THE WAVE MODEL OF LIGHT AND EINSTEINIANA
Pentcho Valev
faster than c=300000km/s) signals:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html
Any Einsteinian would tell you that, although superluminal signals
travel faster than c=300000km/s, they do not violate Einstein's
relativity. Then the Einsteinian may refer you to some of the numerous
idiotic explanations of this non-violability devised in Einsteiniana.
Perhaps the most idiotic one is: Superluminal signals cannot violate
relativity because they carry no information. You are shocked, first
by the oxymoron "signal carrying no information", then by the
breathtaking ability of Einstein's relativity to distinguish between
"signals carrying no information" and other signals, somewhat more
dangerous, that do carry some information.
Now ignore superluminal signals and just take a look at the wave as it
travels towards the observer (receiver). Then imagine that the
observer suddenly starts moving against the wave. The frequency he
measures will obviously increase and....what else will change? Perhaps
the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) will increase?
Perhaps the wavelength will decrease? What does the picture predict?
Einsteinians clearly see that the wavelength is independent of the
speed of the observer (that is, will remain constant) but would tell
you that it will decrease. So they would save relativity.
Honest scientists also see that the wavelength is independent of the
speed of the observer (that is, will remain constant) and would tell
you that the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) will
unavoidably increase. So they would kill relativity.
The crucial question is: Why are honest scientists silent in
Einstein's world?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Jones
> Consider one of Einsteiniana's demonstrations of superluminal (moving
> faster than c=300000km/s) signals:
>
> http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html
>
> Any Einsteinian would tell you that, although superluminal signals
> travel faster than c=300000km/s, they do not violate Einstein's
> relativity. Then the Einsteinian may refer you to some of the numerous
> idiotic explanations of this non-violability devised in Einsteiniana.
> Perhaps the most idiotic one is: Superluminal signals cannot violate
> relativity because they carry no information. You are shocked, first
> by the oxymoron "signal carrying no information", then by the
> breathtaking ability of Einstein's relativity to distinguish between
> "signals carrying no information" and other signals, somewhat more
> dangerous, that do carry some information.
>
> Now ignore superluminal signals and just take a look at the wave as it
> travels towards the observer (receiver). Then imagine that the
> observer suddenly starts moving against the wave. The frequency he
> measures will obviously increase and....what else will change? Perhaps
> the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) will increase?
> Perhaps the wavelength will decrease? What does the picture predict?
>
Jan Panteltje
Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<5112e7a6-900b-48c5...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>:
There was an interesting article on nytimes.com some years ago about how
people perceive things.
When people are very young, kids, they see something and ask their parents
'what is that?', and the parent will reply with their concept of it.
That forms paths in the brain of the kid, who then forever does not analyse
himself, but uses that now hardwired surrogate of reality when he sees that thing again.
This is how our learning process works, and a bit later the same thing happens in school:
Einsteinian crap is dished out to a simple question about Doppler.
The pupil stores the answer, and is now for the rest of his life a disabled
thinker as far as logic is concerned.
Generation after generation keeps parroting the crap, the Einstein dogma
'nothing moves faster then light'.
The most idiotic math models are constructed, and if anyone ever asks 'Why', then the God Einstein
'a genius who knew better then everybody else' is invoked in the reply.
'You are too dumb to understand relativity' (Carlip?).
Well, there is nothing to understand in relativity.
At the best it is curve fitting, at a bit closer look it is a modified field theory,
and at a close inspection it breaks down in QM, in observation, but the worst is, that is killed physics,
and made it into a joke since WW2's e=m.c^2.
What have it given us:
1) Large particle colliders for example the LHC that smash particles together with ever more energy.
Those particles pushed by EM waves, so those will never go faster then those EM waves, the surfer never goes
faster then the waves, higher and thus steeper waves, alias more energy, will make the surfer arrive
a fraction earlier, that is all.
2) Nuclear fusion, alias the ITER project, where there is _never_ a break even, using billions to build a not
working power plant.
No cheap energy, no new energy
3) LIGO, looking for gravity waves, never seeing any, what if gravity was faster then c?,
what if there are no gravity waves, as it seems to be the case, then Einsteinian crap would be exposed for what it is...
How long do they look, how many times do they have to increase sensitivity, were all their original calculations wrong>?
But those were made by relativity experts.
4) The same relativity experts worked on gravity probe B to measure frame dragging, but clearly they failed to even do the basic
mechanics of rotating some balls in space...
Failed project, wasted money.
5) String theory, an other epicycles, 'can only be understood by the most learned mathematicians', well, I had a look,
clearly I am not one of those, or more honestly: I got fed up when looking up all that old math stuff, so
an other phantasy world I have no liking to go into.
I guess if you fiddle with 'half a full bottle = a half an empty bottle' long enough,
and multiply by 2, you can prove nothing is everything.
I lost string theory after one rotation too many, forgot how many times I rotated, and could not visualise what it now looked like.
More crap.
So... physics has become 'physicks'. And a large parrot choir sings 'Einstein Einstein, he is God'.
He was, in my view, just a Jew who fled Germany for the Nazis, and was used by US propaganda to help the image of Jews a bit.
Too bad they chose the wrong guy, he just makes them look like idiots.
