of] the rest of modern physics.”
Ahahaha...
Sue...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22mass+anomaly%22+%22gravity+probe+b%22&btnG=Search
Read more, post less and don't conclude anything
'till you at least finish you undergrad studies.
Sue...
RustyJames
> On Jan 19, 1:44 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 9:15 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 18, 7:48 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 18, 10:06 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > > [....]
>
> > > > I can post random stuff from arXiv too. Do you have a point?
>
> > > How absent minded of me to think that anomalies
> > > discovered by "Gravity Probe B" could have
> > > any relevance to Einstein's relativity theory.
>
> > > My bad.
>
> > > Sue...
>
> > Since GPB discovered no such anomalies an GPB was not mentioned in
> > what you posted....what am I supposed to conclude, exactly?
>
>
> Read more, post less and don't conclude anything
> 'till you at least finish you undergrad studies.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
vibration
and helium gas friction suggesting that our observation is a new low
temperature phenomenon. Tests in various configurations suggest that
the rotating low temperature helium may be the source of our
anomalous
signals
this is the most interesting post I have read in a while becuase it
posses an enigma that has an intresing phenomenon.
what is the link so I can reads more about this before I comment on
what my be the temperature phenomenon.
Sue...
<< what is the link >>
A fair collection of relevant papers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Tajmar
Sue...
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 18, 10:44 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 9:15 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
> > > How absent minded of me to think that anomalies
> > > discovered by "Gravity Probe B" could have
> > > any relevance to Einstein's relativity theory.
>
> > Since GPB discovered no such anomalies an GPB was not mentioned in
> > what you posted....what am I supposed to conclude, exactly?
>
> GR’s so-called predictions were totally based on Newtonian results so
> far.
A hobbyist's knowledge of both theories is sufficient to disprove that
claim, so clearly you don't even have that much of either theory.
But regardles, let us see the Newtonian derivation of Shapiro delay
and Mercury's perihelion precession. Oh, and the Newtonian derivation
of the timing offset implemented in GPS. I can't remember - do you
even believe the offset is used in the GPS?
> Yes, thank you for reminding us that GR’s prediction is
> absolutely nonsense. It is finally proven false by high-tech. That
> castle in the air is crumbling. <shrug>
Except it isn't "proven false" by GP-B. Feel free to produce one
literature reference supporting your claim.
Regardless, the two effects GP-B was launched to detect have already
been confirmed. Geodetic precession to ~0.2% precision using lunar
ranging, and frame dragging to ~10% through the LAGEOS II satellite
mission.
It would serve you will to actually learn the experimental record. Oh
wait we tried that before too, and you were shown to not even
understanding how to add errors in measurement.
Isn't it sad that you know so little about the subject you have spent
years frothing about that you cannot even understand how to propagate
error in a measurement?
>
> Even Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who had
> contributed nothing had prophesized the demise of GR.
The PhD, Nobel, contributions to quantum mechanics and statistics, and
admiration of 4 generations of physicists begs to differ. Not that the
plaigarism claim stands up to scrutiny anyway, like every single claim
you ever made.
>
> “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the
> field concept --- (ie.) on continuous structures. In that case nothing
> remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
> [and of] the rest of modern physics.”
>
> Ahahaha...
...and yet despite Einstein's proclaimation nobody has actually proved
GR wrong, crank claims that don't even stand up to scrutiny much less
independent confirmation notwithstanding. I'm of the opinion that the
true answer is somewhere in between - there are plenty of cases where
quantum systems exhibit continuous solutions, eg traveling wave.
Your claims against Einstein are put to a much more sense-making light
after yesterday's little rant about the jews. Did you know that jews
vastly dominate the list of Nobel laureates?
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 19, 1:44 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 9:15 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 18, 7:48 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 18, 10:06 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > > [....]
>
> > > > I can post random stuff from arXiv too. Do you have a point?
>
> > > How absent minded of me to think that anomalies
> > > discovered by "Gravity Probe B" could have
> > > any relevance to Einstein's relativity theory.
>
> > > My bad.
>
> > > Sue...
>
> > Since GPB discovered no such anomalies an GPB was not mentioned in
> > what you posted....what am I supposed to conclude, exactly?
>
>
> Read more, post less and don't conclude anything
> 'till you at least finish you undergrad studies.
>
> Sue...
"Although our analysis predicts large gravitomagnetic fields
originating from superconductive gyroscopes, those should not affect
the measurement of the Earth gravitomagnetic field by the Gravity
Probe-B satellite."
Read more, post less and don't conclude anything 'till you at least
learn to read your sources.
RustyJames
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am expeiramenting with occillating a dence material around an area
of less density or gravitational force contained within the area tring
to show that To see why, consider a very thin ring of mass treated as
a circle of radius R in the plane, and a particle inside this ring at
a distance r from the center. Construct an arbitrary line passing
through this particle, striking the ring in two opposite directions at
distances L1 and L2. If we rotate this line about the particle through
an incremental angle dq, it will sweep out sections of the ring
proportional to L1cos(a)dq and L2cos(a)dq, where a is the angle the
chord makes with the normals to the circle at the points of
intersection. The net gravitational force exerted by these two
opposing sections of the ring is proportional to the masses in these
small sections divided by the squares of the distances, i.e., the
force is proportional to dq cos(a) (1/L1 - 1/L2) in the direction of
the L1 intersection point. Hence the net force is in the direction of
the closest point on the ring, directly away from the center.Of course
if the particle was inside a spherical shell instead of a circular
ring, the conical region surrounding each ray through the particle
would sweep out a section of the shell proportional to the square of
the distances L1 and L2, which would then cancel out with the inverse
squares in the force expressions, leaving a net zero force on the
particle. However, in the case of a ring of matter, the distances L1
and L2 appear only to the first power in the mass terms, so they
cancel only one of the powers in the inverse squares. This is why the
net force along every ray is positive in the direction of the closer
point on the ring, which implies that a particle in the interior plane
of the ring would move outward toward the ring. There would be an
equilibrium point at the center of the ring, but this point would not
be stable, i.e., it would be a local maximum of the potential
energy.To quantitatively determine the Newtonian gravitational force
for a massive ring of radius R, we can note first that the field has
cylindrical symmetry, so all that matters is the radial distance (from
the ring’s center) of a test particle and its elevation above the
plane of the ring. It’s convenient to use cylindrical coordinates,
r,q,z, where r is the radial distance from the center of the ring, q
is the angle in the plane of the ring, and z is the elevation above
(or below) the plane of the ring. Without loss of generality we can
focus on a test particle at a distance r from the origin and at an
angle q = 0. Letting r denote the mass per unit length along the
circumference of the ring, each increment of the ring contributes the
incremental mass dm = rRdq. This mass is at a distance s from the
test particle, given by The corresponding incremental potential is -dm/
s, so the total gravitational potential is given by the integral.The
gravitational force in the r and z directions is given by the
derivatives dy/dr and dy/dz. There is no closed-form expression for
the above integral, but we can bring the differentiations inside the
integrals, giving the following expressions for the radial and axial
forces.Using these equations, with R = r = 1, the radial gravitational
force near a ring of matter at various elevations above the plane of
the ring is plotted in the figure below.this should create lift
through reducing earths gravty on the object within the torus.
Ken S. Tucker
That was investigated in the 60's ..., and that
effect could not be found.
Could the speed of light threw a fibre optic
be a function of temperature AND direction?
I've never seen it as a consideration in
interplanetary guidance systems but it would
be nice to see it verified.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Aetherist
>On Jan 19, 1:44?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 9:15?pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 18, 7:48?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 18, 10:06?am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> > > [....]
>>
>> > > I can post random stuff from arXiv too. Do you have a point?
>>
>> > How absent minded of me to think that anomalies
>> > discovered by "Gravity Probe B" could have
>> > any relevance to Einstein's relativity theory.
>>
>> > My bad.
>>
>> > Sue...
>>
>> Since GPB discovered no such anomalies an GPB was not mentioned in
>> what you posted....what am I supposed to conclude, exactly?
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22mass+anomaly%22+%22gravity+probe+b%22&btnG=Search
>
>Read more, post less and don't conclude anything
>'till you at least finish you undergrad studies.
>
>Sue...
Sue, don't try to confuse Eric with facts, his mind is made up... You
should, by now, be able to recognise an arrogant, egocentric close-minded
individual. let's just post a clip from
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf
"An anomalous torque proportional to the misalignment angle WAS
INDEED SEEN in the GP-B experiment with drift rates of a couple
of arcsec/day/degree. The anomalous torque anomaly is presently
modeled as an electrostatic patch effect due to a variation of
the electric potential along the gyro?fs surface. Without
distinguishing between a patch effect or frame-dragging origin
of this effect, we can at least express an upper value for any
non-classical framedragging field generated by the rotating
superconducting Nb shells. Using the average torque of all four
gyros, the upper-limit coupling factor Bg/w = 1E-9 at the
center of the spinning superconductor. This is more than an
order of magnitude smaller compared to our setup.
But, of course, that cannot be anything BUT an electrostatic patch effect. ;)
other references to the London Effect.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0610/0610015.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0607/0607086.pdf
Regards...
Eric Gisse
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:03:50 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On Jan 19, 1:44?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 18, 9:15?pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 18, 7:48?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Jan 18, 10:06?am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> > > [....]
>
> >> > > I can post random stuff from arXiv too. Do you have a point?
>
> >> > How absent minded of me to think that anomalies
> >> > discovered by "Gravity Probe B" could have
> >> > any relevance to Einstein's relativity theory.
>
> >> > My bad.
>
> >> > Sue...
>
> >> Since GPB discovered no such anomalies an GPB was not mentioned in
> >> what you posted....what am I supposed to conclude, exactly?
>
>
> >Read more, post less and don't conclude anything
> >'till you at least finish you undergrad studies.
>
> >Sue...
>
> Sue, don't try to confuse Eric with facts, his mind is made up...
Pot, Kettle, Black, AETHERIST. What the fuck kind of person believes
in the AETHER but can make cracks about "confusing with facts"?
Regardless, you say "made up" like it is a bad thing. I am naturally
prejudiced against crappy science that has been repeatedly submitted
to journals and ignored.
> You
> should, by now, be able to recognise an arrogant, egocentric close-minded
> individual. let's just post a clip from
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf
Not the paper Sue cited. But let's not confuse ourselves with what was
written as opposed to what you wanted written.
>
> "An anomalous torque proportional to the misalignment angle WAS
> INDEED SEEN in the GP-B experiment with drift rates of a couple
> of arcsec/day/degree. The anomalous torque anomaly is presently
> modeled as an electrostatic patch effect due to a variation of
> the electric potential along the gyro?fs surface. Without
> distinguishing between a patch effect or frame-dragging origin
> of this effect, we can at least express an upper value for any
> non-classical framedragging field generated by the rotating
> superconducting Nb shells. Using the average torque of all four
> gyros, the upper-limit coupling factor Bg/w = 1E-9 at the
> center of the spinning superconductor. This is more than an
> order of magnitude smaller compared to our setup.
>
> But, of course, that cannot be anything BUT an electrostatic patch effect. ;)
You claim it is otherwise? Let's see the evidence.
Preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed scholarly citation, not crap
cherry picked off arXiv.
>
> other references to the London Effect.
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0610/0610015.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0607/0607086.pdf
>
> Regards...
...and if you look really carefully, all the references have the same
dude as the principle author. Tajmar's claims are yet to be published
in a peer-reviewed journal much less independantly confirmed.
Sue...
>
> > Regards...
>
> ...and if you look really carefully, all the references have the same
> dude as the principle author. Tajmar's claims are yet to be published
> in a peer-reviewed journal much less independantly confirmed.
Blinders must be a miserable thing to a draft animal.
The poor creature can't ever turn around.
Sue...
Aetherist
Indeed...
Aetherist
>On Jan 19, 7:25 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:03:50 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Jan 19, 1:44?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 18, 9:15?pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jan 18, 7:48?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Jan 18, 10:06?am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >> > > [....]
>>
>>
>> Sue, don't try to confuse Eric with facts, his mind is made up...
>
>Pot, Kettle, Black, AETHERIST. What the fuck kind of person believes
>in the AETHER but can make cracks about "confusing with facts"?
Anyone who openly looks at the body of observational evidence of
science. Form follows from function, Ockham's Razor, KISS, ...etc.
Facts:
1. Maxwell model EM expressions from fluid dynamic
2. GR right side is the Momentum/Energy tensor of hydrodynamics
3. We NEED some form of underlying media calls it Higgs/ZPE if
you want to of the 'fabric' of spacetime BUT, KISS would
suggest aether. You can even call it sug-space but a rose
by any other name is the same thing.
>Regardless, you say "made up" like it is a bad thing.
In the persuit of scientific kn owledge it is...
>I am naturally prejudiced against crappy science that has been
>repeatedly submitted to journals and ignored.
That's not science, it an all boys club. Your mentality was
revealed when you made the exact same argument as the clerics
when Galileo asks them to look through the telescope for
themselves. Who needs any stinking verification experiments?
Our 'scriptures' (fill in GR here) tells us all we need to
know...
>> You
>> should, by now, be able to recognise an arrogant, egocentric close-minded
>> individual. let's just post a clip from
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf
>
> Not the paper Sue cited. But let's not confuse ourselves with what was
> written as opposed to what you wanted written.
>
>> "An anomalous torque proportional to the misalignment angle WAS
>> INDEED SEEN in the GP-B experiment with drift rates of a couple
>> of arcsec/day/degree. The anomalous torque anomaly is presently
>> modeled as an electrostatic patch effect due to a variation of
>> the electric potential along the gyro?fs surface. Without
>> distinguishing between a patch effect or frame-dragging origin
>> of this effect, we can at least express an upper value for any
>> non-classical framedragging field generated by the rotating
>> superconducting Nb shells. Using the average torque of all four
>> gyros, the upper-limit coupling factor Bg/w = 1E-9 at the
>> center of the spinning superconductor. This is more than an
>> order of magnitude smaller compared to our setup.
>>
>> But, of course, that cannot be anything BUT an electrostatic patch effect. ;)
>
>You claim it is otherwise? Let's see the evidence.
hmmm... I'm not the author of the above. It's not my claim. I'm
however open to the possibilty that the acual author could be right.
Further actual testing (experimentation) is needed.
>Preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed scholarly citation, not crap
>cherry picked off arXiv.
The problem with 'Peer Review' as it exists today is inherrent
biases... Lucky for science the internet is not biased...
>> other references to the London Effect.
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0610/0610015.pdf
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0607/0607086.pdf
>>
>> Regards...
>
>...and if you look really carefully, all the references have the same
>dude as the principle author. Tajmar's claims are yet to be published
>in a peer-reviewed journal much less independantly confirmed.
So what? That just means he and his co-authors have an interest
in this topic.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 18, 9:58 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > GR’s so-called predictions were totally based on Newtonian results so
> > far.
>
> A hobbyist's knowledge of both theories is sufficient to disprove that
> claim, so clearly you don't even have that much of either theory.
>
> But regardles, let us see the Newtonian derivation of Shapiro delay
> and Mercury's perihelion precession. Oh, and the Newtonian derivation
> of the timing offset implemented in GPS. I can't remember - do you
> even believe the offset is used in the GPS?
Oh, allow me to clarify what I have meant.
Given the following element to the metric which is nothing but a
matrix, the square root of it conforms to Newtonian result. It is
expanded into its Taylor series.
** sqrt(1 – 2 U) = 1 – U – 0.5 U^2 – 0.5 U^3 +...
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
It is still the first order term (U) that determines all the
predictions and not U^2 (or beyond). U^2 term plays a role in
Mercury’s orbital anomaly. <shrug>
> > Yes, thank you for reminding us that GR’s prediction is
> > absolutely nonsense. It is finally proven false by high-tech. That
> > castle in the air is crumbling. <shrug>
>
> Except it isn't "proven false" by GP-B. Feel free to produce one
> literature reference supporting your claim.
MMX shows no results. GP-B shows null results. What is the best
conclusion?
> Regardless, the two effects GP-B was launched to detect have already
> been confirmed. Geodetic precession to ~0.2% precision using lunar
> ranging, and frame dragging to ~10% through the LAGEOS II satellite
> mission.
Hmmm... What are your claims again?
> [Toxic diarrhea cleansed]
> > Even Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who had
> > contributed nothing had prophesized the demise of GR.
>
> The PhD, Nobel, contributions to quantum mechanics and statistics, and
> admiration of 4 generations of physicists begs to differ. Not that the
> plaigarism claim stands up to scrutiny anyway, like every single claim
> you ever made.
That is a fine example where no-one sees the emperor has no clothes
on. <shrug>
> > “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the
> > field concept --- (ie.) on continuous structures. In that case nothing
> > remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
> > [and of] the rest of modern physics.”
>
> > Ahahaha...
>
> ...and yet despite Einstein's proclaimation nobody has actually proved
> GR wrong, crank claims that don't even stand up to scrutiny much less
> independent confirmation notwithstanding. I'm of the opinion that the
> true answer is somewhere in between - there are plenty of cases where
> quantum systems exhibit continuous solutions, eg traveling wave.
I have shown the field equations are created from pure manipulation of
mathematics which resembled no physical reality. <shrug>
> Your claims against Einstein are put to a much more sense-making light
> after yesterday's little rant about the jews. Did you know that jews
> vastly dominate the list of Nobel laureates?
That is irrelevant. The end of the day Einstein was still a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
RustyJames
well it seams we need more development of drag-free technology
required to prove theses claims against Einstein but I beleive them to
be true it's a foundation of belief that would make my other research
bunk if it were not true.