But anybody who walks the street with a big back hat thinking that provides a better connection with 'God' IS an idiot, so...
But the damage done to physics, to the minds of the children, to sanity, to true understanding, is enormous.
How many generation must pass before the crap wears off?
How many thousands of years had to pass before the old Greek idea of the elements 'earth, fire and water make up everything'
was replaced by modern science? How many years before the earth was no longer considered flat?
And will we have enough time?
Humanity will have to drop Einsteinian insanity, if it wants to reach for the stars, and spread among the galaxies.
Or else, perhaps Mosquitos, they has mosquito larvae on the outside of the ISS, those survived low temperatures, high temperatures,
vacuum, radiation, for month...
So humanity could well go the way of the Dinosaurs, and will mosquitos rule the cosmos?
Maybe they already do, and just think we are some primitive lifeforms....
Can you blame them after them seeing us chant Einstein?
RP
I honestly couldn't make sense of any of that. Phase waves can
propagate faster than c. Any information carried by them only
propagates at c maximum. The events are not lightlike. For instance
consider two events A and B separated by a distance r. If these
events are simultaneous wrt frame K, then they are not lightlike
events. What this means is that these events are not causally
related. The event at A had no effect on the event at B, and vice
versa. The information of the event A requires at time interval of r/
c to reach B. If you make these events nonsimultaneous, but such that
they are still outside of each others lightcones, and then add a
number of other such events so as to form the equivalent of a stadium
wave, then you get a "phase wave" with a velocity greater than c. But
there is nothing actually moving between these events, other than some
figment of your imagination. To speculate that there is something
being transported by the phase wave is fully equivalent to stating
that there is something propagated instantaneously between any two
simultaneous events, even though these events have no causal
relationship to one another.
John J
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/extremelaser/
I don't know if the above has yet been cited. Perhaps it is relevant to
this thread.
Jan Panteltje
<no...@droffats.ten> wrote in <FY2dnXD90tmM6mHU...@supernews.com>:
>
>
>http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/extremelaser/
>
>I don't know if the above has yet been cited. Perhaps it is relevant to
>this thread.
Just for fun, this 100% confirms what I argued in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/70d243d8214157d2/a74f2e9e56736187?lnk=gst&q=panteltje+photoelectric+effect#a74f2e9e56736187
For electrons closer to the atom's core, their own resonance frequency is higher.
So when you shine very high frequency light on it, in the right frequency range,
_only_ those will be ejected... [that match that frequency range].
So I sort of predicted that 24 August 2005 in sci.physics.
A quote from some of what I wrote that in link:
I actually started to dream about this, did not happen for many
years, last time was in my school days, when I dreamt I was an electron
that traveled through all the components ... After that I
never had any problem understanding electronics....
So, then when I woke up and this problem was first on my mind, like
equations flying by... I though HEY that is the solution again.
The main problem was how to create the freak wave that expelled the
electron from orbit as a result of the incoming EM radiation,
with the right kinetic energy.
Now think you are sitting inside (small space I know ;-) ) the electron.
Also assume for the sake of argument a simple Bohr like orbit (later
we will see it also holds for more complicated ones).
) A
) e
) B N D
)
) C
In this drawing (use fixed width font) N is the nucleus of the atom.
e is you in the electron, and A, B, C and D are points on the orbit.
So think flat 2D plane for a moment.
The waves of the left are the incoming light EM radiation.
Now L. De Broglie [3] states that an electron has associated with it its
own frequency.
When you think about that a bit, you could call that its 'resonance'
frequency (or rather its resonance).
This is an important observation / understanding.
So you are in capsule e with a resonant frequency fe.
As you move at (near relativistic?) speed v from A to B (circle) you will
see the frequency of the incoming light change (Doppler).
Use relativistic formula if you like.
You have probably been in a bus, and the driver had this foot of the gas,
and everything started vibrating badly, you had to protect your notebook's
hard disk by holding it in you hand, and he would do that at every traffic
light ;-).
You are in an electron, and it is sensitive to those electromagnetic waves,
and starts moving with these.
So, anyways, you experience some vibration, and at some point between A and C
the frequency YOU see from the incoming light is the same as your resonance
frequency, your capsule starts vibrating wildly only limited
by the amplitude of the incoming light, and you are ejected from orbit,
with the kinetic energy transferred from that light.
This sets a minimum required value for the incoming light frequency.
If you are a mathematimagician and make it to Sweden with this before I
do, then you are required at least to:
1) mention Jan Panteltje as the one who came up with this solution.
2) Wear my lake on mars tshirt when receiving the prize.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/space/mars/lake2colordetail.jpg
3) Gimme all the money.
FYI readings:
Photo electric effect:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node3.html
[1] What not:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3
[2] Materials work function
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/photoelec.html
[3] L. De Broglie's 1923 Comptes rendus Note
http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/broglie/broglie.shtml
<end quote>
Of course I want no Nobel, and I hope I do not qualify, as peace prize
is given to mass murderers on political grounds, the same grounds
the Einstein got his: political ones.
beep
RP
It's relevant to past discussions of the photoelectric effect, but it
has nothing to do with phase waves and superluminal velocities.
Some time back during the course of a discussion about the
photoelectric effect I predicted that an extremely high intensity beam
would cause photoelectron ejection, even though the frequency of the
beam was below the cutoff frequency for the metal surface. This was
based upon a complex wave model of the photoelectric effect. Briefly,
the theory is that at any given moment any atom is subject to em waves
from a virtually infinite number of sources (charges). Ordinarily we
call this the thermal radiation background. This background noise is
usually incoherent, and thus tends to do no more than to transfer heat
energy, which is of course why it's called thermal radiation.
However, heat energy is internal kinetic energy, and for the metal
surface this involves an amplification or "pumping" of the orbital
electron's energies. On average, at normal room temps, these energies
are below the work function of the metal surface. Even so, because of
the chaos, electrons will evaporate from the surface, just as
molecules evaporate from the surface of a liquid. The velocity
distribution fits a Bell curve. So in the real world (as opposed to
the modified forms of reality presented in some texts), there are
electrons being ejected from the surface even before we shine a light
beam on it. These evaporated electrons form a "space charge", which,
because of the lack of a direct source of light above the cutoff
frequency, already seem defy the photoelectric theory of Einstein's.
Well, the theory isn't defeated just yet. Thermal radiation is a
spread spectrum, of which the infrared region just happens to be the
peak. So there is already light impinging on the surface at
frequencies above the cutoff frequency. Now by the wave theory, this
means that the surface is pumped. For every electron within the
surface that is ejected by thermal radiation, there are electrons who
came just a fraction short of gaining enough KE to break free. It is
this percentage of the electrons that starts to be ejected when a
light beam strikes the surface. Each gains just enough extra energy to
go ahead and jump off the surface. These electrons do not absorb an
entire photons worth of energy, but just sufficient energy, added to
the energy that they already had, to break free. The remainder of the
photons worth of energy emitted by the light source becomes just that
much more heat energy in the surface, barring the amount of it that is
reemitted as em radiation. The energy of the photoelectrons
corresponds to the energy of the source photons only because
conservation of energy requires it. If these didn't match, then energy
will have been lost from or gained by the system. It's just
conservation of energy.
Now the reason for the frequency dependence is this, the electron in
the surface is oscillating wrt positive protons, and what is required
is a boost in it's KE of a sufficiently short interval. Longer
wavelengths of radiation would tend to accelerate both charges
together, in the same direction, or in other words tend to only jiggle
the atoms as a whole. Higher frequencies are required to produce
opposing forces on these charges, i.e. to split them apart. It's a
time limiting contstraint moreso than an energy limiting constraint.
For this reason, a very intense beam of coherent radiation of a
frequency below the cutoff frequency could still produce sufficient
separating forces between these charges. And apparently this has been
verified by the experiment that you mention.
Sir Frederick
The idea that EM effects 'come' from fifth and sixth dimension
stresses is of interest. Trying to portray EM effects in lower dimensions
only, leads to fictional confabulations similar to other confabulations
on the human condition and context. Consider the confabulation
'consciousness'.
Uncle Al
>
> Consider one of Einsteiniana's demonstrations of superluminal (moving
> faster than c=300000km/s) signals:
empirical idiot
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
<http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruffled_Relativity_passes_stringent_new_tests>
<http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
ineducable dunce
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
xxe...@gmail.com
xxein: I figured/found most of this out in the late 80's. Your
version carries as much weight as mine. We differ very little, but we
do. Nothing worthy of discussion at this time. This was my second
confirmation that Einstein was climbing on the wrong branch.
Sloughing the Lorentzian was the first (I did create it from scratch
just like Lorentz did. I had a mission.).
I was able to carry out this mission to include a notion of gravity,
so I was wondering what you think of gravity since we seem to think
alike.
BradGuth
> On a sunny day (Fri, 1 May 2009 22:34:37 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Pentcho
> Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in
True intelligence is survival. Humanity as we know it is not going to
sufficient mutate in order to survive for long, perhaps not hardly a
picosecond in the cosmic day of such matters.
~ BG
RP
>
> - Show quoted text -
The metrical approach of Einstein's is correct in principle, but
incorrect in its execution. The same metrical approach can be applied
to electromagnetic interactions. Consider point charges A and B. Each
is considered to influence the other both electromagnetically and
gravitationally with a delay r/c. If A jiggles, then B jiggles in
response. B feels only one force, it has only one acceleration, and in
simple form F is just ma. That is, forces don't have types, and so it
is an error in logic to attempt to produce different types of it and
incorporate them into theory. Force is actually quite redundant, there
is in reality only the acceleration and the matter being accelerated.
Force is a mathematical concept only.
In the case of ordinary collisions between neutral masses, the
accelerations are all produced via electromagnetic interactions
between the charged particles of which the masses are composed. If we
provide for long range electromagnetic repulsive forces between these
masses, then the accelerating forces are all still electromagnetic in
origin. But in the former case, since the masses are neutral, we
cannot distinguish these inertial accelerations from a localized
gravitational field. This is because when we take the objects as a
whole it is easy to overlook the complex series of electromagetic
interactions that are actually responsible. In my estimation precisely
this same error is commited in the case of the gravitational
interactions that we observe. If a complexity of electromagnetic
interactions can cause neutral objects to repel each other (ordinary
collisions), then it must also be possible for a similar complexity of
electromagnetic interactions to cause neutral masses to attract one
another. And indeed, in the case of oppositly charged masses, they do
attract, not just the charges of opposite sign, but the entire neutral
mass to which these charges are bound. Once again, in order for
particles of charge of both signs to be accelerated, a complex series
of electromagnetic interactions is required, exactly as in the case of
collision between neutral masses. So here is an example of where the
Coulomb force can be regarded as equivalent to a gravitational force.