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 19, 12:17 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 9:58 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > GR’s so-called predictions were totally based on Newtonian results so
> > > far.
>
> > A hobbyist's knowledge of both theories is sufficient to disprove that
> > claim, so clearly you don't even have that much of either theory.
>
> > But regardles, let us see the Newtonian derivation of Shapiro delay
> > and Mercury's perihelion precession. Oh, and the Newtonian derivation
> > of the timing offset implemented in GPS. I can't remember - do you
> > even believe the offset is used in the GPS?
>
> Oh, allow me to clarify what I have meant.
>
> Given the following element to the metric which is nothing but a
> matrix, the square root of it conforms to Newtonian result. It is
> expanded into its Taylor series.
The metric is not a matrix, as demonstrated repeatedly to you
personally and in every tensor analysis textbook ever written.
>
> ** sqrt(1 – 2 U) = 1 – U – 0.5 U^2 – 0.5 U^3 +...
>
> Where
>
> ** U = G M / c^2 / r
>
> It is still the first order term (U) that determines all the
> predictions and not U^2 (or beyond). U^2 term plays a role in
> Mercury’s orbital anomaly. <shrug>
Wrong. The higher order terms are essential.
I do not expect you to know this because you will not go through the
derivation of perihelion advance.
>
> > > Yes, thank you for reminding us that GR’s prediction is
> > > absolutely nonsense. It is finally proven false by high-tech. That
> > > castle in the air is crumbling. <shrug>
>
> > Except it isn't "proven false" by GP-B. Feel free to produce one
> > literature reference supporting your claim.
>
> MMX shows no results. GP-B shows null results. What is the best
> conclusion?
...that you are lying? GP-B did not show "null results".
All you have shown is that you are unable to follow through a simple
derivation without pitching a fit. It was comical watching you scream
and shout about how you didn't understand what a determinant was.
>
> > Your claims against Einstein are put to a much more sense-making light
> > after yesterday's little rant about the jews. Did you know that jews
> > vastly dominate the list of Nobel laureates?
>
> That is irrelevant. The end of the day Einstein was still a nitwit, a
> plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
...and the only people who see it are marginalized until the end of
time. Enjoy your personal hell.
Eric Gisse
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:28:00 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 19, 7:25 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:03:50 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 19, 1:44?am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Jan 18, 9:15?pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Jan 18, 7:48?pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On Jan 18, 10:06?am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> > > [....]
>
> >> Sue, don't try to confuse Eric with facts, his mind is made up...
>
> >Pot, Kettle, Black, AETHERIST. What the fuck kind of person believes
> >in the AETHER but can make cracks about "confusing with facts"?
>
> Anyone who openly looks at the body of observational evidence of
> science. Form follows from function, Ockham's Razor, KISS, ...etc.
....yes, and the scientific community has agreed that your opinon is
maximally wrong. Any less wrong and you'd be getting more right.
>
> Facts:
>
> 1. Maxwell model EM expressions from fluid dynamic
Wrong. Maxwell's equations were the 4 equations which you should know
that were developed over the preceding century, with Maxwell's insight
of adding displacement current and grouping them all together. No
fluid dynamics.
> 2. GR right side is the Momentum/Energy tensor of hydrodynamics
Wrong.
> 3. We NEED some form of underlying media calls it Higgs/ZPE if
> you want to of the 'fabric' of spacetime BUT, KISS would
> suggest aether. You can even call it sug-space but a rose
> by any other name is the same thing.
Wrong. YOU need it to make the framework make sense to you, that does
not mean it is actually needed. Just like Henri Wilson NEEDS an aether
to make SR make sense or how he NEEDS "faeries" to adjust light speed
in SR.
>
> >Regardless, you say "made up" like it is a bad thing.
>
> In the persuit of scientific kn owledge it is...
>
> >I am naturally prejudiced against crappy science that has been
> >repeatedly submitted to journals and ignored.
>
> That's not science, it an all boys club. Your mentality was
> revealed when you made the exact same argument as the clerics
> when Galileo asks them to look through the telescope for
> themselves. Who needs any stinking verification experiments?
You are not Galileo. The evidence you describe does not exist, and you
free to continue to babble your idiocies until the day you die just
like Androcles and such.
> Our 'scriptures' (fill in GR here) tells us all we need to
> know...
Comparing GR to scripture immediately invalidates any opinion you
might have because you are a fucking idiot.
Yes, biases against crap. Challenges against relativity are routinely
published - which you would know if you weren't afraid of looking at
the literature.
>
> >> other references to the London Effect.
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0610/0610015.pdf
> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0607/0607086.pdf
>
> >> Regards...
>
> >...and if you look really carefully, all the references have the same
> >dude as the principle author. Tajmar's claims are yet to be published
> >in a peer-reviewed journal much less independantly confirmed.
>
> So what? That just means he and his co-authors have an interest
> in this topic.
No publication for the experimental findings + no independent
verification + 5 years of repeating the claim == it is probably crap.
I do not have the expertise to critically exmaine Tajmar's
experimental work, so I leave it to people like the reviewers and
editors of Phys. Rev. C. who have rejected his work.
If you don't like the method imposed, suggest a better one that
continues to filter out crap results. Just because you don't like it
does not mean it is wrong.
Aetherist
>On Jan 19, 10:24 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
<Snip...>
>> Anyone who openly looks at the body of observational evidence of
>> science. Form follows from function, Ockham's Razor, KISS, ...etc.
>
>....yes, and the scientific community has agreed that your opinon is
>maximally wrong. Any less wrong and you'd be getting more right.
A quote from Feynman comes to mind, care to guess which one? Hint
it's a title also...
>>
>> Facts:
>>
>> 1. Maxwell model EM expressions from fluid dynamic
>
>Wrong. Maxwell's equations were the 4 equations which you should know
>that were developed over the preceding century, with Maxwell's insight
>of adding displacement current and grouping them all together. No
>fluid dynamics.
Hmmm Maxwell said,
"I have in a former paper* endeavoured to lay before the mind of the
geometer a clear conception of the relation of the lines of force to
the apace in which they are traced. By making use of the conception
of CURRENTS IN A FLUID, I showed how to draw lines of force, which
should indicate by their number the amount of force, so that each
line may be called a unit-line of force (see Faraday's researches)
and I have investigated the path of the lines where they pass from
one medium to another.
In the same paper I have found the geometrical significance of the
"electrotonic State," and have shown how to deduce the mathematical
relations between the electrotonic state, magnetism, electric
currents, and the electromotive force, using mechanical
illustrations to assist the imagination, but not to account for the
phenomena.
I propose now to examine magnetic phenomena from a mechanical point
of view, and to determine what tensions in, or motions of, a medium
are capable of producing the mechanical phenomena observed. If, by
the same hypothesis, we can connect the phenomena of magnetic
attraction with electromagnetic phenomena and with those of induced
currents, we shall have found a theory which, if not true, can only
he proved to be erroneous by experiments which will greatly enlarge
our knowledge of this part of physics."
Care to guess in which paper? Perhaps you know of some other where
Maxwell actually models EM processes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force.pdf
and recants, and claiming the model invalid?
>> 2. GR right side is the Momentum/Energy tensor of hydrodynamics
>
> Wrong.
http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr2b.pdf
>> 3. We NEED some form of underlying media calls it Higgs/ZPE if
>> you want to of the 'fabric' of spacetime BUT, KISS would
>> suggest aether. You can even call it sug-space but a rose
>> by any other name is the same thing.
>
>Wrong. YOU need it to make the framework make sense to you, that does
>not mean it is actually needed. Just like Henri Wilson NEEDS an aether
>to make SR make sense or how he NEEDS "faeries" to adjust light speed
>in SR.
Are you saying the Higgs field & ZPF doesn't exist??? Interesting...
>> >Regardless, you say "made up" like it is a bad thing.
>>
>> In the persuit of scientific knowledge it is...
>>
>> >I am naturally prejudiced against crappy science that has been
>> >repeatedly submitted to journals and ignored.
>>
>> That's not science, it an all boys club. Your mentality was
>> revealed when you made the exact same argument as the clerics
>> when Galileo asks them to look through the telescope for
>> themselves. Who needs any stinking verification experiments?
>
>You are not Galileo. The evidence you describe does not exist, and you
>free to continue to babble your idiocies until the day you die just
>like Androcles and such.
And you're not the church clerics. But the mentality of both
you & and said clerics is the same!
>> Our 'scriptures' (fill in GR here) tells us all we need to
>> know...
>
>Comparing GR to scripture immediately invalidates any opinion you
>might have because you are a fucking idiot.
It is your behavior that was of identical, claiming there was no
need to set up a probe to test the Pioneer Anomaly. That's not
science, it a faith based knee-jerk raction just as those clerics...
And you get to be judge & decider of crap? How narcissistic of you.
>> >> other references to the London Effect.
>>
>> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
>> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0610/0610015.pdf
>> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0607/0607086.pdf
>>
>> >> Regards...
>>
>> >...and if you look really carefully, all the references have the same
>> >dude as the principle author. Tajmar's claims are yet to be published
>> >in a peer-reviewed journal much less independantly confirmed.
>>
>> So what? That just means he and his co-authors have an interest
>> in this topic.
>
>No publication for the experimental findings + no independent
>verification + 5 years of repeating the claim == it is probably crap.
>I do not have the expertise to critically exmaine Tajmar's
>experimental work, so I leave it to people like the reviewers and
>editors of Phys. Rev. C. who have rejected his work.
All the more reason for, as you say, independent verification...
>If you don't like the method imposed, suggest a better one that
>continues to filter out crap results. Just because you don't like it
>does not mean it is wrong.
more actual experimentation, especially, "independent validation".
Eric Gisse
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:17:44 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 19, 10:24 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
> <Snip...>
>
> >> Anyone who openly looks at the body of observational evidence of
> >> science. Form follows from function, Ockham's Razor, KISS, ...etc.
>
> >....yes, and the scientific community has agreed that your opinon is
> >maximally wrong. Any less wrong and you'd be getting more right.
>
> A quote from Feynman comes to mind, care to guess which one? Hint
> it's a title also...
>
>
>
> >> Facts:
>
> >> 1. Maxwell model EM expressions from fluid dynamic
>
> >Wrong. Maxwell's equations were the 4 equations which you should know
> >that were developed over the preceding century, with Maxwell's insight
> >of adding displacement current and grouping them all together. No
> >fluid dynamics.
>
> Hmmm Maxwell said,
>
> "I have in a former paper* endeavoured to lay before the mind of the
> geometer a clear conception of the relation of the lines of force to
> the apace in which they are traced. By making use of the conception
> of CURRENTS IN A FLUID, I showed how to draw lines of force, which
Key word being "conception". No actual fluid dynamics in Maxwell's
equations.
[...]
> Care to guess in which paper? Perhaps you know of some other where
> Maxwell actually models EM processes.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/On_Physical_Lines_...
>
> and recants, and claiming the model invalid?
>
> >> 2. GR right side is the Momentum/Energy tensor of hydrodynamics
>
> > Wrong.
>
> http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr2b.pdf
Not even looking, as I know what you are trying to clumsily refer me
towards. The right hand side of the Einstein field equations is a four
dimensional stress-energy tensor. The Maxwell stress tensor of
classical E&M is 3 dimensional.
Moderately huge difference.
>
> >> 3. We NEED some form of underlying media calls it Higgs/ZPE if
> >> you want to of the 'fabric' of spacetime BUT, KISS would
> >> suggest aether. You can even call it sug-space but a rose
> >> by any other name is the same thing.
>
> >Wrong. YOU need it to make the framework make sense to you, that does
> >not mean it is actually needed. Just like Henri Wilson NEEDS an aether
> >to make SR make sense or how he NEEDS "faeries" to adjust light speed
> >in SR.
>
> Are you saying the Higgs field & ZPF doesn't exist??? Interesting...
No, I am saying that GR doesn't need such constructs to function.
[...idiocy...]
> It is your behavior that was of identical, claiming there was no
> need to set up a probe to test the Pioneer Anomaly. That's not
> science, it a faith based knee-jerk raction just as those clerics...
Its' a waste of money when the effect doesn't show up in orbits of
planets, comets, or asteroids. Its' a waste of money when the effect's
already absurdly small magnitude gets cut down by a third with a small
bit of thermal modeling. Its' a waste of money when the pluto express
mission can be used.
[snip]
> >Yes, biases against crap. Challenges against relativity are routinely
> >published - which you would know if you weren't afraid of looking at
> >the literature.
>
> And you get to be judge & decider of crap? How narcissistic of you.
The criteria I use to judge are rather simple. It isn't right just
because it tells you what you want to hear.
>
>
>
> >> >> other references to the London Effect.
>
> >> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
> >> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0610/0610015.pdf
> >> >>http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0607/0607086.pdf
>
> >> >> Regards...
>
> >> >...and if you look really carefully, all the references have the same
> >> >dude as the principle author. Tajmar's claims are yet to be published
> >> >in a peer-reviewed journal much less independantly confirmed.
>
> >> So what? That just means he and his co-authors have an interest
> >> in this topic.
>
> >No publication for the experimental findings + no independent
> >verification + 5 years of repeating the claim == it is probably crap.
> >I do not have the expertise to critically exmaine Tajmar's
> >experimental work, so I leave it to people like the reviewers and
> >editors of Phys. Rev. C. who have rejected his work.
>
> All the more reason for, as you say, independent verification...
When it happens let me know.
RustyJames
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field which was written in
the year 1864, is the third of James Clerk Maxwell's papers concerned
with electromagnetism. It is the paper in which the original set of
four Maxwell's equations first appeared. The concept of displacement
current that he had introduced in his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of
Force was utilized for the first time, in order to derive the
electromagnetic wave equation.But I can find no connection between
fluid dynamics but derivations of his equations can be applied as a
function to satisfy the Leibniz product law for aplications in fluid
dynamics of displacement current and grouping them all together.
Sue...
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Tajmar
>
> Anyone who openly looks at the body of observational evidence of
> science. Form follows from function, Ockham's Razor, KISS, ...etc.
>
> Facts:
>
> 1. Maxwell model EM expressions from fluid dynamic
> 2. GR right side is the Momentum/Energy tensor of hydrodynamics
--
> 3. We NEED some form of underlying media calls it Higgs/ZPE if
> you want to of the 'fabric' of spacetime BUT, KISS would
> suggest aether. You can even call it sug-space but a rose
> by any other name is the same thing.
The hydrogen and helium that is difficult to escape in
this universe can function as such a fluid, working
as a linear dielectric to conduct transverse forces
like light; working as a coherent dielectric to
conduct longitudinal forces like gravity and
Van der Waals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
The Origin of Gravity
--C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
It is interesting that Tajmar's group has
shifted their focus from the test mass to
the coolant in searching for the anomaly.
Sue...
RustyJames
> On Jan 19, 2:24 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anyone who openly looks at the body of observational evidence of
> > science. Form follows from function, Ockham's Razor, KISS, ...etc.
>
> > Facts:
>
> > 1. Maxwell model EM expressions from fluid dynamic
> > 2. GR right side is the Momentum/Energy tensor of hydrodynamics
> --
> > 3. We NEED some form of underlying media calls it Higgs/ZPE if
> > you want to of the 'fabric' of spacetime BUT, KISS would
> > suggest aether. You can even call it sug-space but a rose
> > by any other name is the same thing.
>
> The hydrogen and helium that is difficult to escape in
> this universe can function as such a fluid, working
> as a linear dielectric to conduct transverse forces
> like light; working as a coherent dielectric to
> conduct longitudinal forces like gravity and
> Van der Waals.
>
>
> The Origin of Gravity
> --C. P. Kouropouloshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Regards...
>
> > >...and if you look really carefully, all the references have the same
> > >dude as the principle author. Tajmar's claims are yet to be published
> > >in a peer-reviewed journal much less independantly confirmed.
>
> > So what? That just means he and his co-authors have an interest
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Polar molecules in space are like little magnets. When two magnets
are oriented with a positive end of one near the negative end of the
other, they will attract each other and bind tightly together.but in
space their monopoles wont aligne their ends with the same polarity
near each other (positive to positive or negative to negative) they
will repulse each other.only negative monopoles reside in the aether
creating a negative pressure within the energy feild tenser causing
the expantion of the energy or dark matter pushing everything in the
universwe outwards in all directions due to matter converted to energy
through black hole quasaric jets replenising a never ending sorce of
new energy within the aether constructs.
RustyJames
wrote:
> On Jan 19, 11:20 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 2:24 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Tajmar
>
> > > Anyone who openly looks at the body of observational evidence of
> > > science. Form follows from function, Ockham's Razor, KISS, ...etc.
>
> > > Facts:
>
> > > 1. Maxwell model EM expressions from fluid dynamic
> > > 2. GR right side is the Momentum/Energy tensor of hydrodynamics
> > --
> > > 3. We NEED some form of underlying media calls it Higgs/ZPE if
> > > you want to of the 'fabric' of spacetime BUT, KISS would
> > > suggest aether. You can even call it sug-space but a rose
> > > by any other name is the same thing.
>
> > The hydrogen and helium that is difficult to escape in
> > this universe can function as such a fluid, working
> > as a linear dielectric to conduct transverse forces
> > like light; working as a coherent dielectric to
> > conduct longitudinal forces like gravity and
> > Van der Waals.
>
>
> > The Origin of Gravity
> > --C. P. Kouropouloshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107...
>
> > > >> Regards...
>
> > > >...and if you look really carefully, all the references have the same
> > > >dude as the principle author. Tajmar's claims are yet to be published
> > > >in a peer-reviewed journal much less independantly confirmed.