I am not saying that Coulomb forces are responsible for gravitational
interactions between charge neutral masses however. As it so happens
charges also exert lorentz forces, and these are dependent upon the
relative speeds of the charges wrt each other. Because of these,
there really are no "neutral" masses. The positive and negative
charges within ordinary matter do not have equal average speeds, but
there is an assymetry between them due to their differences in mass.
This imbalance in lorentz forces can lead to net attractions, and I
have at one point provided the math to that end.
Sue...
[...]
==========
In my estimation precisely
> this same error is committed in the case of the gravitational
> interactions that we observe. If a complexity of electromagnetic
> interactions can cause neutral objects to repel each other (ordinary
> collisions), then it must also be possible for a similar complexity of
> electromagnetic interactions to cause neutral masses to attract one
> another. And indeed, in the case of oppositely charged masses, they do
> attract, not just the charges of opposite sign, but the entire neutral
> mass to which these charges are bound.
Welcome to the horse's ass club. The view and the smell
isn't so great but we are confident you can get there
quicker by letting the horse get there first. ;-)
Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
Emergent gravity
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics#Long-range_interaction_algorithms
The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
RP
> On May 2, 10:07 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]
> ==========
>
> In my estimation precisely
>
> > this same error is committed in the case of the gravitational
> > interactions that we observe. If a complexity of electromagnetic
> > interactions can cause neutral objects to repel each other (ordinary
> > collisions), then it must also be possible for a similar complexity of
> > electromagnetic interactions to cause neutral masses to attract one
> > another. And indeed, in the case of oppositely charged masses, they do
> > attract, not just the charges of opposite sign, but the entire neutral
> > mass to which these charges are bound.
>
> Welcome to the horse's ass club. The view and the smell
> isn't so great but we are confident you can get there
> quicker by letting the horse get there first. ;-)
>
> Sue...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravityhttp://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics#Long-range_interactio...
>
> The Origin of Gravity
> Authors: C. P. Kouropouloshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
I left of the clincher. Go back to Einstein's famous thought
experiment of the observer in an elevator. In this case Einstein
argues that such an observer cannot distinguish his inertial
acceleration from a gravitational field. From this argument he argues
in favor of the equivalence principle, stating that gravitational
forces are exactly the same as inertial forces because they are
completely indistinguishable. From this is derived the equivalence of
inertial and gravitaitonal mass.
Well there is no mystery here when it is accepted that gravitational
forces are electromagnetic in orign. In the case of the observer on
the elevator, as already explained, the forces are exclusively
electromagnetic. It is actually electromagnetic repulsion accerlating
the observer. So here Einstein is equating gravity, an attractive
force, to a repulsive electromagnetic force. I'm certain that had he
percieved his blunder here, he would have imm..ediately recanted all
of his papers on GR, and immediately set out to correct that error.
What's ironic here is that he did indeed notice an error in his logic,
and spent about 30 years in the attempt to unify electromagnetism and
gravity. He did not however have the correct electromagnetic theory
at his disposal, namely the direct particle interaction theory that
conforms to the metrical approach. This theory wasn't relativised
until Feynman, and so it simply wasn't available to Einstein during
those 30 years.
Dono
>
> I left of the clincher. Go back to Einstein's famous thought
> experiment of the observer in an elevator. In this case Einstein
> argues that such an observer cannot distinguish his inertial
> acceleration from a gravitational field.
EWver heard about Eotvos, horse's ass? No?
There is also a large body of experiments that test EEP. You are too
busy huffing and puffing yourself, Richard Perry, trying to make
yourself look important to "waste" your time checking facts.
> From this argument he argues
> in favor of the equivalence principle, stating that gravitational
> forces are exactly the same as inertial forces because they are
> completely indistinguishable. From this is derived the equivalence of
> inertial and gravitaitonal mass.
>
So, you didn't hear about Eotvos, horse's ass .....
> Well there is no mystery here when it is accepted that gravitational
> forces are electromagnetic in orign.
No, it isn't. The scientist that manages to explain gravitation is in
line for the Nobel prize, the subject is still unexplained.
> In the case of the observer on
> the elevator, as already explained, the forces are exclusively
> electromagnetic.
Explained by the crank Robert Perry? No, thank you.
> So here Einstein is equating gravity, an attractive
> force, to a repulsive electromagnetic force.
No, he's not. Only an old crank like you can make such stupid claims.
> I'm certain that had he
> percieved his blunder here, he would have imm..ediately recanted all
> of his papers on GR, and immediately set out to correct that error.
....or, better even, he would have called the orderlies to readjust
your restrains and administer the appropiate drugs for your delusions.
Sue...