>
> > > So what? That just means he and his co-authors have an interest
> > > in this topic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Polar molecules in space are like little magnets. When two magnets
> are oriented with a positive end of one near the negative end of the
> other, they will attract each other and bind tightly together.but in
> space their monopoles wont aligne their ends with the same polarity
> near each other (positive to positive or negative to negative) they
> will repulse each other.only negative monopoles reside in the aether
> creating a negative pressure within the energy feild tenser causing
> the expantion of the energy or dark matter pushing everything in the
> universwe outwards in all directions due to matter converted to energy
> through black hole quasaric jets replenising a never ending sorce of
>
> - Show quoted text -
Im not clear on the speed of the energy conversion of the matter to
energy within the aether and how all the energy reaches a state of
equillibrium but I'll stew over it the next couple days.
Sue...
> Polar molecules in space are like little magnets. When two magnets
> are oriented with a positive end of one near the negative end of the
> other, they will attract each other and bind tightly together.but in
> space their monopoles wont aligne their ends with the same polarity
> near each other (positive to positive or negative to negative) they
> will repulse each other.only negative monopoles reside in the aether
> creating a negative pressure within the energy feild tenser causing
> the expantion of the energy or dark matter pushing everything in the
> universwe outwards in all directions due to matter converted to energy
> through black hole quasaric jets replenising a never ending sorce of
> new energy within the aether constructs.
Some pretty expansive notions you have there
but I doubt anyone can read them.
<< A built-in spell checker lets you enter text
directly into Web pages— like blog posts and
Web-based email—without worrying about typos
and misspellings. Work directly with the Web
and save yourself a step. >>
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/
Sue...
RustyJames
fingers are having trouble with the touch screen you love busting my
man sacks dont you
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 19, 2:14 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Given the following element to the metric which is nothing but a
> > matrix, the square root of it conforms to Newtonian result. It is
> > expanded into its Taylor series.
>
> The metric is not a matrix, as demonstrated repeatedly to you
> personally and in every tensor analysis textbook ever written.
I have shown you many times over that the metric is an ordinary
matrix. It means nothing stand alone. It needs a specific coordinate
system to describe a geometry. <shrug> Just what part of it that you
do not understand.
> [Personal insults and whining diarrhea cleansed]
There is nothing left as usual. <shrug>
Aetherist
>A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field which was written in
>the year 1864, is the third of James Clerk Maxwell's papers concerned
>with electromagnetism. It is the paper in which the original set of
>four Maxwell's equations first appeared. The concept of displacement
>current that he had introduced in his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of
>Force was utilized for the first time, in order to derive the
>electromagnetic wave equation.But I can find no connection between
>fluid dynamics but derivations of his equations can be applied as a
>function to satisfy the Leibniz product law for aplications in fluid
>dynamics of displacement current and grouping them all together.
You must put his work into historical context. If you read through
his 1861-62 work it explicitly states many times he is envisioning
and describing the behavior of a perfect fluid vortex mdeia. He was
one of the pioneers of both kinetic theory, themodynamics, and
an their combination, Continuum Mechanics. Do you know of any
incompatibility of Maxwell's equations with a hydrodynamical
correlation?
He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
a classic elastic media expression of,
c = Sqrt(M/rho)
Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
Then there is, from Condon & Odishaw's "Handbook of Physics"
"There is an analogy between fluid dynamics for solenoidal
fields and electrodynamics: the vortex strength corresponds
to the current intensity and the vortex vector to the
current density. Vortices are surrounded by velocity lines
(streamlines for steady flows) just as electric currents are
by magnetic lines of force. In these terms the flow velocity
is said to be induced by the vorticity. The formula for
induced velocity corresponds EXACTLY to the law of Biot and
Savart for the magnetic effect of an electric current ."
[(Fluid Mechanics) Section 6 Page 3-20 & 3-21]
So, one must 'invent' reasons to claim that both Ockham's Razor
and the KISS principle does not require one to conclude that,
given the perfect mathematical equality of expression that
Maxwell was totally wrong in his 1861-62 work and the EM
'fields' simply cannot cannot be manifestations of a vortex
perfect fluid medium.
This coupled to the fact that all of the physical constants of
nature, including the gravitational constant, can be expressed
in terms of Maxwell's perfect fluid properties of kinetic
entities is a powerful argument since it, by inclusion of
G shows a connection of gravity to EM and large step towards
unification.
Eric Gisse
Other than that it is nonsense when considered?
Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
counterparts.
The only analogies that can be made are from the similarities between
some of the static equations [Gauss' law, Biot-Savart law], and that
of fluid dynamics. The analogy fails to the point of absurdity.
>
> He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
> a classic elastic media expression of,
>
> c = Sqrt(M/rho)
>
> Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
...and in elastic media, propagations are longitudinal whereas
propagations are transverse in Maxwell's E&M. Not the same.
Historical context is important, as the theory was developed by a man
who did not live to see the Michelson-Morely experiment, or any of
20th century physics.
>
> Then there is, from Condon & Odishaw's "Handbook of Physics"
>
> "There is an analogy between fluid dynamics for solenoidal
> fields and electrodynamics: the vortex strength corresponds
> to the current intensity and the vortex vector to the
> current density. Vortices are surrounded by velocity lines
> (streamlines for steady flows) just as electric currents are
> by magnetic lines of force. In these terms the flow velocity
> is said to be induced by the vorticity. The formula for
> induced velocity corresponds EXACTLY to the law of Biot and
> Savart for the magnetic effect of an electric current ."
>
> [(Fluid Mechanics) Section 6 Page 3-20 & 3-21]
>
> So, one must 'invent' reasons to claim that both Ockham's Razor
> and the KISS principle does not require one to conclude that,
> given the perfect mathematical equality of expression that
> Maxwell was totally wrong in his 1861-62 work and the EM
> 'fields' simply cannot cannot be manifestations of a vortex
> perfect fluid medium.
It isn't perfect, it is only meaningful in special cases.
>
> This coupled to the fact that all of the physical constants of
> nature, including the gravitational constant, can be expressed
> in terms of Maxwell's perfect fluid properties of kinetic
> entities is a powerful argument since it, by inclusion of
> G shows a connection of gravity to EM and large step towards
> unification.
Powerfully wrong. A Maxwell equation analog of Newtonian gravitation
predicts things like dipole gravitational radiation.
It doesn't work.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 20, 6:01 pm, Aetherist wrote:
> > You must put his work into historical context. If you read through
> > his 1861-62 work it explicitly states many times he is envisioning
> > and describing the behavior of a perfect fluid vortex mdeia. He was
> > one of the pioneers of both kinetic theory, themodynamics, and
> > an their combination, Continuum Mechanics. Do you know of any
> > incompatibility of Maxwell's equations with a hydrodynamical
> > correlation?
>
> Other than that it is nonsense when considered?
>
> Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
> equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
> counterparts.
So, it is not a textbook you preferred to sit on. <shrug>
> The only analogies that can be made are from the similarities between
> some of the static equations [Gauss' law, Biot-Savart law], and that
> of fluid dynamics. The analogy fails to the point of absurdity.
What is so absurd about it? The most basics such as Newtonian law of
gravity and Coulomb’s law are all defined at a microscopic level where
it is the interaction of one fundamental/quantized particle with
another. It is up to you to present the result with statistically
large numbers. <shrug>
> > He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
> > a classic elastic media expression of,
>
> > c = Sqrt(M/rho)
>
> > Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
>
> ...and in elastic media, propagations are longitudinal whereas
> propagations are transverse in Maxwell's E&M. Not the same.
I do not think the current understanding of electromagnetism is
correct. In doing so, I would not rule out a longitudinal
propagation. As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field.
The concept of a magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the
concept got stuck. We will leave this discussion some other time when
it is more appropriate.
> Historical context is important, as the theory was developed by a man
> who did not live to see the Michelson-Morely experiment, or any of
> 20th century physics.
Hmmm... It is totally irrelevant. After all, there are an infinite
numbers of mathematical models that allow the null results of the MMX
to be compatible with Maxwell’s equations. Among these infinite ones,
there is only one that does not manifest the twin’s paradox, and there
is only one that satisfies the principle of relativity. Can you
identify these two?
> > This coupled to the fact that all of the physical constants of
> > nature, including the gravitational constant, can be expressed
> > in terms of Maxwell's perfect fluid properties of kinetic
> > entities is a powerful argument since it, by inclusion of
> > G shows a connection of gravity to EM and large step towards
> > unification.
>
> Powerfully wrong. A Maxwell equation analog of Newtonian gravitation
> predicts things like dipole gravitational radiation.
Hmmm... The only reason that gravitation is not a dipole system is
that there is no negative mass despite the speculation by Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that empty space exists negative
mass density. <shrug>
Gravitational quadruple is a wishful thinking. It is a pure
mathematical invention with a few matheMagical tricks in between.
<shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 20, 10:06 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 6:01 pm, Aetherist wrote:
> > > You must put his work into historical context. If you read through
> > > his 1861-62 work it explicitly states many times he is envisioning
> > > and describing the behavior of a perfect fluid vortex mdeia. He was
> > > one of the pioneers of both kinetic theory, themodynamics, and
> > > an their combination, Continuum Mechanics. Do you know of any
> > > incompatibility of Maxwell's equations with a hydrodynamical
> > > correlation?
>
> > Other than that it is nonsense when considered?
>
> > Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
> > equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
> > counterparts.
>
> So, it is not a textbook you preferred to sit on. <shrug>
>
> > The only analogies that can be made are from the similarities between
> > some of the static equations [Gauss' law, Biot-Savart law], and that
> > of fluid dynamics. The analogy fails to the point of absurdity.
>
> What is so absurd about it?
The answer lies in the ability to answer this: What is the fluid
analogy of electric and magnetic fields? What is the fluid analogy of
the Poynting vector? What's the fluid analogy to the parts of
Maxwell's equations that have time derivatives
> The most basics such as Newtonian law of
> gravity and Coulomb’s law are all defined at a microscopic level where
> it is the interaction of one fundamental/quantized particle with
> another. It is up to you to present the result with statistically
> large numbers. <shrug>
I thought we agreed that you knew nothing about statistics after your
inability to understand how to add two sources of error and determine
the total error.
>
> > > He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
> > > a classic elastic media expression of,
>
> > > c = Sqrt(M/rho)
>
> > > Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
>
> > ...and in elastic media, propagations are longitudinal whereas
> > propagations are transverse in Maxwell's E&M. Not the same.
>
> I do not think the current understanding of electromagnetism is
> correct.
Based on what evidence?
How much electromagnetic theory have you been taught? Given that you
violently argue against relativity, it stands to reason that you do
not understand the covariant implementation of Maxwell which means you
have an engineer's undergraduate exposure to the theory at most.
> In doing so, I would not rule out a longitudinal
> propagation.
Except observation doesn't support it.
> As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field.
The magnet stuck to the wall disagrees.
> The concept of a magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the
> concept got stuck. We will leave this discussion some other time when
> it is more appropriate.
>
> > Historical context is important, as the theory was developed by a man
> > who did not live to see the Michelson-Morely experiment, or any of
> > 20th century physics.
>
> Hmmm... It is totally irrelevant. After all, there are an infinite
> numbers of mathematical models that allow the null results of the MMX
> to be compatible with Maxwell’s equations. Among these infinite ones,
> there is only one that does not manifest the twin’s paradox, and there
> is only one that satisfies the principle of relativity. Can you
> identify these two?
The answer is SO(3,1), subset of the group which preserves Maxwell's
equations which is called the Conformal group.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/symmetries.html
The Twins paradox is a teaching exercise that has the secondary
utility of weeding out those which are too stupid to learn.
>
> > > This coupled to the fact that all of the physical constants of
> > > nature, including the gravitational constant, can be expressed
> > > in terms of Maxwell's perfect fluid properties of kinetic
> > > entities is a powerful argument since it, by inclusion of
> > > G shows a connection of gravity to EM and large step towards
> > > unification.
>
> > Powerfully wrong. A Maxwell equation analog of Newtonian gravitation
> > predicts things like dipole gravitational radiation.
>
> Hmmm... The only reason that gravitation is not a dipole system is
> that there is no negative mass despite the speculation by Einstein the
> nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that empty space exists negative
> mass density. <shrug>
-1, Stupid.
Negative _ENERGY_ density is not the same thing as negative mass. Your
usage of relativity is selective and inconsistent - E=mc^2 does not
apply here.
>
> Gravitational quadruple is a wishful thinking. It is a pure
> mathematical invention with a few matheMagical tricks in between.
> <shrug>
..."tricks" that you can not identify despite repeated requests for
you to do so.
..."wishful thinking" despite abundant indirect evidence otherwise.
RustyJames
I think the low tempature is has Reduced Bend Radius in the Fiber from
tempature contraction
cuasing the signifcant deviation from their usual Earth rotation
offset proportional to the applied angular ring velocity. the fiber
gyrometer with high stability of scaling factor comprising a light
source (2) supplying the two ends of a ring-shaped guide (1) and a
sensor (6) receiving the two modal distributions which have traveled
along the guide (1) in mutually inverse directions, the values Vdc,
V1, and V2 representing the continuous components respectively
incoherent, of the fundamental and of the order 1 harmonic, of the
optical signal are used for establishing a quotient independent of the
fluctuations of the components of the gyrometer and representing the
scaling factor. These values are derived for the first detection and
for the two others from the synchronous demodulation of the optical
signal.the magnetic enviorment would be altered two from a critical
temperature (typically <30K),melecular activity slows down
Sue...
> On Jan 20, 9:48 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 10:06 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 20, 6:01 pm, Aetherist wrote:
> > > > You must put his work into historical context. If you read through
> > > > his 1861-62 work it explicitly states many times he is envisioning
> > > > and describing the behavior of a perfect fluid vortex mdeia. He was
> > > > one of the pioneers of both kinetic theory, themodynamics, and
> > > > an their combination, Continuum Mechanics. Do you know of any
> > > > incompatibility of Maxwell's equations with a hydrodynamical
> > > > correlation?
>
> > > Other than that it is nonsense when considered?
>
> > > Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
> > > equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
> > > counterparts.
>
> > So, it is not a textbook you preferred to sit on. <shrug>
>
> > > The only analogies that can be made are from the similarities between
> > > some of the static equations [Gauss' law, Biot-Savart law], and that
> > > of fluid dynamics. The analogy fails to the point of absurdity.
>
> > What is so absurd about it?
>
> The answer lies in the ability to answer this: What is the fluid
> analogy of electric and magnetic fields? What is the fluid analogy of
> the Poynting vector?
> What's the fluid analogy to the parts of
> Maxwell's equations that have time derivatives
Time is only used in equation 511.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
The analogy is obvious to anyone that has ever
thrown a rock into a pool of water.
>
> > The most basics such as Newtonian law of
> > gravity and Coulomb’s law are all defined at a microscopic level where
> > it is the interaction of one fundamental/quantized particle with
> > another. It is up to you to present the result with statistically
> > large numbers. <shrug>
>
> I thought we agreed that you knew nothing about statistics after your
> inability to understand how to add two sources of error and determine
> the total error.
>
>
What statistics? There is nothing to count.
>
> > > > He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
> > > > a classic elastic media expression of,
>
> > > > c = Sqrt(M/rho)
>
> > > > Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
>
> > > ...and in elastic media, propagations are longitudinal whereas
> > > propagations are transverse in Maxwell's E&M. Not the same.
>
> > I do not think the current understanding of electromagnetism is
> > correct.
>
> Based on what evidence?
>
> How much electromagnetic theory have you been taught? Given that you
> violently argue against relativity, it stands to reason that you do
> not understand the covariant implementation of Maxwell which means you
> have an engineer's undergraduate exposure to the theory at most.
>
Tom Robert's has already disproved the utility of that
tactic but you can make yourself look as foolish as
he does when it is employed at your pleasure.
> > In doing so, I would not rule out a longitudinal
> > propagation.
>
> Except observation doesn't support it.
Every antenna built since Heaviside has shown
the inductive (transverse) component diminishing
by 1/r^3:
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
That leaves on only the electric (longitudinal)
component to account for the inverse square law
path attenuation.
Read some Jackson.
>
> > As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field.
>
> The magnet stuck to the wall disagrees.
No... The magnet stuck to the wall agrees.
Here is the proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_integral#Some_practical_applications
>
> > The concept of a magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the
> > concept got stuck. We will leave this discussion some other time when
> > it is more appropriate.
>
> > > Historical context is important, as the theory was developed by a man
> > > who did not live to see the Michelson-Morely experiment, or any of
> > > 20th century physics.
>
> > Hmmm... It is totally irrelevant. After all, there are an infinite
> > numbers of mathematical models that allow the null results of the MMX
> > to be compatible with Maxwell’s equations. Among these infinite ones,
> > there is only one that does not manifest the twin’s paradox, and there
> > is only one that satisfies the principle of relativity. Can you
> > identify these two?
>
> The answer is SO(3,1), subset of the group which preserves Maxwell's
> equations which is called the Conformal group.
>
[Baez site snipped, He need to remove the pages he has
himself identified as mathematically absurd ]
>
> The Twins paradox is a teaching exercise that has the secondary
> utility of weeding out those which are too stupid to learn.
>
Where does it teach the absurdity of light particles
moving under the influence of a gravito-inertial field?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/
Sue...
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 20, 9:48 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > What is so absurd about it?