> On May 2, 9:34 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 10:07 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > ==========
>
> > In my estimation precisely
>
> > > this same error is committed in the case of the gravitational
> > > interactions that we observe. If a complexity of electromagnetic
> > > interactions can cause neutral objects to repel each other (ordinary
> > > collisions), then it must also be possible for a similar complexity of
> > > electromagnetic interactions to cause neutral masses to attract one
> > > another. And indeed, in the case of oppositely charged masses, they do
> > > attract, not just the charges of opposite sign, but the entire neutral
> > > mass to which these charges are bound.
>
> > Welcome to the horse's ass club. The view and the smell
> > isn't so great but we are confident you can get there
> > quicker by letting the horse get there first. ;-)
>
> > Sue...
>
> I left of the clincher. Go back to Einstein's famous thought
> experiment of the observer in an elevator. In this case Einstein
> argues that such an observer cannot distinguish his inertial
> acceleration from a gravitational field. From this argument he argues
> in favor of the equivalence principle, stating that gravitational
> forces are exactly the same as inertial forces because they are
> completely indistinguishable. From this is derived the equivalence of
> inertial and gravitational mass.
>
> Well there is no mystery here when it is accepted that gravitational
forces are electro-magnetic in origin.
I prefer the term "electro-dynamic" 'till I see
Maxwell's equations model a London force.
There are some assumptions about an axis of
symmetry and Lorentz invariance at scales
of 10^(-32) times the Coulomb force that I can't
dismiss out of hand, although the distinction
may indeed be insignificant.
Maxwell on steroids for molecular dynamics:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
> ...In the case of the observer on
> the elevator, as already explained, the forces are exclusively
> electromagnetic. It is actually electromagnetic repulsion accelerating
> the observer. So here Einstein is equating gravity, an attractive
> force, to a repulsive electromagnetic force. I'm certain that had he
> percieved his blunder here, he would have immediately recanted all
> of his papers on GR, and immediately set out to correct that error.
> What's ironic here is that he did indeed notice an error in his logic,
> and spent about 30 years in the attempt to unify electromagnetism and
> gravity.
> He did not however have the correct electromagnetic theory
> at his disposal, namely the direct particle interaction theory that
> conforms to the metrical approach.
> This theory wasn't relativised
> until Feynman, and so it simply wasn't available to Einstein during
> those 30 years.
So says Wal Thornhill:
<< Einstein published his theory of gravitation, or
general theory of relativity, in 1916. And so a new
paradigm, or set of beliefs, was established. It was
not until 1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
attractive dipolar electric bonding force (known as
Van der Waals’ dispersion force or the “London force”)
that causes gas molecules to condense and form liquids
and solids. Like gravity, the London force is always
attractive and operates between electrically neutral
molecules. And that precise property has been the most
puzzling distinction between gravity and the powerful
electromagnetic forces, which may repel as well as attract.>>
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp
I suppose a cart and horse are "unified" regardless of
their orientation but this suggestion makes his design
for a blouse look like a good idea.
<< A second problem which at present is the subject of
lively interest is the identity between the gravitational
field and the electromagnetic field. The mind striving after
unification of the theory cannot be satisfied that two fields
should exist which, by their nature, are quite independent.
A mathematically unified field theory is sought in which the
gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are interpreted
only as different components or manifestations of the same
uniform field, the field equations where possible no longer
consisting of logically mutually independent summands.
The gravitational theory, considered in terms of mathematical
formalism, i.e. Riemannian geometry, should be generalized
so that it includes the laws of the electromagnetic field. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
Blouse patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=albert+einstein#PPA1,M1
It his difficult to conceive a mind that could see so much
more than his contemporaries yet miss so much that
we take for granted. But whatever will we do with
our 20/20 hindsight if we don't use it to play tricks on
ourselves.
Sue...
old...@gmail.com
> On May 2, 11:29 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
structured ligth' or ' co(s)mic observations' in www.bbamateur.blogspot.com
RP
Here you are showing your shallowness once again. I most certainly
understand the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. You
simply either didn't read what I said, or are perpetually stupid.
Sue...
Indeed, That is a different perspective on the
forces resulting from coherency.
Also you describe some path effects that
many students forget to consider. Thank you.
Sue...
RP
>
> Blouse patent:http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=...
>
> It his difficult to conceive a mind that could see so much
> more than his contemporaries yet miss so much that
> we take for granted. But whatever will we do with
> our 20/20 hindsight if we don't use it to play tricks on
> ourselves.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sue, I believe that people don't actually click the links and read the
material. I prefer to quote the relevant passages. That being said:
"By
seeking the simplest differential equations which can be obeyed by an
affine
correlation there is reason to hope that a generalization of the
gravitation
equations will be found which includes the laws of the electromagnetic
field.
This hope has in fact been fulfilled although I do not know whether
the formal
connection so derived can really be regarded as an enrichment of
physics
as long as it does not yield any new physical connections. In
particular a field
theory can, to my mind, only be satisfactory when it permits the
elementary
electrical bodies to be represented as solutions free from
singularities."
Regarding Einstein's last thought in that passage concerning the
requirement of a theory representing charged bodies free of
singularities: From Feynman (#2 below):
http://prola.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v21/i3/p425_1
"(1) There is no such concept as "the" field, an independent entity
with degrees of freedon of its own
(2) There is no action of an elementary charge upon itself and
consequently no problem of an infinity of energy of the
electromagnetic field.
(3) The symmetry between past and future in the prescxription for the
fields is not a mere logical possibility, as in the usual theory, but
a postulational requirement."