>
> The answer lies in the ability to answer this: What is the fluid
> analogy of electric and magnetic fields? What is the fluid analogy of
> the Poynting vector? What's the fluid analogy to the parts of
> Maxwell's equations that have time derivatives
Well, you are reading it differently than I did. As I said, the macro
effect of electromagnetism is the overall sum of the micro effect
defined in Coulomb’s and Ampere’s laws. <shrug>
> > The most basics such as Newtonian law of
> > gravity and Coulomb’s law are all defined at a microscopic level where
> > it is the interaction of one fundamental/quantized particle with
> > another. It is up to you to present the result with statistically
> > large numbers. <shrug>
>
> I thought we agreed that you knew nothing about statistics after your
> inability to understand how to add two sources of error and determine
> the total error.
You are still in your dream world. We never have agreed in such a
thing. You just do not know how to processor error information.
<shrug>
> > I do not think the current understanding of electromagnetism is
> > correct.
>
> Based on what evidence?
How many times do I have to tell you?
As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field. The concept of a
magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the concept got stuck.
We will leave this discussion some other time when
it is more appropriate.
> How much electromagnetic theory have you been taught? Given that you
> violently argue against relativity, it stands to reason that you do
> not understand the covariant implementation of Maxwell which means you
> have an engineer's undergraduate exposure to the theory at most.
Is this the best insult coming from a college drop-out?
> > In doing so, I would not rule out a longitudinal
> > propagation.
>
> Except observation doesn't support it.
You need to interpret it differently. <shrug>
> > As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field.
>
> The magnet stuck to the wall disagrees.
Not really. <shrug>
> > Hmmm... It is totally irrelevant. After all, there are an infinite
> > numbers of mathematical models that allow the null results of the MMX
> > to be compatible with Maxwell’s equations. Among these infinite ones,
> > there is only one that does not manifest the twin’s paradox, and there
> > is only one that satisfies the principle of relativity. Can you
> > identify these two?
>
> The answer is SO(3,1), subset of the group which preserves Maxwell's
> equations which is called the Conformal group.
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/symmetries.html
Wrong again. Try the Lorentz and the Voigt transforms. <shrug>
> The Twins paradox is a teaching exercise that has the secondary
> utility of weeding out those which are too stupid to learn.
Again, you don’t know jack-sh*t. <shrug>
> > Hmmm... The only reason that gravitation is not a dipole system is
> > that there is no negative mass despite the speculation by Einstein the
> > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that empty space exists negative
> > mass density. <shrug>
>
> -1, Stupid.
More insults coming from a college drop-out. <shrug>
> Negative _ENERGY_ density is not the same thing as negative mass. Your
> usage of relativity is selective and inconsistent - E=mc^2 does not
> apply here.
You are utterly incoherent. <shrug>
> > Gravitational quadruple is a wishful thinking. It is a pure
> > mathematical invention with a few matheMagical tricks in between.
> > <shrug>
>
> ..."tricks" that you can not identify despite repeated requests for
> you to do so.
When did you request that one again?
> ..."wishful thinking" despite abundant indirect evidence otherwise.
What evidence is that again?
Eric Gisse
[...]
> > I thought we agreed that you knew nothing about statistics after your
> > inability to understand how to add two sources of error and determine
> > the total error.
>
> You are still in your dream world. We never have agreed in such a
> thing. You just do not know how to processor error information.
> <shrug>
Well I guess we never did agree, probably because you don't know how
to add error.
>
> > > I do not think the current understanding of electromagnetism is
> > > correct.
>
> > Based on what evidence?
>
> How many times do I have to tell you?
>
> As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field. The concept of a
> magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the concept got stuck.
> We will leave this discussion some other time when
> it is more appropriate.
After you take a course in electromagnetic theory?
>
> > How much electromagnetic theory have you been taught? Given that you
> > violently argue against relativity, it stands to reason that you do
> > not understand the covariant implementation of Maxwell which means you
> > have an engineer's undergraduate exposure to the theory at most.
>
> Is this the best insult coming from a college drop-out?
Apprently you have been taught no electromagnetic theory since you
responded with your typical idiotic insults.
>
> > > In doing so, I would not rule out a longitudinal
> > > propagation.
>
> > Except observation doesn't support it.
>
> You need to interpret it differently. <shrug>
Longitudinal waves don't have polarization. Take a course in
electromagnetic theory.
>
> > > As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field.
>
> > The magnet stuck to the wall disagrees.
>
> Not really. <shrug>
>
> > > Hmmm... It is totally irrelevant. After all, there are an infinite
> > > numbers of mathematical models that allow the null results of the MMX
> > > to be compatible with Maxwell’s equations. Among these infinite ones,
> > > there is only one that does not manifest the twin’s paradox, and there
> > > is only one that satisfies the principle of relativity. Can you
> > > identify these two?
>
> > The answer is SO(3,1), subset of the group which preserves Maxwell's
> > equations which is called the Conformal group.
>
> >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/symmetries.html
>
> Wrong again. Try the Lorentz and the Voigt transforms. <shrug>
SO(3,1) derives the Lorentz transform easily.
>
> > The Twins paradox is a teaching exercise that has the secondary
> > utility of weeding out those which are too stupid to learn.
>
> Again, you don’t know jack-sh*t. <shrug>
>
> > > Hmmm... The only reason that gravitation is not a dipole system is
> > > that there is no negative mass despite the speculation by Einstein the
> > > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar that empty space exists negative
> > > mass density. <shrug>
>
> > -1, Stupid.
>
> More insults coming from a college drop-out. <shrug>
>
> > Negative _ENERGY_ density is not the same thing as negative mass. Your
> > usage of relativity is selective and inconsistent - E=mc^2 does not
> > apply here.
>
> You are utterly incoherent. <shrug>
Which part do you not understand?
>
> > > Gravitational quadruple is a wishful thinking. It is a pure
> > > mathematical invention with a few matheMagical tricks in between.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > ..."tricks" that you can not identify despite repeated requests for
> > you to do so.
>
> When did you request that one again?
In the archives - go look.
>
> > ..."wishful thinking" despite abundant indirect evidence otherwise.
>
> What evidence is that again?
The discoverers got a Nobel prize for it. Go look.
Sue...
*Acoustic* longitudinal waves don't have
polarization.
Take a course in electromagnetism and learn
what an electric dipole is.
Classical Electromagnetism:
An intermediate level course
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Visualizing Electricity and Magnetism at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Sue...
Aetherist
>On Jan 20, 6:01 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> Facts:
>>
>> >> > >> 1. Maxwell model EM expressions from fluid dynamic
>>
>> >> > >Wrong. Maxwell's equations were the 4 equations which you should know
>> >> > >that were developed over the preceding century, with Maxwell's insight
>> >> > >of adding displacement current and grouping them all together. No
>> >> > >fluid dynamics.
>>
>> >> > Hmmm Maxwell said,
>>
>> >> > "I have in a former paper* endeavoured to lay before the mind of the
>> >> > geometer a clear conception of the relation of the lines of force to
>> >> > the apace in which they are traced. By making use of the conception
>> >> > of CURRENTS IN A FLUID, I showed how to draw lines of force, which
>>
>> >> Key word being "conception". No actual fluid dynamics in Maxwell's
>> >> equations.
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > Care to guess in which paper? Perhaps you know of some other where
>> >> > Maxwell actually models EM processes.
>>
>> >> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/On_Physical_Lines_...
>>
>> >> > and recants, and claiming the model invalid?
>>
>> >> > >> 2. GR right side is the Momentum/Energy tensor of hydrodynamics
>>
>> >> > > Wrong.
>>
>> >> >http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr2b.pdf
>>
>Other than that it is nonsense when considered?
>
>Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
>equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
>counterparts.
Really?
http://www.pnas.org/content/72/6/2037.full.pdf
I know of no published work that demonstrates an incompatibility
fluid dynamics and EM equations. Perhaps you can provide an actual
reference? I certainly will not take just your word on it...
>The only analogies that can be made are from the similarities between
>some of the static equations [Gauss' law, Biot-Savart law], and that
>of fluid dynamics. The analogy fails to the point of absurdity.
Only in your own mind...
>> He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
>> a classic elastic media expression of,
>>
>> c = Sqrt(M/rho)
>>
>> Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
>
>...and in elastic media, propagations are longitudinal whereas
>propagations are transverse in Maxwell's E&M. Not the same.
please read what Maxwell wrote in in the section referenced...
You can have solid behavior in vortex superfluid state. Maxwell
knew this only he used the term perfect fluid instead.
>Historical context is important, as the theory was developed by a man
>who did not live to see the Michelson-Morely experiment, or any of
>20th century physics.
This is totally irrelevent. All fluids are Lorentz covariant
wrt their own internal vortices and fluidic structures.
>> Then there is, from Condon & Odishaw's "Handbook of Physics"
>>
>> "There is an analogy between fluid dynamics for solenoidal
>> fields and electrodynamics: the vortex strength corresponds
>> to the current intensity and the vortex vector to the
>> current density. Vortices are surrounded by velocity lines
>> (streamlines for steady flows) just as electric currents are
>> by magnetic lines of force. In these terms the flow velocity
>> is said to be induced by the vorticity. The formula for
>> induced velocity corresponds EXACTLY to the law of Biot and
>> Savart for the magnetic effect of an electric current ."
>>
>> [(Fluid Mechanics) Section 6 Page 3-20 & 3-21]
>>
>> So, one must 'invent' reasons to claim that both Ockham's Razor
>> and the KISS principle does not require one to conclude that,
>> given the perfect mathematical equality of expression that
>> Maxwell was totally wrong in his 1861-62 work and the EM
>> 'fields' simply cannot cannot be manifestations of a vortex
>> perfect fluid medium.
>
> It isn't perfect, it is only meaningful in special cases.
What special case(s)?
>> This coupled to the fact that all of the physical constants of
>> nature, including the gravitational constant, can be expressed
>> in terms of Maxwell's perfect fluid properties of kinetic
>> entities is a powerful argument since it, by inclusion of
>> G shows a connection of gravity to EM and large step towards
>> unification.
>
>Powerfully wrong. A Maxwell equation analog of Newtonian gravitation
>predicts things like dipole gravitational radiation.
Read what was written, I did not say gravity is EM. I said that
the gravitational constant can be derived from the fluids basic
properties...
Eric Gisse
The complete irrelevance of the paper aside, why don't you explain
what E and B correspond to in fluids?
>
> I know of no published work that demonstrates an incompatibility
> fluid dynamics and EM equations. Perhaps you can provide an actual
> reference? I certainly will not take just your word on it...
Oh, since you assert that Maxwell's equations have an exact fluid
dynamic analog, it is up to _me_ to find an article disproving _your_
assertion? Interesting.
I really have no idea if such a paper exists, so I'll settle for your
inability to complete the analogy yourself.
>
> >The only analogies that can be made are from the similarities between
> >some of the static equations [Gauss' law, Biot-Savart law], and that
> >of fluid dynamics. The analogy fails to the point of absurdity.
>
> Only in your own mind...
I'm not the one who struggles to support the claim. I made my case and
put up the thoughts supporting the claim and all you have been able to
do is ask for literature supporting the claim, as apparently you can't
deal with the argument so you are shifting the burden.
>
> >> He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
> >> a classic elastic media expression of,
>
> >> c = Sqrt(M/rho)
>
> >> Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
>
> >...and in elastic media, propagations are longitudinal whereas
> >propagations are transverse in Maxwell's E&M. Not the same.
>
> please read what Maxwell wrote in in the section referenced...
>
> You can have solid behavior in vortex superfluid state. Maxwell
> knew this only he used the term perfect fluid instead.
...which has properties that do not conform to an _actual_ fluid. I'm
not even talking the distinction between "perfect" and "actual", I'm
talking about the fact that Maxwell's "perfect fluid" DOES NOT HAVE
FLUID PROPERTIES.
>
> >Historical context is important, as the theory was developed by a man
> >who did not live to see the Michelson-Morely experiment, or any of
> >20th century physics.
>
> This is totally irrelevent. All fluids are Lorentz covariant
> wrt their own internal vortices and fluidic structures.
Lorentz covariance is a meaningless term. Try again.
>
>
>
> >> Then there is, from Condon & Odishaw's "Handbook of Physics"
>
> >> "There is an analogy between fluid dynamics for solenoidal
> >> fields and electrodynamics: the vortex strength corresponds
> >> to the current intensity and the vortex vector to the
> >> current density. Vortices are surrounded by velocity lines
> >> (streamlines for steady flows) just as electric currents are
> >> by magnetic lines of force. In these terms the flow velocity
> >> is said to be induced by the vorticity. The formula for
> >> induced velocity corresponds EXACTLY to the law of Biot and
> >> Savart for the magnetic effect of an electric current ."
>
> >> [(Fluid Mechanics) Section 6 Page 3-20 & 3-21]
>
> >> So, one must 'invent' reasons to claim that both Ockham's Razor
> >> and the KISS principle does not require one to conclude that,
> >> given the perfect mathematical equality of expression that
> >> Maxwell was totally wrong in his 1861-62 work and the EM
> >> 'fields' simply cannot cannot be manifestations of a vortex
> >> perfect fluid medium.
>
> > It isn't perfect, it is only meaningful in special cases.
>
> What special case(s)?
The ones already patiently explained to you.
>
> >> This coupled to the fact that all of the physical constants of
> >> nature, including the gravitational constant, can be expressed
> >> in terms of Maxwell's perfect fluid properties of kinetic
> >> entities is a powerful argument since it, by inclusion of
> >> G shows a connection of gravity to EM and large step towards
> >> unification.
>
> >Powerfully wrong. A Maxwell equation analog of Newtonian gravitation
> >predicts things like dipole gravitational radiation.
>
> Read what was written, I did not say gravity is EM. I said that
> the gravitational constant can be derived from the fluids basic
> properties...
...only if you try for a Maxwell equation analog of gravitation, which
does not work. Unless you wish to point out where G is located in
Maxwell's equations.
Sue...
>
> > >> >> >http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr2b.pdf
>
> > >Other than that it is nonsense when considered?
>
> > >Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
> > >equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
> > >counterparts.
>
> > Really?
>
> >http://www.pnas.org/content/72/6/2037.full.pdf
>
> The complete irrelevance of the paper aside, why don't you explain
> what E and B correspond to in fluids?
http://www.math.umn.edu/~nykamp/m2374/readings/divcurl/
http://www.math.umn.edu/~nykamp/m2374/readings/curlsubtle/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
If you spent just half your insult hurling time on
the study of electromagnetism, you could probably be
in college by now.
Sue...
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 21, 10:08 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > >> >> >http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr2b.pdf
>
> > > >Other than that it is nonsense when considered?
>
> > > >Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
> > > >equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
> > > >counterparts.
>
> > > Really?
>
> > >http://www.pnas.org/content/72/6/2037.full.pdf
>
> > The complete irrelevance of the paper aside, why don't you explain
> > what E and B correspond to in fluids?
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
>
> If you spent just half your insult hurling time on
> the study of electromagnetism, you could probably be
> in college by now.
>
> Sue...
Your links and commentary and as matched in uselessness as they are in
stupidity.
Posting link after link pointing to basic electromagnetic theory is
both pointless and insulting. Now go away
Aetherist
>On Jan 21, 5:37 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
>> >equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
>> >counterparts.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/72/6/2037.full.pdf
>
> The complete irrelevance of the paper aside, why don't you explain
> what E and B correspond to in fluids?
B -> intensity of rotation (Curl)
E -> variations around the mean (Div)
>> I know of no published work that demonstrates an incompatibility
>> fluid dynamics and EM equations. Perhaps you can provide an actual
>> reference? I certainly will not take just your word on it...
>
>Oh, since you assert that Maxwell's equations have an exact fluid
>dynamic analog, it is up to _me_ to find an article disproving _your_
>assertion? Interesting.
One cannot prove a negative. I can only show you the equivalence of
perfect fuid behavior and EM.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/9907/9907457v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0112/0112041v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.0266v4.pdf
>I really have no idea if such a paper exists, so I'll settle for your
>inability to complete the analogy yourself.
Because it doesn't... The mathematical equivalence has been known
since the time of Maxwell.
>> >The only analogies that can be made are from the similarities between
>> >some of the static equations [Gauss' law, Biot-Savart law], and that
>> >of fluid dynamics. The analogy fails to the point of absurdity.
>>
>> Only in your own mind...
>
>I'm not the one who struggles to support the claim. I made my case and
>put up the thoughts supporting the claim and all you have been able to
>do is ask for literature supporting the claim, as apparently you can't
>deal with the argument so you are shifting the burden.
I'm not struggling, but am just about out of patience with your
pigheadedness. You are simply unable or willing to even consider
other viewpoints. A perfect example of a arrogance and closeminded
individual cocksure of their worldview.
>>
>> >> He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
>> >> a classic elastic media expression of,
>>
>> >> c = Sqrt(M/rho)
>>
>> >> Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
>>
>> >...and in elastic media, propagations are longitudinal whereas
>> >propagations are transverse in Maxwell's E&M. Not the same.
>>
>> please read what Maxwell wrote in in the section referenced...
>>
>> You can have solid behavior in vortex superfluid state. Maxwell
>> knew this only he used the term perfect fluid instead.
>
>...which has properties that do not conform to an _actual_ fluid. I'm
>not even talking the distinction between "perfect" and "actual", I'm
>talking about the fact that Maxwell's "perfect fluid" DOES NOT HAVE
>FLUID PROPERTIES.
Sure it does. It has density 8.854E-12 kg/m^3, transverse modulus
7.958E+05 m/kg-sec^2, kinetic action, divergence, ...etc.
Denial doesn't change mathematics. Unless, again, you can invent
a reason one must deny the fact that these are exactly like all
other known wave speed relationships.
>> >Historical context is important, as the theory was developed by a man
>> >who did not live to see the Michelson-Morely experiment, or any of
>> >20th century physics.
>>
>> This is totally irrelevent. All fluids are Lorentz covariant
>> wrt their own internal vortices and fluidic structures.
>
>Lorentz covariance is a meaningless term. Try again.
Then so is your mention of the MMX... SR is a natural behavior
of Maxwell's model, but hey we knew that since it was that fact
that lead the way.
>> > It isn't perfect, it is only meaningful in special cases.
>>
>> What special case(s)?
>
>The ones already patiently explained to you.
kindly remind me
>> >> This coupled to the fact that all of the physical constants of
>> >> nature, including the gravitational constant, can be expressed
>> >> in terms of Maxwell's perfect fluid properties of kinetic
>> >> entities is a powerful argument since it, by inclusion of
>> >> G shows a connection of gravity to EM and large step towards
>> >> unification.
>>
>> >Powerfully wrong. A Maxwell equation analog of Newtonian gravitation
>> >predicts things like dipole gravitational radiation.
>>
>> Read what was written, I did not say gravity is EM. I said that
>> the gravitational constant can be derived from the fluids basic
>> properties...
>
>...only if you try for a Maxwell equation analog of gravitation, which
>does not work. Unless you wish to point out where G is located in
>Maxwell's equations.
Maxwell's equations decribe certain behaviors of Maxwell's vortices.
The fluid that makes up the vortices has more fundamental properties
like the momenta of the particles, their mean free paths, mean speed,
etc. It from these that all major constant of nature emerge, you know,
like h, e, c, K, R, G,... etc.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 21, 2:47 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > You are still in your dream world. We never have agreed in such a
> > thing. You just do not know how to processor error information.
> > <shrug>
>
> Well I guess we never did agree, probably because you don't know how
> to add error.
Hmmm... A college drop-out is telling me that I do not know how to
add errors. <shrug>
> > As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field. The concept of a
> > magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the concept got stuck.
> > We will leave this discussion some other time when
> > it is more appropriate.
>
> After you take a course in electromagnetic theory?
Done that. What’s next?
> > Is this the best insult coming from a college drop-out?
>
> Apprently you have been taught no electromagnetic theory since you
> responded with your typical idiotic insults.
Hmmm... You are throwing a fit again. Is it really that frustrating
to be a college drop-out? After I pointed out Ampere’s interpretation
of moving electric field can be drastically simplified without
bringing up the magnetic field, it is you who do not understand
electromagnetism, and that reflects it as a college drop-out. <shrug>
> > You need to interpret it differently. <shrug>
>
> Longitudinal waves don't have polarization. Take a course in
> electromagnetic theory.
Oh, you are indeed living in a garbage can. <shrug>
> > Wrong again. Try the Lorentz and the Voigt transforms. <shrug>
>
> SO(3,1) derives the Lorentz transform easily.
It is easy to derive the Lorentz transform when you know what the
Lorentz transform looks like. <shrug> Einstein did it with equating
two equations with 0 = 0.
> > You are utterly incoherent. <shrug>
>
> Which part do you not understand?
Oh, I understand exactly your utterance in stupidity. In reality,
negative energy means negative mass. This is a basic axiom which a
college drop-out would have a tough time understanding. <shrug>
> > When did you request that one again?
>
> In the archives - go look.
Hmmm... I searched and still could not find one. You are a liar.
<shrug>
> > What evidence is that again?
>
> The discoverers got a Nobel prize for it. Go look.
If Nobel prize could be given to Einstein who presented Planck’s work
where Planck got himself a Nobel prize already, anything is possible.
It is a matter of promoting politically correctness. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:08:03 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 21, 5:37 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
> >> >equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
> >> >counterparts.
>
> >> Really?
>
> >>http://www.pnas.org/content/72/6/2037.full.pdf
>
> > The complete irrelevance of the paper aside, why don't you explain
> > what E and B correspond to in fluids?
>
> B -> intensity of rotation (Curl)
> E -> variations around the mean (Div)
Unfortunately E and B are vector quantities, what you wrote are scalar
quantities. Plus that's wrong.
I was - at the very least - hoping for you to say something
interesting about vector fields and what kind of fields are created by
Maxwell's equations instead of this tripe.
>
> >> I know of no published work that demonstrates an incompatibility
> >> fluid dynamics and EM equations. Perhaps you can provide an actual
> >> reference? I certainly will not take just your word on it...
>
> >Oh, since you assert that Maxwell's equations have an exact fluid
> >dynamic analog, it is up to _me_ to find an article disproving _your_
> >assertion? Interesting.
>
> One cannot prove a negative. I can only show you the equivalence of
> perfect fuid behavior and EM.
The equivalence is false, as has been repeatedly shown. Fluids do not
have the properties of the "perfect fluid" of Maxwell.
You aren't even looking at them before pasting.
>
> >I really have no idea if such a paper exists, so I'll settle for your
> >inability to complete the analogy yourself.
>
> Because it doesn't... The mathematical equivalence has been known
> since the time of Maxwell.
No. He called it a fluid, and the fluid simultaneously does not exist
and does not correspond to the properties of _ACTUAL_ fluids.
>
> >> >The only analogies that can be made are from the similarities between
> >> >some of the static equations [Gauss' law, Biot-Savart law], and that
> >> >of fluid dynamics. The analogy fails to the point of absurdity.
>
> >> Only in your own mind...
>
> >I'm not the one who struggles to support the claim. I made my case and
> >put up the thoughts supporting the claim and all you have been able to
> >do is ask for literature supporting the claim, as apparently you can't
> >deal with the argument so you are shifting the burden.
>
> I'm not struggling, but am just about out of patience with your
> pigheadedness. You are simply unable or willing to even consider
> other viewpoints. A perfect example of a arrogance and closeminded
> individual cocksure of their worldview.
Considering other viewpoints does not mean agreeing with them. I
considered it and rejected it because E and B correspond to 6
independent quantities associated with charges which are not shared by
hydrodynamics. The equations of motion are not the same, nor is
anything else.
All you have are analogies shared by both by their natures as field
theories. The vector fields associated with divergence / curl obey
similarities between fluid flow and E&M, but that's it. Similarities.
Nothing more.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> He also first derives the EM wave speed (EQ. 132, Prop XVI) as
> >> >> a classic elastic media expression of,
>
> >> >> c = Sqrt(M/rho)
>
> >> >> Where M is the media's modulus (elasticity) and rho its density.
>
> >> >...and in elastic media, propagations are longitudinal whereas
> >> >propagations are transverse in Maxwell's E&M. Not the same.
>
> >> please read what Maxwell wrote in in the section referenced...
>
> >> You can have solid behavior in vortex superfluid state. Maxwell
> >> knew this only he used the term perfect fluid instead.
>
> >...which has properties that do not conform to an _actual_ fluid. I'm
> >not even talking the distinction between "perfect" and "actual", I'm
> >talking about the fact that Maxwell's "perfect fluid" DOES NOT HAVE
> >FLUID PROPERTIES.
>
> Sure it does. It has density 8.854E-12 kg/m^3, transverse modulus
> 7.958E+05 m/kg-sec^2, kinetic action, divergence, ...etc.
Not even idealized fluids can support transverse waves. Try again.
>
> Denial doesn't change mathematics. Unless, again, you can invent
> a reason one must deny the fact that these are exactly like all
> other known wave speed relationships.
Take a course or three in E&M and classical mechanics and you'll
understand why.
Maxwell's equations in free space obey two simultaneous wave equations
in E and B.
Perturbations in hydrodynamics also obey a wave equation, but it is in
pressure - only 3 quantities instead of 6.
The boundary conditions of both Maxwell and hydrodynamics ensure the
former has transverse modes, and the latter has longitudinal modes.
This is ABUNDANTLY explained in the relevant textbooks.
>
> >> >Historical context is important, as the theory was developed by a man
> >> >who did not live to see the Michelson-Morely experiment, or any of
> >> >20th century physics.
>
> >> This is totally irrelevent. All fluids are Lorentz covariant
> >> wrt their own internal vortices and fluidic structures.
>
> >Lorentz covariance is a meaningless term. Try again.
>
> Then so is your mention of the MMX... SR is a natural behavior
> of Maxwell's model, but hey we knew that since it was that fact
> that lead the way.
>
> >> > It isn't perfect, it is only meaningful in special cases.
>
> >> What special case(s)?
>
> >The ones already patiently explained to you.
>
> kindly remind me
Writing it again is easier than finding the specific post.
Only for vanishing time derivatives are the analogies intact. It is
really, really simple.
Find me a fluid analog of displacement current if you feel otherwise.
>
>
>
> >> >> This coupled to the fact that all of the physical constants of
> >> >> nature, including the gravitational constant, can be expressed
> >> >> in terms of Maxwell's perfect fluid properties of kinetic
> >> >> entities is a powerful argument since it, by inclusion of
> >> >> G shows a connection of gravity to EM and large step towards
> >> >> unification.
>
> >> >Powerfully wrong. A Maxwell equation analog of Newtonian gravitation
> >> >predicts things like dipole gravitational radiation.
>
> >> Read what was written, I did not say gravity is EM. I said that
> >> the gravitational constant can be derived from the fluids basic
> >> properties...
>
> >...only if you try for a Maxwell equation analog of gravitation, which
> >does not work. Unless you wish to point out where G is located in
> >Maxwell's equations.
>
> Maxwell's equations decribe certain behaviors of Maxwell's vortices.
...that do not exist. You are arguing about how many unicorns can
dance on the hands of the number of angels on a pinhead. Maxwell's
fluid is not needed nor does it exist.
> The fluid that makes up the vortices has more fundamental properties
> like the momenta of the particles, their mean free paths, mean speed,
> etc. It from these that all major constant of nature emerge, you know,
> like h, e, c, K, R, G,... etc.
Then you should be able to derive all of them.
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 21, 4:16 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 2:47 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > You are still in your dream world. We never have agreed in such a
> > > thing. You just do not know how to processor error information.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > Well I guess we never did agree, probably because you don't know how
> > to add error.
>
> Hmmm... A college drop-out is telling me that I do not know how to
> add errors. <shrug>
I'm not a dropout and you don't know how to add error. Open an error
analysis textbook. Hell, open one that is assigned to engineers if it
makes you feel better. I am right and you are wrong, and you can only
reply with insults.
>
> > > As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field. The concept of a
> > > magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the concept got stuck.
> > > We will leave this discussion some other time when
> > > it is more appropriate.
>
> > After you take a course in electromagnetic theory?
>
> Done that. What’s next?
So did you get to the part where it is shown that neither E or B are
fundamental but are rather parts of the Faraday tensor?
>
> > > Is this the best insult coming from a college drop-out?
>
> > Apprently you have been taught no electromagnetic theory since you
> > responded with your typical idiotic insults.
>
> Hmmm... You are throwing a fit again. Is it really that frustrating
> to be a college drop-out? After I pointed out Ampere’s interpretation
> of moving electric field can be drastically simplified without
> bringing up the magnetic field, it is you who do not understand
> electromagnetism, and that reflects it as a college drop-out. <shrug>
You might want to investigate the state of electromagnetic theory - it
has advanced slightly since Ampere's time.
Reardless, the magnetic field is a real entity. A magnet and iron
filings are sufficient demonstration, assuming the last hundred and
fifty years aren't.
>
> > > You need to interpret it differently. <shrug>
>
> > Longitudinal waves don't have polarization. Take a course in
> > electromagnetic theory.
>
> Oh, you are indeed living in a garbage can. <shrug>
No refutation, just insults.
>
> > > Wrong again. Try the Lorentz and the Voigt transforms. <shrug>
>
> > SO(3,1) derives the Lorentz transform easily.
>
> It is easy to derive the Lorentz transform when you know what the
> Lorentz transform looks like. <shrug> Einstein did it with equating
> two equations with 0 = 0.
Einstein is irrelevant, I'm talking about group theory.
SO(3,1) - Minkowski space.
>
> > > You are utterly incoherent. <shrug>
>
> > Which part do you not understand?
>
> Oh, I understand exactly your utterance in stupidity. In reality,
> negative energy means negative mass. This is a basic axiom which a
> college drop-out would have a tough time understanding. <shrug>
Negative energy isn't the same as negative mass.
There's negative energy between two Casimir plates - no negative mass.
Suck it up, you are wrong again.
>
> > > When did you request that one again?
>
> > In the archives - go look.
>
> Hmmm... I searched and still could not find one. You are a liar.
> <shrug>
Just like how you searched and just _couldn't_ find the errors
associated with observing Mercury's perihelion precession?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9fa9137bf7d94bb2?dmode=source
I ask you to find the error in the derivation of gravitational
radiation. You failed miserably because you didn't even try.
Here I am asking you again.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9e7511e5b938e5bb?dmode=source
You replied with the same idiocies as before. Your lies and stupidity
are boring.
>
> > > What evidence is that again?
>
> > The discoverers got a Nobel prize for it. Go look.
>
> If Nobel prize could be given to Einstein who presented Planck’s work
> where Planck got himself a Nobel prize already, anything is possible.
It wasn't Planck's work. You continue to forget [or not learn] that
Einstein did a lot of work in developing quantum theory.
I'm yet to hear you argue about Bose-Einstein condensates, or the
Einstein approximation for calculating the heat capacity of a quantum
solid, or the Einstein laser coefficients, etc, etc, etc. Probably
because you are uneducated and proud to keep it that way.
> It is a matter of promoting politically correctness. <shrug>
Ah, so it is political correctness to give who was effectively nobody
then a Nobel? You aren't even self consistent in the stupidities you
write.
Sue...
> On Jan 21, 8:03 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 10:08 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> >http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr2b.pdf
>
> > > > >Other than that it is nonsense when considered?
>
> > > > >Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
> > > > >equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
> > > > >counterparts.
>
> > > > Really?
>
> > > >http://www.pnas.org/content/72/6/2037.full.pdf
>
> > > The complete irrelevance of the paper aside, why don't you explain
> > > what E and B correspond to in fluids?
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
>
> > If you spent just half your insult hurling time on
> > the study of electromagnetism, you could probably be
> > in college by now.
>
> > Sue...
>
> Your links and commentary and as matched in uselessness as they are in
> stupidity.
>
> Posting link after link pointing to basic electromagnetic theory is
> both pointless and insulting. Now go away
Einstein encouraged his students to learn something
like shoemaking so they wouldn't starve.
That gives you two reasons to learn shoemaking.
[Links useless to a shoemaker withheld]
Sue...
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Einstein encouraged his students to learn something
> like shoemaking so they wouldn't starve.
>
> That gives you two reasons to learn shoemaking.
>
> [Links useless to a shoemaker withheld]
>
> Sue...
So when are you going to learn to say something useful? I "get" the
insulting tone, but like the jibberjabber of someone who is clearly
angry at me but can't speak english, the effect is a little hollow.
Perhaps you should try a head-butt, at least that got my attention.
Sue...
--
>
> No. He called it a fluid, and the fluid simultaneously does not exist
> and does not correspond to the properties of _ACTUAL_ fluids.
You would have us believe little gnomes are running around
with pockets full of 377 ohm resistors sneaking them across
impedance bridge terminals to perpetuate the myth
of free space?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance_of_vacuum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
Really Eric, a cobbler that tells fairy tales while his customers
wait could be very successful. That would give you three reasons
to take up shoemaking... with Einstein's blessing.
Sue...
Sue...
> On Jan 22, 2:09 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Einstein encouraged his students to learn something
> > like shoemaking so they wouldn't starve.
>
> > That gives you two reasons to learn shoemaking.
>
> > [Links useless to a shoemaker withheld]
>
> > Sue...
>
> So when are you going to learn to say something useful?
The group is about physics, not personalities so don't
hold your breath.
I "get" the
> insulting tone, but like the jibberjabber of someone who is clearly
> angry at me but can't speak
--> english, <---
> the effect is a little hollow.
> Perhaps you should try a head-butt, at least that got my attention.
Wikipedia:How to write Simple
English articles
^
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles
Need we say more?
Can you see a night school from your house?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Sue...
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 21, 4:16 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2:47 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> You are still in your dream world. We never have agreed in such a
>>> thing. You just do not know how to processor error information.
>>> <shrug>
>> Well I guess we never did agree, probably because you don't know how
>> to add error.
>
> Hmmm... A college drop-out is telling me that I do not know how to
> add errors. <shrug>
It's likely that you do not know how to add errors, Koobee.
>
>>> As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field. The concept of a
>>> magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the concept got stuck.
>>> We will leave this discussion some other time when
>>> it is more appropriate.
>> After you take a course in electromagnetic theory?
>
> Done that. What’s next?
What course did you take? What text did use? Jackson?
Eric Gisse
C'mon - Jackson? This guy studying JACKSON?
He cannot even coherently argue material found in the first day of a
lab course. He cannot derive the area of a sphere. He cannot do an
integral. Etc, etc, and etc.
Sue...
> On Jan 22, 4:22 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Jan 21, 4:16 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 21, 2:47 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > >>> You are still in your dream world. We never have agreed in such a
> > >>> thing. You just do not know how to processor error information.
> > >>> <shrug>
> > >> Well I guess we never did agree, probably because you don't know how
> > >> to add error.
>
> > > Hmmm... A college drop-out is telling me that I do not know how to
> > > add errors. <shrug>
>
> > It's likely that you do not know how to add errors, Koobee.
>
> > >>> As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field. The concept of a
> > >>> magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the concept got stuck.
> > >>> We will leave this discussion some other time when
> > >>> it is more appropriate.