Sue...
[...]
> > It his difficult to conceive a mind that could see so much
> > more than his contemporaries yet miss so much that
> > we take for granted. But whatever will we do with
> > our 20/20 hindsight if we don't use it to play tricks on
> > ourselves.
>
============
>
> Sue, I believe that people don't actually click the links and read the
> material. I prefer to quote the relevant passages. That being said:
>
> "By
> seeking the simplest differential equations which can be obeyed by an
> affine
> correlation there is reason to hope that a generalization of the
> gravitation
> equations will be found which includes the laws of the electromagnetic
> field.
> This hope has in fact been fulfilled although I do not know whether
> the formal
> connection so derived can really be regarded as an enrichment of
> physics
> as long as it does not yield any new physical connections. In
> particular a field
> theory can, to my mind, only be satisfactory when it permits the
> elementary
> electrical bodies to be represented as solutions free from
> singularities."
I see your point. If people are too stubborn to click
on the links, a bit of ragged word wrapping is just what
they deserve. Harumph! Spare the rod... I always say.
:-)
>
> Regarding Einstein's last thought in that passage concerning the
> requirement of a theory representing charged bodies free of
> singularities: From Feynman (#2 below):
>
http://prola.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v21/i3/p425_1
>
> "(1) There is no such concept as "the" field, an independent entity
> with degrees of freedom of its own
> (2) There is no action of an elementary charge upon itself and
> consequently no problem of an infinity of energy of the
> electromagnetic field.
> (3) The symmetry between past and future in the prescription for the
> fields is not a mere logical possibility, as in the usual theory, but
> a postulational requirement."
I am still scratching my head over number 3 because it
appears often in cosmology and metaphysics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory
You nicely described a probability-amplitude in
another post. I think many students forget the
statistics of oscillators which are rolled into
that expression and erroneously assume something
physical of what was only a probability.
For the Cavendish balance that won't overload
a horse-drawn buggy, it seems of little consequence
if time is symmetric.
* invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well-known law of conservation of
energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Atomic emission and absorption are not even
required for induction currents so there is
nothing to count to support a formalism that relies
on statistics.
Sue...
John J
If the universe is expanding, then it can be said that the dimension
called space is being created, and at a necessary rate that can be
expressed as ~c, so it follows that nothing can move at a rate greater
than the the rate of creation, ~c. Everything within this dimension
called space interacts with the dynamics of acceleration which we call
gravity.
Howzat?
RP
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not convinced of number 3 either. Perhaps it was a mistake of
Feynman's to attempt to remain consistent with Maxwell-Lorentz in his
direct particle interaction theory. SR is after all a limiting case.
If the theory is altered so as to incorporate retarded interactions
exclusively, then the breaking of lorentz symmetry won't necessarily
bring the universe screeching to a halt.
RP
Ok, maybe that was harsh given that you're very slow and all. So here
is a task for you. Derive a proof showing that it is impossible for
attractive electromagnetic forces to be exerted between neutral
masses. As soon as you do this I'm certain that all liquid and solid
masses in the universe will instantly vaporize, that is, since all of
their neutral atoms will at once lose the ability to bind together
into molecules, crystals and liquids. Now maybe, if you're willing to
admit that these attractive forces are present in nature between
neutral masses, then you can skip this step and go to task no. 2.
Task 2, Derive a proof showing that it is impossible for a neutral
object to exert electromagnetic forces on other neutral objects that
are proportional to the masses of those other objects. Until you
derive this proof there are those who will continue to regard this
problem as merely unsolved, rather than as being an impossibility.
Task 3, define "mass".
gabydewilde
>
> I actually started to dream about this, did not happen for many
> years, last time was in my school days, when I dreamt I was an electron
> that traveled through all the components ... After that I
> never had any problem understanding electronics....
>
Here the method is more interesting than the discovery.
Kids, ask their parents 'what is that?', and the parent will reply
with their concept of it.
Like "Life originated on earth!, it must have since it is the only
planet"
Are ideas and thoughts your own? Do you have them or do they have you?
Numerologists look down on philosophy and spirituality but it was not
their idea they just didn't study hard enough.
You should put your ideas in a box Jan, then bury the box in some
remote place where you can be sure they won't be found in the next 500
years.
http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/16#
:)
Jan Panteltje
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in
<e0758f62-48b1-42fa...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>:
Actually the article in NYtimes.com I was referring to,
was about hypnosis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html
The little and big kids are send to the school building, where the 'top down
processing' as the article refers to, takes place,
'It is not what you think it is THIS way'.
Sure we need that learning capability, but we also need capability to see.
That is why burying things make no sense.
Open your eyes, you are no ostrich that buries the head in the sand,
or at least you should not be, and SEE.
I guess every so often somebody in science will break the hypnotic bans
put there by 'education', give it some thousands of years.
If not, then we lost that advantage we have over other species..
And the mosquitos rule...
Interesting is that I think those need warm blooded animals to feed on...
But maybe their are inventive and start a veggie dinner :-)
So now wake up 'click'.
Beep
old...@gmail.com
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
do you know the Hayden' experiment ? you can find coordinates in ''
same years later ... clock in washmachine'' at www.bbamateur.blogspot.com
... only cherries?