> > >> After you take a course in electromagnetic theory?
>
> > > Done that. What’s next?
>
> > What course did you take? What text did use? Jackson?
>
> C'mon - Jackson? This guy studying JACKSON?
<< Because the normal component of magnetic
field vanishes at the surface of a perfect
conductor, while the normal component of the
electric field does not, we conclude that the
spherical antenna has only electric multipole
fields. >>
How an antenna launches its input power
into radiation: the pattern of the Poynting
vector at and near an antenna
Authors: J. David Jackson
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
Sue...
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 22, 1:55 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> --
>
>
>
> > No. He called it a fluid, and the fluid simultaneously does not exist
> > and does not correspond to the properties of _ACTUAL_ fluids.
>
> You would have us believe little gnomes are running around
> with pockets full of 377 ohm resistors sneaking them across
> impedance bridge terminals to perpetuate the myth
> of free space?
>
>
> Really Eric, a cobbler that tells fairy tales while his customers
> wait could be very successful. That would give you three reasons
> to take up shoemaking... with Einstein's blessing.
>
> Sue...
Amusingly enough the only time you ever put forth anything approaching
thought is when it is insulting others.
Sue...
> On Jan 22, 2:45 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 1:55 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > --
>
> > > No. He called it a fluid, and the fluid simultaneously does not exist
> > > and does not correspond to the properties of _ACTUAL_ fluids.
>
> > You would have us believe little gnomes are running around
> > with pockets full of 377 ohm resistors sneaking them across
> > impedance bridge terminals to perpetuate the myth
> > of free space?
>
>
> > Really Eric, a cobbler that tells fairy tales while his customers
> > wait could be very successful. That would give you three reasons
> > to take up shoemaking... with Einstein's blessing.
>
> > Sue...
>
> Amusingly enough the only time you ever put forth anything approaching
> thought is when it is insulting others.
Stop whining.
rustyj...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:08:03 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 21, 5:37 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts. Maxwell's
> >> >equations with time derivatives intact do not have fluid dynamic
> >> >counterparts.
>
> >> Really?
>
> >>http://www.pnas.org/content/72/6/2037.full.pdf
>
> > The complete irrelevance of the paper aside, why don't you explain
> > what E and B correspond to in fluids?
>
> B -> intensity of rotation (Curl)
> E -> variations around the mean (Div)
>
> >> I know of no published work that demonstrates an incompatibility
> >> fluid dynamics and EM equations. Perhaps you can provide an actual
> >> reference? I certainly will not take just your word on it...
>
> >Oh, since you assert that Maxwell's equations have an exact fluid
> >dynamic analog, it is up to _me_ to find an article disproving _your_
> >assertion? Interesting.
>
> One cannot prove a negative. I can only show you the equivalence of
> perfect fuid behavior and EM.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Electric and magnetic fields do not have fluid counterparts
WHAT ABOUT theses magnetic fluids
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkivD5HhJ2TUAazpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNHJhaXYxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0Y2NTRfNzM-/SIG=12ipcfu6q/EXP=1232746051/**http%3a//spaceresearch.nasa.gov/general_info/23aug_MRfluids.html
and ferric fliud http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIZrHCXIPkY
Aetherist
Mirror, Mirror...
rustyj...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:26:59 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 22, 2:45 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Jan 22, 1:55 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> --
>
> >> > No. He called it a fluid, and the fluid simultaneously does not exist
> >> > and does not correspond to the properties of _ACTUAL_ fluids.
>
> >> You would have us believe little gnomes are running around
> >> with pockets full of 377 ohm resistors sneaking them
> >> of free space?
>
>
> >> Really Eric, a cobbler that tells fairy tales while his customers
> >> wait could be very successful. That would give you three reasons
> >> to take up shoemaking... with Einstein's blessing.
>
> >> Sue...
>
> >Amusingly enough the only time you ever put forth anything approaching
> >thought is when it is insulting others.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
tangential electric fields vanishe on the metallic surface of solids
but what happens when you model your antenna consisting of two
perfectly conducting hemispheres of radius and separate them a small
equatorial gap across which occurs the driving oscillatory electric
field .this approch was done to eliminate the radial Poynting vector
normal to the surface but no one has tried to make liquid antena and
we have the materials to do so. a liquid antena would eliminate the
problem of tangential electric field vanishing on the metallic surface
of solid metalic antenas.but keeping the antena fluid and dynamic in
state much could be explored.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 21, 9:23 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Hmmm... A college drop-out is telling me that I do not know how to
> > add errors. <shrug>
>
> I'm not a dropout and you don't know how to add error. Open an error
> analysis textbook. Hell, open one that is assigned to engineers if it
> makes you feel better. I am right and you are wrong, and you can only
> reply with insults.
Handling error bars is purely arithmetic. If you have to consult a
textbook, it is a tell-tale sign of a grammar school drop-out, and
that is you. <shrug>
> As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field. The concept of a
> magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the concept got stuck.
> We will leave this discussion some other time when
> it is more appropriate.
>
> So did you get to the part where it is shown that neither E or B are
> fundamental but are rather parts of the Faraday tensor?
Well, how is Faraday tensor derived?
Gisse is going to chase his own tail again.
> > Hmmm... You are throwing a fit again. Is it really that frustrating
> > to be a college drop-out? After I pointed out Ampere’s interpretation
> > of moving electric field can be drastically simplified without
> > bringing up the magnetic field, it is you who do not understand
> > electromagnetism, and that reflects it as a college drop-out. <shrug>
>
> You might want to investigate the state of electromagnetic theory - it
> has advanced slightly since Ampere's time.
No, it has not. Still the same Coulomb’s law, Gauss’ law, Ampere’s
law, Faraday’s law, and Maxwell/Heaviside’s equations. It helps if
you are not a college drop-out. <shrug>
> Reardless, the magnetic field is a real entity. A magnet and iron
> filings are sufficient demonstration, assuming the last hundred and
> fifty years aren't.
It just mean how shallow your understanding of magnetism is. <shrug>
> > Oh, you are indeed living in a garbage can. <shrug>
>
> No refutation, just insults.
What is that you are complaining?
> > It is easy to derive the Lorentz transform when you know what the
> > Lorentz transform looks like. <shrug> Einstein did it with equating
> > two equations with 0 = 0.
>
> Einstein is irrelevant, I'm talking about group theory.
>
> SO(3,1) - Minkowski space.
You need to reference the MMX to derive the Lorentz transform. Just
consult your textbooks. <shrug>
> > Oh, I understand exactly your utterance in stupidity. In reality,
> > negative energy means negative mass. This is a basic axiom which a
> > college drop-out would have a tough time understanding. <shrug>
>
> Negative energy isn't the same as negative mass.
Yes, it is, and a very firm YES. <shrug>
> There's negative energy between two Casimir plates - no negative mass.
> Suck it up, you are wrong again.
So, incapable of understanding the real science, you resort to dark
science. <shrug>
> > Hmmm... I searched and still could not find one. You are a liar.
> > <shrug>
>
> Just like how you searched and just _couldn't_ find the errors
> associated with observing Mercury's perihelion precession?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9fa9137bf7d94bb2?dmode...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cf988b5deba2f957
> I ask you to find the error in the derivation of gravitational
> radiation. You failed miserably because you didn't even try.
You are delusional as usual. <shrug>
> Here I am asking you again.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9e7511e5b93...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1f3461e4c6d16415
> You replied with the same idiocies as before. Your lies and stupidity
> are boring.
> > If Nobel prize could be given to Einstein who presented Planck’s work
> > where Planck got himself a Nobel prize already, anything is possible.
>
> It wasn't Planck's work. You continue to forget [or not learn] that
> Einstein did a lot of work in developing quantum theory.
Nonsense. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> I'm yet to hear you argue about Bose-Einstein condensates, or the
> Einstein approximation for calculating the heat capacity of a quantum
> solid, or the Einstein laser coefficients, etc, etc, etc. Probably
> because you are uneducated and proud to keep it that way.
Einstein merely attached his name to Bose’s work. So, Bose can get a
better exposure to his own work. <shrug>
> > It is a matter of promoting politically correctness. <shrug>
>
> Ah, so it is political correctness to give who was effectively nobody
> then a Nobel? You aren't even self consistent in the stupidities you
> write.
You do not even make any sense of what you write. Just because your
idol Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, you don’t have
to take it out on me. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
>
> Handling error bars is purely arithmetic. If you have to consult a
> textbook, it is a tell-tale sign of a grammar school drop-out, and
> that is you. <shrug>
<laughing> You do know how to fool yourself Koobee!
George Hammond
<jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Did you know that jews vastly dominate the list of Nobel laureates?
>
>
[Hammond]
Ohhhhhh Jesus... where did you get that bit of anti
intellectual hype?
Fact is, by far the biggest Nobel winners are:
U.S. 309
U.K. 114
Germany 101
--subtotal 524
(the other countries don't even run close)
and since 809 prizes have been awarded total, this means 65%
of all prizes have been awarded to the big three WASP
nations listed above (note: WASP=White Anglos-Saxon
Protestant)
Meanwhile, it is well known; see:
http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html
that 23% of the total prizes (186 prizes) have been won by
Jewish recipients. Even if ALL 186 JEWS were citizens of
the US, UK or Germany, which is doubtful, clearly the WASPS
dominate the Nobel Prize arena by an overwhelming minimum of
65%.... a figure which any normal person in their right mind
is intuitively aware of. This means WASPs out number Jews
by at least 3 to 1, and hence it is the WASPS who "vastly
dominate" the list of Nobel Prizes, .........for
chrissakes!!!
Look.... I happen to know you're not anti-semitic
goofball or otherwise nutzo... but just because you've got
an ethnically Nordic name does not mean you have to fall
pray to every piece of sophisticated antisemitic tripe you
stumble into!!
=====================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 21, 11:52 pm, EricGissewrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 9:23 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Hmmm... A college drop-out is telling me that I do not know how to
> > > add errors. <shrug>
>
> > I'm not a dropout and you don't know how to add error. Open an error
> > analysis textbook. Hell, open one that is assigned to engineers if it
> > makes you feel better. I am right and you are wrong, and you can only
> > reply with insults.
>
> Handling error bars is purely arithmetic. If you have to consult a
> textbook, it is a tell-tale sign of a grammar school drop-out, and
> that is you. <shrug>
Error bars represent one standard deviation. Does one standard
deviation plus one standard deviation equal two standard deviations,
or does it equal something else? Apparently you were never taught
introductory statistics.
>
> > As you know, in reality, there is no magnetic field. The concept of a
> > magnetic field was postulated by Ampere, and the concept got stuck.
> > We will leave this discussion some other time when
> > it is more appropriate.
>
> > So did you get to the part where it is shown that neither E or B are
> > fundamental but are rather parts of the Faraday tensor?
>
> Well, how is Faraday tensor derived?
Clearly you did not get to that part. The answer is contained in any
modern electrodynamics textbook.
>
> Gisseis going to chase his own tail again.
>
> > > Hmmm... You are throwing a fit again. Is it really that frustrating
> > > to be a college drop-out? After I pointed out Ampere’s interpretation
> > > of moving electric field can be drastically simplified without
> > > bringing up the magnetic field, it is you who do not understand
> > > electromagnetism, and that reflects it as a college drop-out. <shrug>
>
> > You might want to investigate the state of electromagnetic theory - it
> > has advanced slightly since Ampere's time.
>
> No, it has not. Still the same Coulomb’s law, Gauss’ law, Ampere’s
> law, Faraday’s law, and Maxwell/Heaviside’s equations. It helps if
> you are not a college drop-out. <shrug>
The covariant formulation of Maxwell's equations is somewhat
different. Might want to look into it.
>
> > Reardless, the magnetic field is a real entity. A magnet and iron
> > filings are sufficient demonstration, assuming the last hundred and
> > fifty years aren't.
>
> It just mean how shallow your understanding of magnetism is. <shrug>
>
> > > Oh, you are indeed living in a garbage can. <shrug>
>
> > No refutation, just insults.
>
> What is that you are complaining?
I'm pointing out that you are unable to refute or even argue a point
without using insults.
>
> > > It is easy to derive the Lorentz transform when you know what the
> > > Lorentz transform looks like. <shrug> Einstein did it with equating
> > > two equations with 0 = 0.
>
> > Einstein is irrelevant, I'm talking about group theory.
>
> > SO(3,1) - Minkowski space.
>
> You need to reference the MMX to derive the Lorentz transform. Just
> consult your textbooks. <shrug>
One does not need to "consult" an experiment to derive something.
>
> > > Oh, I understand exactly your utterance in stupidity. In reality,
> > > negative energy means negative mass. This is a basic axiom which a
> > > college drop-out would have a tough time understanding. <shrug>
>
> > Negative energy isn't the same as negative mass.
>
> Yes, it is, and a very firm YES. <shrug>
A Helium atom has less mass than its' constituent parts. Yet when two
Deuterium atoms are fused to form the Helium atom, the energy released
is positive. Lather, rinse, repeat until Iron where the process
reverses.
A pair of parallel conducting plates will feel an attractive force in
vacuum, even though there is nothing physically pushing on them.
Two examples of negative energy without negative mass. Time for you to
find a new hobby, as you aren't very good at this one.
>
> > There's negative energy between two Casimir plates - no negative mass.
> > Suck it up, you are wrong again.
>
> So, incapable of understanding the real science, you resort to dark
> science. <shrug>
Do you have an argument, or an insult?
>
> > > Hmmm... I searched and still could not find one. You are a liar.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > Just like how you searched and just _couldn't_ find the errors
> > associated with observing Mercury's perihelion precession?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9fa9137bf7d94bb2?dmode...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cf988b5deba2f957
You didn't actually show anything, you just repeated your assertions
and farted.
>
> > I ask you to find the error in the derivation of gravitational
> > radiation. You failed miserably because you didn't even try.
>
> You are delusional as usual. <shrug>
>
> > Here I am asking you again.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9e7511e5b93...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1f3461e4c6d...
Might as well respond with "fnord", as your response now is as equally
meaningless as it was then. You cannot show why the derivation is
wrong as your entire argument depends on not actually dealing with the
math.
>
> > You replied with the same idiocies as before. Your lies and stupidity
> > are boring.
> > > If Nobel prize could be given to Einstein who presented Planck’s work
> > > where Planck got himself a Nobel prize already, anything is possible.
>
> > It wasn't Planck's work. You continue to forget [or not learn] that
> > Einstein did a lot of work in developing quantum theory.
>
> Nonsense. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
Another insult instead of an argument. Einstein's work was well
regarded at the time, which you can not explain away.
>
> > I'm yet to hear you argue about Bose-Einstein condensates, or the
> > Einstein approximation for calculating the heat capacity of a quantum
> > solid, or the Einstein laser coefficients, etc, etc, etc. Probably
> > because you are uneducated and proud to keep it that way.
>
> Einstein merely attached his name to Bose’s work. So, Bose can get a
> better exposure to his own work. <shrug>
Isn't it odd how you can never ever say once nice thing about the man?
You can't even allow one nice thing to be said, or even allow his name
to be said without something not nice.
You have no explanations, just appeals to personal emotion that only a
few other people share. Oddly enough those other people also share
your repugnant views on the Jews.
>
> > > It is a matter of promoting politically correctness. <shrug>
>
> > Ah, so it is political correctness to give who was effectively nobody
> > then a Nobel? You aren't even self consistent in the stupidities you
> > write.
>
> You do not even make any sense of what you write. Just because your
> idol Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, you don’t have
> to take it out on me. <shrug>
You are consistent in your disgusting stupidity, that's for sure.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 22, 9:27 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Handling error bars is purely arithmetic. If you have to consult a
> > textbook, it is a tell-tale sign of a grammar school drop-out, and
> > that is you. <shrug>
>
> Error bars represent one standard deviation. Does one standard
> deviation plus one standard deviation equal two standard deviations,
> or does it equal something else? Apparently you were never taught
> introductory statistics.
There are many ways to handle and to present the error. Nowhere
anywhere in Gravity say how that is done. Thus, playing with variance
is invalid in this case. You will have to find the maximum and
minimum through Montecarlo and find the limits like a worst case
analysis. What is the required mathematical method? ARITHMATIC!
<shrug>
> > Well, how is Faraday tensor derived?
>
> Clearly you did not get to that part. The answer is contained in any
> modern electrodynamics textbook.
Clearly, you have to start with Gauss’s, Ampere’s, and Faraday’s
laws. You come full circle chasing your anus. <shrug>
> > No, it has not. Still the same Coulomb’s law, Gauss’ law, Ampere’s
> > law, Faraday’s law, and Maxwell/Heaviside’s equations. It helps if
> > you are not a college drop-out. <shrug>
>
> The covariant formulation of Maxwell's equations is somewhat
> different. Might want to look into it.
Ampere’s law requires the absolute frame of reference, hence the
Aether. Any attempt to fudge the mathematics to circumvent that is
like building that perpetual motion machine. <shrug>
> > What is that you are complaining?
>
> I'm pointing out that you are unable to refute or even argue a point
> without using insults.
I still do not know what you are complaining. <shrug>
> > You need to reference the MMX to derive the Lorentz transform. Just
> > consult your textbooks. <shrug>
>
> One does not need to "consult" an experiment to derive something.
I said “consult a textbook”. <shrug>
> Negative energy isn't the same as negative mass.
>
> > Yes, it is, and a very firm YES. <shrug>
>
> A Helium atom has less mass than its' constituent parts. Yet when two
> Deuterium atoms are fused to form the Helium atom, the energy released
> is positive. Lather, rinse, repeat until Iron where the process
> reverses.