Sue...
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp
>
> Sue, I believe that people don't actually click the links and read the
> material. I prefer to quote the relevant passages.
<< That being said:
"By seeking the simplest differential equations
which can be obeyed by an affine correlation there is
reason to hope that a generalization of the gravitation
equations will be found which includes the laws of
the electromagnetic field.
This hope has in fact been fulfilled although I do not
know whether the formal connection so derived can really
be regarded as an enrichment of physics
as long as it does not yield any new physical connections.
In particular a field theory can, to my mind, only be
satisfactory when it permits the
elementary electrical bodies to be represented as
solutions free from singularities."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.pdf
>>
<< Abstract
We consider the consequences of a neutral dark-matter
particle with a nonzero electric and/or magnetic dipole
moment. Theoretical constraints, as well as constraints
from direct searches, precision tests of the standard-model,
the cosmic microwave background and matter power spectra,
and cosmic gamma rays, are included. We find that a
relatively light particle with mass between an MeV and a
few GeV and an electric or magnetic dipole as large
as ~3 x 10 to the -16 e cm (roughly 1.6 x 10 to the -5 μB)
satisfies all experimental and observational bounds. Some
of the remaining parameter space may be probed with
forthcoming more sensitive direct searches and with the
Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope. >>
Sigurdson, Kris et al
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5534/1/SIGprd04.pdf
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5534/
Sue...
>
> Regarding Einstein's last thought in that passage concerning the
> requirement of a theory representing charged bodies free of
> singularities: From Feynman (#2 below):
>
> http://prola.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v21/i3/p425_1
>
> "(1) There is no such concept as "the" field, an independent entity
> with degrees of freedom of its own
> (2) There is no action of an elementary charge upon itself and
> consequently no problem of an infinity of energy of the
> electromagnetic field.
> (3) The symmetry between past and future in the prescription for the
RP
>
>
>
> << Abstract
> We consider the consequences of a neutral dark-matter
> particle with a nonzero electric and/or magnetic dipole
> moment. Theoretical constraints, as well as constraints
> from direct searches, precision tests of the standard-model,
> the cosmic microwave background and matter power spectra,
> and cosmic gamma rays, are included. We find that a
> relatively light particle with mass between an MeV and a
> few GeV and an electric or magnetic dipole as large
> satisfies all experimental and observational bounds. Some
> of the remaining parameter space may be probed with
> forthcoming more sensitive direct searches and with the
> Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope. >>
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Regarding Einstein's last thought in that passage concerning the
> > requirement of a theory representing charged bodies free of
> > singularities: From Feynman (#2 below):
>
> >http://prola.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v21/i3/p425_1
>
> > "(1) There is no such concept as "the" field, an independent entity
> > with degrees of freedom of its own
> > (2) There is no action of an elementary charge upon itself and
> > consequently no problem of an infinity of energy of the
> > electromagnetic field.
> > (3) The symmetry between past and future in the prescription for the
> > fields is not a mere logical possibility, as in the usual theory, but
> > a postulational requirement.
I have no idea what that second passage pertains to. But since there
is mention of dark matter in it, which is just a name given to the
pixies that supposedly account for an effect that so far only exists
on paper, it can only be yet more mental masturbation. I think these
people, these cosmologists, who are so friggin smart, ought to turn
their talents towards solving the worldwide economic crisis. But we
couldn't expect that from them, they're quite happy working in a realm
where "You can't disprove it, thus we must be right." That shit won't
fly in the real world. If the theory is wrong in economics, then it's
readily observable.
Sue...
>
> > Sue...
>
> > > Regarding Einstein's last thought in that passage concerning the
> > > requirement of a theory representing charged bodies free of
> > > singularities: From Feynman (#2 below):
>
> > >http://prola.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v21/i3/p425_1
>
> > > "(1) There is no such concept as "the" field, an independent entity
> > > with degrees of freedom of its own
> > > (2) There is no action of an elementary charge upon itself and
> > > consequently no problem of an infinity of energy of the
> > > electromagnetic field.
> > > (3) The symmetry between past and future in the prescription for the
> > > fields is not a mere logical possibility, as in the usual theory, but
> > > a postulational requirement.
>
> I have no idea what that second passage pertains to. But since there
> is mention of dark matter in it, which is just a name given to the
> pixies that supposedly account for an effect that so far only exists
> on paper, it can only be yet more mental masturbation. I think these
> people, these cosmologists, who are so friggin smart, ought to turn
> their talents towards solving the worldwide economic crisis. But we
> couldn't expect that from them, they're quite happy working in a realm
> where "You can't disprove it, thus we must be right." That shit won't
> fly in the real world. If the theory is wrong in economics, then it's
> readily observable.
The paper considers how dark, dark has be and calculates
for coherent dipoles. ;-)
Sue...
old...@gmail.com
> On May 9, 7:03 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
think with amusement that all should fall down if the cosmic distances
( measured today only with the sacred redshift ) were overextimed ..