It still says “mass equals to energy”.
> A pair of parallel conducting plates will feel an attractive force in
> vacuum, even though there is nothing physically pushing on them.
And what principle is that?
> Two examples of negative energy without negative mass. Time for you to
> find a new hobby, as you aren't very good at this one.
Don’t hold your breath. <shrug>
> > So, incapable of understanding the real science, you resort to dark
> > science. <shrug>
>
> Do you have an argument, or an insult?
Argument. <shrug>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cf988b5deba2f957
>
> You didn't actually show anything, you just repeated your assertions
> and farted.
You have not understood what I said and have said nothing useful.
<shrug>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1f3461e4c6d...
>
> Might as well respond with "fnord", as your response now is as equally
> meaningless as it was then. You cannot show why the derivation is
> wrong as your entire argument depends on not actually dealing with the
> math.
Clearly, I did not respond with “fnord”. So, what is your problem?
> > Nonsense. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
>
> Another insult instead of an argument. Einstein's work was well
> regarded at the time, which you can not explain away.
What insult?
> > Einstein merely attached his name to Bose’s work. So, Bose can get a
> > better exposure to his own work. <shrug>
>
> Isn't it odd how you can never ever say once nice thing about the man?
What do I have anything nice to say about a nitwit, a plagiarist, and
a liar?
> You can't even allow one nice thing to be said, or even allow his name
> to be said without something not nice.
Why allow nice things to be said about a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar?
> You have no explanations, just appeals to personal emotion that only a
> few other people share. Oddly enough those other people also share
> your repugnant views on the Jews.
On the contrary, your concerns are all explained to you. If you
cannot understand them, it is your problem. <shrug>
> > You do not even make any sense of what you write. Just because your
> > idol Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, you don’t have
> > to take it out on me. <shrug>
>
> You are consistent in your disgusting stupidity, that's for sure.
There is nothing more stupid than worshipping your idol Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 23, 11:00 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 9:27 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Handling error bars is purely arithmetic. If you have to consult a
> > > textbook, it is a tell-tale sign of a grammar school drop-out, and
> > > that is you. <shrug>
>
> > Error bars represent one standard deviation. Does one standard
> > deviation plus one standard deviation equal two standard deviations,
> > or does it equal something else? Apparently you were never taught
> > introductory statistics.
>
> There are many ways to handle and to present the error. Nowhere
> anywhere in Gravity say how that is done.
Probably because it is expected that the readers of the textbook are
graduate or post graduate students who have had exposure to the
concept of the error bar at least once or twice previously. The source
of the numbers was given, and Steve Carlip gave you two other sources
that are more recent and more accurate.
> Thus, playing with variance
> is invalid in this case. You will have to find the maximum and
> minimum through Montecarlo and find the limits like a worst case
> analysis. What is the required mathematical method? ARITHMATIC!
> <shrug>
I am somewhat mystified why you would want to use Monte Carlo analysis
to determine error bars. Perhaps you could explain or give a
reference?
>
> > > Well, how is Faraday tensor derived?
>
> > Clearly you did not get to that part. The answer is contained in any
> > modern electrodynamics textbook.
>
> Clearly, you have to start with Gauss’s, Ampere’s, and Faraday’s
> laws. You come full circle chasing your anus. <shrug>
Not really. It is entirely possible to do electromagnetism without
working directly with the classical Maxwell's equations by working
directly with the covariant formalism.
Its' the same difference with Einstein's SR and Minkowski's geometric
formalism. Same physical content, better mathematial footing.
>
> > > No, it has not. Still the same Coulomb’s law, Gauss’ law, Ampere’s
> > > law, Faraday’s law, and Maxwell/Heaviside’s equations. It helps if
> > > you are not a college drop-out. <shrug>
>
> > The covariant formulation of Maxwell's equations is somewhat
> > different. Might want to look into it.
>
> Ampere’s law requires the absolute frame of reference, hence the
> Aether. Any attempt to fudge the mathematics to circumvent that is
> like building that perpetual motion machine. <shrug>
>
Where is the absolute frame of reference in del x B = mu_0 J ?
Since B can be made to disappear in the right frame of reference, how
is anything there absolute?
> > > What is that you are complaining?
>
> > I'm pointing out that you are unable to refute or even argue a point
> > without using insults.
>
> I still do not know what you are complaining. <shrug>
>
> > > You need to reference the MMX to derive the Lorentz transform. Just
> > > consult your textbooks. <shrug>
>
> > One does not need to "consult" an experiment to derive something.
>
> I said “consult a textbook”. <shrug>
>
> > Negative energy isn't the same as negative mass.
>
> > > Yes, it is, and a very firm YES. <shrug>
>
> > A Helium atom has less mass than its' constituent parts. Yet when two
> > Deuterium atoms are fused to form the Helium atom, the energy released
> > is positive. Lather, rinse, repeat until Iron where the process
> > reverses.
>
> It still says “mass equals to energy”.
Except the sum of the separated masses is larger than the mass of the
system, and the energy released is positive. Binding energy is
negative, even though the masses of everything are positive.
>
> > A pair of parallel conducting plates will feel an attractive force in
> > vacuum, even though there is nothing physically pushing on them.
>
> And what principle is that?
Casimir effect, but that's not the point. The energy between the
plates is negative.
[snip pointless remaining]
Sue...
>
> Casimir effect, but that's not the point. The energy between the
> plates is negative.
Can you point to a paragraph that illustrates that?
I see some changes in energy gradient.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/254/njp7_8_254.html
Sue...
>
Eric Gisse
The work done by the plates is int(F.dx), the force is inversely
proportional to the 4th power of distance. Given that the force is
positive, what can you conclude?
Sue...
Negative force is not negative energy.
<< The force is negative, indicating that the force is attractive: by
moving the two plates closer together, the energy is lowered. The
presence of \hbar shows that the Casimir force per unit area Fc / A is
very small, and that furthermore, the force is inherently of quantum-
mechanical origin.
--> More recent theory <--
A very complete analysis of the Casimir effect at short distances is
based upon a detailed analysis of the van der Waals force by Lifshitz.
[7][8] Using this approach, complications of the bounding surfaces,
such as the modifications to the Casimir force due to finite
conductivity can be calculated numerically using the tabulated complex
dielectric functions of the bounding materials. In addition to these
factors, complications arise due to surface roughness of the boundary
and to geometry effects such as degree of parallelism of bounding
plates.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
That effect BTW is a promising avenue
to a quantum theory of gravity.
The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London
Sue...
Eric Gisse
[...irrelevant...]
Oops thought the force was positive.
>
> << The force is negative, indicating that the force is attractive: by
> moving the two plates closer together, the energy is lowered. The
> presence of \hbar shows that the Casimir force per unit area Fc / A is
> very small, and that furthermore, the force is inherently of quantum-
> mechanical origin.
Less energy than background --> negative energy. Thanks for playing.
[...more irrelevant...]
George Hammond
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 23, 11:00 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 9:27 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > [KooWooWoo]
>> > Handling error bars is purely arithmetic. If you have to consult a
>> > textbook, it is a tell-tale sign of a grammar school drop-out, and
>> > that is you. <shrug>
>>
>>[Gisse]
>> Error bars represent one standard deviation. Does one standard
>> deviation plus one standard deviation equal two standard deviations,
>> or does it equal something else? Apparently you were never taught
>> introductory statistics.
>
>[KooWooWoo]
>There are many ways to handle and to present the error. Nowhere
>anywhere in Gravity say how that is done. Thus, playing with variance
>is invalid in this case. You will have to find the maximum and
>minimum through Montecarlo and find the limits like a worst case
>analysis. What is the required mathematical method? ARITHMATIC!
><shrug>
>
[Hammond]
What a dufus... any scientist knows variance does not add
arithmetically, it adds as the root mean square...1 standard
deviation plus one standard deviation equals a standard
deviation of sqrt(2)......FOAD!
George Hammond
[Hammond]
P.S. <..tic>
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 23, 1:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > There are many ways to handle and to present the error. Nowhere
> > anywhere in Gravity say how that is done.
>
> Probably because it is expected that the readers of the textbook are
> graduate or post graduate students who have had exposure to the
> concept of the error bar at least once or twice previously.
Well, you also don’t know how they obtained the error. <shrug>
> The source
> of the numbers was given, and Steve Carlip gave you two other sources
> that are more recent and more accurate.
Oh, yeah. Where is that again?
> > Thus, playing with variance
> > is invalid in this case. You will have to find the maximum and
> > minimum through Montecarlo and find the limits like a worst case
> > analysis. What is the required mathematical method? ARITHMATIC!
> > <shrug>
>
> I am somewhat mystified why you would want to use Monte Carlo analysis
> to determine error bars. Perhaps you could explain or give a
> reference?
Because it is the simplest. <shrug>
> > Clearly, you have to start with Gauss’s, Ampere’s, and Faraday’s
> > laws. You come full circle chasing your anus. <shrug>
>
> Not really. It is entirely possible to do electromagnetism without
> working directly with the classical Maxwell's equations by working
> directly with the covariant formalism.
It helps if you know what the laws are and fudge your crap into it.
Hindsight is always 20/20. <shrug>
> Its' the same difference with Einstein's SR and Minkowski's geometric
> formalism. Same physical content, better mathematial footing.
Nonsense.
> > Ampere’s law requires the absolute frame of reference, hence the
> > Aether. Any attempt to fudge the mathematics to circumvent that is
> > like building that perpetual motion machine. <shrug>
>
> Where is the absolute frame of reference in del x B = mu_0 J ?
I have explained that many times over. What don’t you do a research
on it?
> Since B can be made to disappear in the right frame of reference, how
> is anything there absolute?
Keep going.
> > It still says “mass equals to energy”.
>
> Except the sum of the separated masses is larger than the mass of the
> system, and the energy released is positive. Binding energy is
> negative, even though the masses of everything are positive.
It still says “mass equals to energy”. <shrug>
> > And what principle is that?
>
> Casimir effect, but that's not the point. The energy between the
> plates is negative.
It is not understood very well. There are no perpetual motion
machines. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >There are many ways to handle and to present the error. Nowhere
> >anywhere in Gravity say how that is done. Thus, playing with variance
> >is invalid in this case. You will have to find the maximum and
> >minimum through Montecarlo and find the limits like a worst case
> >analysis. What is the required mathematical method? ARITHMATIC!
> ><shrug>
>
> What a dufus... any scientist knows variance does not add
> arithmetically,
Who is talking about variance?
> it adds as the root mean square...1 standard
> deviation plus one standard deviation equals a standard
> deviation of sqrt(2)......FOAD!
There are many ways to present the data. There are many ways to deal
with tolerances depending. Some will make the data look good.
<shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 23, 3:22 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > There are many ways to handle and to present the error. Nowhere
> > > anywhere in Gravity say how that is done.
>
> > Probably because it is expected that the readers of the textbook are
> > graduate or post graduate students who have had exposure to the
> > concept of the error bar at least once or twice previously.
>
> Well, you also don’t know how they obtained the error. <shrug>
Doesn't change the correctness of the argument. Besides, you are the
one who wanted to understand the error - why have you not looked up
the paper cited in MTW, or the epheremes data by Pritjeva?
>
> > The source
> > of the numbers was given, and Steve Carlip gave you two other sources
> > that are more recent and more accurate.
>
> Oh, yeah. Where is that again?
If you weren't interested enough to look for the data after asking for
a week, then you aren't going to look even if I bother to enter the
relevant keywords into google groups for you.
>
> > > Thus, playing with variance
> > > is invalid in this case. You will have to find the maximum and
> > > minimum through Montecarlo and find the limits like a worst case
> > > analysis. What is the required mathematical method? ARITHMATIC!
> > > <shrug>
>
> > I am somewhat mystified why you would want to use Monte Carlo analysis
> > to determine error bars. Perhaps you could explain or give a
> > reference?
>
> Because it is the simplest. <shrug>
That is true, but how is picking random data points by computer
relevant to error analysis of epheremes data?
>
> > > Clearly, you have to start with Gauss’s, Ampere’s, and Faraday’s
> > > laws. You come full circle chasing your anus. <shrug>
>
> > Not really. It is entirely possible to do electromagnetism without
> > working directly with the classical Maxwell's equations by working
> > directly with the covariant formalism.
>
> It helps if you know what the laws are and fudge your crap into it.
> Hindsight is always 20/20. <shrug>
True but irrelevant as the derivations are independent.
>
> > Its' the same difference with Einstein's SR and Minkowski's geometric
> > formalism. Same physical content, better mathematial footing.
>
> Nonsense.
...because you never studied it, because you find it wrong, because
you never heard of this until now...?
>
> > > Ampere’s law requires the absolute frame of reference, hence the
> > > Aether. Any attempt to fudge the mathematics to circumvent that is
> > > like building that perpetual motion machine. <shrug>
>
> > Where is the absolute frame of reference in del x B = mu_0 J ?
>
> I have explained that many times over. What don’t you do a research
> on it?
Since I have not seen you ever talk about electromagnetism before, the
"many times over" comment is a little far fetched. Lack of supporting
argument noted.
>
> > Since B can be made to disappear in the right frame of reference, how
> > is anything there absolute?
>
> Keep going.
So the relativeness of E and B is something new to you? What textbook
did you study electromagnetic theory from?
>
> > > It still says “mass equals to energy”.
>
> > Except the sum of the separated masses is larger than the mass of the
> > system, and the energy released is positive. Binding energy is
> > negative, even though the masses of everything are positive.
>
> It still says “mass equals to energy”. <shrug>
Nope. It isn't true in SR, which you reject anyway.
Why are you using a theory that is irrelevant which you also reject to
support your arguments?
>
> > > And what principle is that?
>
> > Casimir effect, but that's not the point. The energy between the
> > plates is negative.
>
> It is not understood very well. There are no perpetual motion
> machines. <shrug>
How is it not understood "very well"? Both the attractive and
repulsive forms of the Casimir effect have been experimentally
observed to within a few % of the prediction.
The perpetual motion claim is irrelevant, as machines require cyclic
processes. Separating the plates again requires the same amount of
mechanical work, which makes it a poor machine.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 23, 9:37 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Well, you also don’t know how they obtained the error. <shrug>
>
> Doesn't change the correctness of the argument. Besides, you are the
> one who wanted to understand the error - why have you not looked up
> the paper cited in MTW, or the epheremes data by Pritjeva?
I did not see it. Is it there? Is it easily obtainable?
> > Oh, yeah. Where is that again?
>
> If you weren't interested enough to look for the data after asking for
> a week, then you aren't going to look even if I bother to enter the
> relevant keywords into google groups for you.
Well, you are the one making all these accusations. You need to
provide all the data. <shrug>
> > Because it is the simplest. <shrug>
>
> That is true, but how is picking random data points by computer
> relevant to error analysis of epheremes data?
It is not random. <shrug>
> > It helps if you know what the laws are and fudge your crap into it.
> > Hindsight is always 20/20. <shrug>
>
> True but irrelevant as the derivations are independent.
All derivations must reference classical electromagnetisms. There is
no way around it. <shrug>
> > Nonsense.
>
> ...because you never studied it, because you find it wrong, because
> you never heard of this until now...?
Classical electromagnetism must reference to the absolute frame of
reference because of Ampere’s law. There is no way that the Lorentz
transform which satisfies the principle of relativity can reconcile
with the concept of an absolute frame. <shrug>
> > I have explained that many times over. What don’t you do a research
> > on it?
>
> Since I have not seen you ever talk about electromagnetism before, the
> "many times over" comment is a little far fetched. Lack of supporting
> argument noted.
Well, I just find my time better utilized not searching for the post
you need. I really do not give a damn, but it is there. <shrug>
> > Keep going.
>
> So the relativeness of E and B is something new to you? What textbook
> did you study electromagnetic theory from?
As I said, magnetism would not work if there is no absolute frame of
reference. Maxwell and all physicists in the 19th century knew this.
<shrug>
> > It still says “mass equals to energy”. <shrug>
>
> Nope. It isn't true in SR, which you reject anyway.
No, I don’t reject it. Even in SR, it still says “mass equals to
energy”. <shrug>
> Why are you using a theory that is irrelevant which you also reject to
> support your arguments?
No, it is relevant. Mass equals to energy. <shrug>
> > It is not understood very well. There are no perpetual motion
> > machines. <shrug>
>
> How is it not understood "very well"? Both the attractive and
> repulsive forms of the Casimir effect have been experimentally
> observed to within a few % of the prediction.
Where does the produced energy come from?
> The perpetual motion claim is irrelevant, as machines require cyclic
> processes. Separating the plates again requires the same amount of
> mechanical work, which makes it a poor machine.
It is a wishful thinking on your part. <shrug>
Sue...
The Lorentz transform is not a theory of inertia
and has nothing to do with principle of relativity.
<< A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational [inertial by equivalence] field. >>
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
You have written as much yourself, elsewhere.
>
> > > I have explained that many times over. What don’t you do a research
> > > on it?
>
> > Since I have not seen you ever talk about electromagnetism before, the
> > "many times over" comment is a little far fetched. Lack of supporting
> > argument noted.
>
> Well, I just find my time better utilized not searching for the post
> you need. I really do not give a damn, but it is there. <shrug>
>
> > > Keep going.
>
> > So the relativeness of E and B is something new to you? What textbook
> > did you study electromagnetic theory from?
>
> As I said, magnetism would not work if there is no absolute frame of
> reference. Maxwell and all physicists in the 19th century knew this.
We can't escape the free_space dielectric to
prove otherwise so it may as well be true.
Sue...
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 23, 11:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 9:37 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Well, you also don’t know how they obtained the error. <shrug>
>
> > Doesn't change the correctness of the argument. Besides, you are the
> > one who wanted to understand the error - why have you not looked up
> > the paper cited in MTW, or the epheremes data by Pritjeva?
>
> I did not see it. Is it there? Is it easily obtainable?
You did not look.
The exact reference is given in the back of MTW, though it is
approximately 60 years old. The Pritjeva epheremes data is about a
decade old, but it isn't available online for you to ignore. You have
to go to a library to ignore it.
Thankfully you are smart enough to skip a step and just ignore it
without going to the library.
>
> > > Oh, yeah. Where is that again?
>
> > If you weren't interested enough to look for the data after asking for
> > a week, then you aren't going to look even if I bother to enter the
> > relevant keywords into google groups for you.
>
> Well, you are the one making all these accusations. You need to
> provide all the data. <shrug>
This is not a courtroom. The references have been given - it is up to
you to look.
I don't care enough to file the requests to get the journal articles,
as I do not have any particular doubt or interest in epheremes data.
But since you do, all you have to do is go to a research library and
look the data up there or file an inter-library loan request for the
data itself.
>
> > > Because it is the simplest. <shrug>
>
> > That is true, but how is picking random data points by computer
> > relevant to error analysis of epheremes data?
>
> It is not random. <shrug>
Yeah it is. Look it up.
>
> > > It helps if you know what the laws are and fudge your crap into it.
> > > Hindsight is always 20/20. <shrug>
>
> > True but irrelevant as the derivations are independent.
>
> All derivations must reference classical electromagnetisms. There is
> no way around it. <shrug>
No, all derivations must be _consistent_ with classical
electrodynamics.
It is arguable that Maxwell's equations are less fundamental than the
Faraday tensor F_ab = @_a A_b - @_b A_a , given that it is a _tensor_.
>
> > > Nonsense.
>
> > ...because you never studied it, because you find it wrong, because
> > you never heard of this until now...?
>
> Classical electromagnetism must reference to the absolute frame of
> reference because of Ampere’s law.
Why might you think that to be the case?
> There is no way that the Lorentz
> transform which satisfies the principle of relativity can reconcile
> with the concept of an absolute frame. <shrug>
How do you explain that the Lorentz group - SO(3,1) - is a subset of
the Conformal group, the group which leaves Maxwell's equations
invariant? The discovery of the Conformal group predates SR by about
20 years, by the way.
Relativity does prohibit the existence of an absolute frame and you
would be wise to recall that the 19th century ether was disproved in
MMX and every repetition thus far, along with Kennedy-Thorndike and
Ives-Stillwell style experiments.
>
> > > I have explained that many times over. What don’t you do a research
> > > on it?
>
> > Since I have not seen you ever talk about electromagnetism before, the
> > "many times over" comment is a little far fetched. Lack of supporting
> > argument noted.
>
> Well, I just find my time better utilized not searching for the post
> you need. I really do not give a damn, but it is there. <shrug>
Since you mentioned Ampere's law only twice before now, it was a quick
search. No such proof exists.
How about a reference to the electrodynamics textbook that you learned
the theory from which should repeat and substantiate the claim?
>
> > > Keep going.
>
> > So the relativeness of E and B is something new to you? What textbook
> > did you study electromagnetic theory from?
>
> As I said, magnetism would not work if there is no absolute frame of
> reference. Maxwell and all physicists in the 19th century knew this.
> <shrug>
Which absolute frame of reference might that be? How do you explain
the relativity of E and B which can - and is - directly shown using
Maxwell's equations?
>
> > > It still says “mass equals to energy”. <shrug>
>
> > Nope. It isn't true in SR, which you reject anyway.
>
> No, I don’t reject it. Even in SR, it still says “mass equals to
> energy”. <shrug>
Regardless, SR isn't relevant in gravitation. Which is what was the
original topic was about before I foolishly gave you examples
disproving your claims.
>
> > Why are you using a theory that is irrelevant which you also reject to
> > support your arguments?
>
> No, it is relevant. Mass equals to energy. <shrug>
Given that you have snipped my fusion example, I'll assume you have no
argument to disprove the claim.
>
> > > It is not understood very well. There are no perpetual motion
> > > machines. <shrug>
>
> > How is it not understood "very well"? Both the attractive and
> > repulsive forms of the Casimir effect have been experimentally
> > observed to within a few % of the prediction.
>
> Where does the produced energy come from?
Instead of asking me for a primer on something that can be taught by
entering "Casimir effect" into google, why not address the argument?
Sue...
the Faraday tensor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_integral#Some_practical_applications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor
Sue...
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 23, 10:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > I did not see it. Is it there? Is it easily obtainable?
>
> You did not look.
>
> The exact reference is given in the back of MTW, though it is
> approximately 60 years old. The Pritjeva epheremes data is about a
> decade old, but it isn't available online for you to ignore. You have
> to go to a library to ignore it.
In that case, you need to go to the library and give me the
information. <shrug>
> Thankfully you are smart enough to skip a step and just ignore it
> without going to the library.
You are supposed to be the library-goer in the age of internet.
<shrug>
> > Well, you are the one making all these accusations. You need to
> > provide all the data. <shrug>
>
> This is not a courtroom. The references have been given - it is up to
> you to look.
You are the one who claims so. <shrug>
> I don't care enough to file the requests to get the journal articles,
> as I do not have any particular doubt or interest in epheremes data.
> But since you do, all you have to do is go to a research library and
> look the data up there or file an inter-library loan request for the
> data itself.
It sounds like it is your problem. <shrug>
> > It is not random. <shrug>
>
> Yeah it is. Look it up.
I just did, and it is still not random. <shrug>
> > All derivations must reference classical electromagnetisms. There is
> > no way around it. <shrug>
>
> No, all derivations must be _consistent_ with classical
> electrodynamics.
That means all derivations must reference classical
electromagnetisms. There is no way around it. <shrug>
> It is arguable that Maxwell's equations are less fundamental than the
> Faraday tensor F_ab = @_a A_b - @_b A_a , given that it is a _tensor_.
Writing the Maxwell equations into a matrix and calling that a tensor,
this matrix is still a matrix. In fact, it is still the set of
Maxwell’s equations. <shrug>
> > Classical electromagnetism must reference to the absolute frame of
> > reference because of Ampere’s law.
>
> Why might you think that to be the case?
Just look up my previous postings where they receive no complaints.
<shrug>
> > There is no way that the Lorentz
> > transform which satisfies the principle of relativity can reconcile
> > with the concept of an absolute frame. <shrug>
>
> How do you explain that the Lorentz group - SO(3,1) - is a subset of
> the Conformal group,
I don’t. You are the one who believe in that nonsense. <shrug>
> the group which leaves Maxwell's equations
> invariant?
As I said, the Maxwell’s equations require the absolute frame of
reference. <shrug>
> The discovery of the Conformal group predates SR by about
> 20 years, by the way.
So what!
> Relativity does prohibit the existence of an absolute frame
Yes, it does. <shrug>
> and you
> would be wise to recall that the 19th century ether was disproved in
> MMX
The MMX did not disprove the absolute frame of reference. The Voigt
transform is an example. <shrug>
> and every repetition thus far, along with Kennedy-Thorndike and
> Ives-Stillwell style experiments.
That is right. The null results can be explained with the Voigt
transform which does not satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug>
> > Well, I just find my time better utilized not searching for the post
> > you need. I really do not give a damn, but it is there. <shrug>
>
> Since you mentioned Ampere's law only twice before now, it was a quick
> search. No such proof exists.
I have no responsibility over your ignorance. <shrug>
> How about a reference to the electrodynamics textbook that you learned
> the theory from which should repeat and substantiate the claim?
How much do you want to pay me?
> > As I said, magnetism would not work if there is no absolute frame of
> > reference. Maxwell and all physicists in the 19th century knew this.
> > <shrug>
>
> Which absolute frame of reference might that be?
Have you not paid any attention to CMBR?
> How do you explain
> the relativity of E and B which can - and is - directly shown using
> Maxwell's equations?
They don’t. <shrug>
> > No, I don’t reject it. Even in SR, it still says “mass equals to
> > energy”. <shrug>
>
> Regardless, SR isn't relevant in gravitation. Which is what was the
> original topic was about before I foolishly gave you examples
> disproving your claims.
After you are done with your whining, mass still equals to energy.
<shrug>
> > No, it is relevant. Mass equals to energy. <shrug>
>
> Given that you have snipped my fusion example, I'll assume you have no
> argument to disprove the claim.
Your fusion example still supports “mass equals to energy”. <shrug>
> > Where does the produced energy come from?
>
> Instead of asking me for a primer on something that can be taught by
> entering "Casimir effect" into google, why not address the argument?
That still leads to “where does the produced energy come from?”.
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 23, 11:59 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 10:19 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > I did not see it. Is it there? Is it easily obtainable?
>
> > You did not look.
>
> > The exact reference is given in the back of MTW, though it is
> > approximately 60 years old. The Pritjeva epheremes data is about a
> > decade old, but it isn't available online for you to ignore. You have
> > to go to a library to ignore it.
>
> In that case, you need to go to the library and give me the
> information. <shrug>
Are you incapable of going to the library yourself?
If you admit that you are too lazy to go to the library, and you need
other people to support your claims for you, I will consider
obtaining the reference for you.
[...]
> > How do you explain that the Lorentz group - SO(3,1) - is a subset of
> > the Conformal group,
>
> I don’t. You are the one who believe in that nonsense. <shrug>
That's how it always goes. You can never explain.
The invariance of Maxwell's equations under the group of
transformations is a literal textbook exercise.
>
> > the group which leaves Maxwell's equations
> > invariant?
>
> As I said, the Maxwell’s equations require the absolute frame of
> reference. <shrug>
No, they do not. You can not identify it nor can you show
observational evidence supporting it.
Your opinion has been wrong for over a century now.
>
> > The discovery of the Conformal group predates SR by about
> > 20 years, by the way.
>
> So what!
It means your usual whine about Einstein is not relevant.
>
> > Relativity does prohibit the existence of an absolute frame
>
> Yes, it does. <shrug>
Then point it out.
Try to _simultaneously_ remember the following:
a) You think SR is an interpretation of the Lorentz transform.
b) You think the Lorentz transform does not admit a preferred frame.
c) You have no problem with SR.
>
> > and you
> > would be wise to recall that the 19th century ether was disproved in
> > MMX
>
> The MMX did not disprove the absolute frame of reference. The Voigt
> transform is an example. <shrug>
It disproved the Maxwellian ether. The subsequent century of
experimentation shows no such absolute frame of reference.
It is nice to see you are arguing for things that have no
observational evidence against things that have a century of
observational evidence supporting them. Its' the inverse scientific
method.
>
> > and every repetition thus far, along with Kennedy-Thorndike and
> > Ives-Stillwell style experiments.
>
> That is right. The null results can be explained with the Voigt
> transform which does not satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug>
The Lorentz transform does satisfy the principle of relativity, you
may wish to investigate the last 105 years of literature on the
subject.
>
> > > Well, I just find my time better utilized not searching for the post
> > > you need. I really do not give a damn, but it is there. <shrug>
>
> > Since you mentioned Ampere's law only twice before now, it was a quick
> > search. No such proof exists.
>
> I have no responsibility over your ignorance. <shrug>
>
I am naturally ignorant of that which you do not write down, have no
literature references for, and do not wish to discuss. It is - just as
naturally - not an actual argument.
> > How about a reference to the electrodynamics textbook that you learned
> > the theory from which should repeat and substantiate the claim?
>
> How much do you want to pay me?
As much as you are willing to pay me to obtain the Pritjeva epheremes
data.
>
> > > As I said, magnetism would not work if there is no absolute frame of
> > > reference. Maxwell and all physicists in the 19th century knew this.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > Which absolute frame of reference might that be?
>
> Have you not paid any attention to CMBR?
Since the CMB does not satisfy any properties of an absolute frame of
reference, I find the claim unusual.
>
> > How do you explain
> > the relativity of E and B which can - and is - directly shown using
> > Maxwell's equations?
>
> They don’t. <shrug>
This is a standard problem in literally every single electromagnetism
textbook written in the 20th century. What textbook on the subject did
you study?
Or is it like GR - you didnt actually study it from any textbook?
>
> > > No, I don’t reject it. Even in SR, it still says “mass equals to
> > > energy”. <shrug>
>
> > Regardless, SR isn't relevant in gravitation. Which is what was the
> > original topic was about before I foolishly gave you examples
> > disproving your claims.
>
> After you are done with your whining, mass still equals to energy.
> <shrug>
Having repeated the assertion 3 times without argument, I am sure you
have no evidence. I was sure of it going in but having it documented
is nice.
[snip rest]
Sue...
irrelevant...]
--> More recent theory <--
A very complete analysis of the Casimir effect at short distances is
based upon a detailed analysis of the van der Waals force by Lifshitz.
[7][8] Using this approach, complications of the bounding surfaces,
such as the modifications to the Casimir force due to finite
conductivity can be calculated numerically using the tabulated complex
dielectric functions of the bounding materials. In addition to these
factors, complications arise due to surface roughness of the boundary
and to geometry effects such as degree of parallelism of bounding
plates.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
That effect BTW is a promising avenue
to a quantum theory of gravity.
<< Sakharov observed that many condensed
matter systems give rise to emergent
phenomena which are identical to general
relativity quantitatively. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Richard D. Saam
> Abstract:
> M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu, B. Seifert
> (Submitted on 13 Jun 2008 (v1), last revised 25 Jun 2008 (this
> version, v2))
>
> Abstract: Precision fiber optic gyroscopes were mounted
> mechanically de-coupled above spinning rings inside a cryostat. Below
> a critical temperature (typically <30 K), the gyroscopes measure a
> significant deviation from their usual offset due to Earth's rotation.
> This deviation is proportional to the applied angular ring velocity
> with maximum signals towards lower temperatures. The anomalous
> gyroscope signal is about 8 orders of magnitude smaller than the
> applied angular ring velocity, compensating about one third of the
> Earth rotation offset at an angular top speed of 420 rad/s. Moreover,
> our data shows a parity violation as the effect appears to be dominant
> for rotation against the Earth's spin. No systematic effect was found
> to explain this effect including the magnetic environment, vibration
> and helium gas friction suggesting that our observation is a new low
> temperature phenomenon. Tests in various configurations suggest that
> the rotating low temperature helium may be the source of our anomalous
> signals.
>
> << 3. Conclusions
> Anomalous signals from two different fiber-optic
> gyroscopes (KVH DSP-3000 and Optolink
> SRS-1000) were observed above spinning
> rings at temperatures below 30 K. Results from different
> configurations suggest that the origin is probably
> connected to the rotating helium and not the angular
> momentum of the spinning samples as it was
> suspected from earlier measurements. Our observed
> signal strengths are not ruled out by any other
> experiment up to our knowledge [17-18] and systematic
> effects appear to be at least two orders of
> magnitude below all reported measurements for the various
> setups. The gyro signal seems to follow the
> rotating ring velocity with high correlation.
> Compared to classical frame-dragging spin-coupling
> predictions our signals are up to 18 orders of magnitude
> larger. This suggests that the observed
> phenomenon is new and without explanation so far. >>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271
Lest anyone forget:
Eugene Podkletnov and R. Nieminen,
"A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk Superconductor",
Physica C 203, (1992), 414 - 444.
Although no cause and effect noted by Podkletnov
his experiment had a cold spinning Helium component.
Richard D. Saam
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 23, 11:20 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> [Snipped Gisse’s toxic whining diarrhea]
>
> The invariance of Maxwell's equations under the group of
> transformations is a literal textbook exercise.
Maxwell’s equations were correctly regarded as the evidence to falsify
the principle of relativity before the MMX. All of a sudden, to
perpetuate the nonsense of SR, Maxwell’s equations are fudged to
satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug>
> [Snipped more whining crap]
>
> Try to _simultaneously_ remember the following:
>
> a) You think SR is an interpretation of the Lorentz transform.
Yes, it must be. <shrug>
> b) You think the Lorentz transform does not admit a preferred frame.
That is also correct because it satisfies the principle of relativity.
> c) You have no problem with SR.
Wrong. The twin’s paradox falsifies SR. <shrug>
> > The MMX did not disprove the absolute frame of reference. The Voigt
> > transform is an example. <shrug>
>
> It disproved the Maxwellian ether. The subsequent century of
> experimentation shows no such absolute frame of reference.
No, it does not. Try to study Voigt’s work in 1887. <shrug>
> [Snipped more of the same whining crap]
>
> > That is right. The null results can be explained with the Voigt
> > transform which does not satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug>
>
> The Lorentz transform does satisfy the principle of relativity, you
> may wish to investigate the last 105 years of literature on the
> subject.
That is correct. The Lorentz transform does satisfy the principle of
relativity, but the Voigt transform does not. Both transforms also
explain the nulls results of the MMX. <shrug>
> [Snipped yet more toxic diarrhea]
>
> > Have you not paid any attention to CMBR?
>
> Since the CMB does not satisfy any properties of an absolute frame of
> reference, I find the claim unusual.
Absolute nonsense. You need to find out the latest discoveries in
CMBR. <shrug>
[More whining crap snipped]
> > After you are done with your whining, mass still equals to energy.
> > <shrug>
>
> Having repeated the assertion 3 times without argument, I am sure you
> have no evidence. I was sure of it going in but having it documented
> is nice.
Here is one more time. After you are done throwing a fit, mass still
equals to energy, and you cannot deny that. Have you heard of atomic
weapons? <shrug>