( in that fantavision , i address to the works of Arp, Van Flandern
and the hipotesis of my dog in www.bbamateur.bizhosting.com and in
'co(s)mic observations' in www.bbamateur.blogspot.com ) ..some days
ago i proposed the knowing of the experiment of Hayden : perheps
somebody is drinking bier in the shadow to counting belches ... where
are the smarting minds of the Androcles ( with lions ) , Valevs , Van
Mortens, Andersons, Kholklovs ... don't say something to somebody the
name H. C.Hayden ?( Haydin was a classic musician , no rock ) ..i
report the words of Selleri '' We finish noting that the resultats
gotten untill here , confirm the qualitative observation (( not only ,
like i showed in 'some years later ..clock in washmachine' )) di
Hayden : there are necessary to the electromagmetic signals about 300
ns. 'in plus' for doing the complete turn of the planet verso east
than verso owest ; the fact can only signify that the speed of ligth
is different in the two senses '' ... now boys : you have a week for
make and post a small thougth ...our ambition is joint quantitatively
the experiments of Sagnac ''Compt. Rend. 157,708 and 1410 (1913) ; J.
de Phys. 4,177 (1914) '' ..Michelson e Gale Astroph. J. 61, 137
(1925) ..H.C.Hayden Physics Essays 8,366(1995) ...Einstein knew well
works of Michelson also around the Sagnac effect , but in all his life
cunningly did not make little thougths over the word Sagnac ..
old...@gmail.com
> On 10 Mag, 06:19, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 9, 7:03 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> i beg you pardon for the intrusion..but when i read 'dark matter' , i
> think with amusement that all should fall down if the cosmic distances
> ( measured today only with the sacred redshift ) were overextimed ..
> ( in that fantavision , i address to the works of Arp, Van Flandern
> 'co(s)mic observations' in www.bbamateur.blogspot.com) ..some days
> ago i proposed the knowing of the experiment of Hayden : perheps
> somebody is drinking bier in the shadow to counting belches ... where
> are the smarting minds of the Androcles ( with lions ) , Valevs , Van
> Mortens, Andersons, Kholklovs ... don't say something to somebody the
> name H. C.Hayden ?( Haydin was a classic musician , no rock ) ..i
> report the words of Selleri '' We finish noting that the resultats
> gotten untill here , confirm the qualitative observation (( not only ,
> like i showed in 'some years later ..clock in washmachine' )) di
> Hayden : there are necessary to the electromagmetic signals about 300
> ns. 'in plus' for doing the complete turn of the planet verso east
> than verso owest ; the fact can only signify that the speed of ligth
> is different in the two senses '' ... now boys : you have a week for
> make and post a small thougth ...our ambition is joint quantitatively
> the experiments of Sagnac ''Compt. Rend. 157,708 and 1410 (1913) ; J.
> de Phys. 4,177 (1914) '' ..Michelson e Gale Astroph. J. 61, 137
> (1925) ..H.C.Hayden Physics Essays 8,366(1995) ...Einstein knew well
> works of Michelson also around the Sagnac effect , but in all his life
> cunningly did not make little thougths over the word Sagnac ..
..first concusions..: Sagnac did a logic formula which forecast the
fringes' movement in a rotating device ; he forecasted so convincently
(a device 1000 time bigger than his platform ) that Michelson & Gale
( two yankies ! ) realized in 300.000 m.^2 of land with positive
resultat ...: Einstein and his relativity should not have done that :
he remained in the shadow cashing E=m*V^2 ...and then, why V^2 or not
1/2*V^2 , for example ?
old...@yahoo.it
> On 10 Mag, 10:55, old...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mag, 06:19, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 9, 7:03 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > i beg you pardon for the intrusion..but when i read 'dark matter' , i
> > think with amusement that all should fall down if the cosmic distances
> > ( measured today only with the sacred redshift ) were overextimed ..
> > ( in that fantavision , i address to the works of Arp, Van Flandern
so..: the experiments of Sagnac (1910), Michelson and Gale
(1925),Hayden (1995) are approximately the same-ones ( in the sense
that you can go through them with only some adjustment of
proportionality ..)..of course we shall touch Michelson and Morley ,
Einstein ... and firstly i want explain the words 'necessary
approximation' and how this-ones are functioning in that field of
experiments.. let's me adjust the crime' scene : i am in the site A ,
near a river ; B and C are sites at 15 and 30 km against the stream ;
the river is flowing at 3 km/hour and my bout goes at 30km/hour . If i
go in C (30 km) , the necessary time shall be 1,11111 hours and i
conclude : the necessary approximation in time'measure for understand
the stream, must be better than 10% ; if i go from C to A , the time
employed is 0.9090 and for relieving the river'speed , it is necessary
again an approximation of 10% ; if i do the go-and-back travel , the
total time shall be 2,0202 ..: the necessary approximation becomes
1/100 of total time ...conclusion : for a single trip, nec. approx. is
1/n , for a double travel nec. approx. becomes 1/n*n ..if something is
wrong , you can say .. to next weekkk
oldogf
but probabely nobody is interested to the following..... recenrly i
noted that the Michelson and Morley exp. failed because the target was
not 30 km.s. but 0,3 km.s. ( like the speed of earth and so the
necessary precision become 10.000 time superior ) and so G. Joss
( 1930 ) Essen (1965 ) , Townes (1958 ) and Champaney ( 1965 ) failed
probabely having not enough precision or forgetting the chaining of
waves , discovered after the year 1970 in the tecnic of laser
giroscopes .. somebody knows something around the chained waves ?