To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
Sergey Karavashkin
Subject:Re: To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
Newsgroup:sci.physics, sci.astro
Date:2005-01-13 03:42:24 PST
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a n timo...@my-deja.com)
> Subject:Re: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle? (Double)
> Newsgroup:sci.physics
> Date:2004-12-24 06:50:12 PST
> [snip]
…………
I suppose, that first in USSR, Butusov has applied
of the Fibonacci numbers in mathematical exposition
of a structure of the solar system.
…………
No, Sasha, no. In my previous post I wrote not simply about Fibonacci
numbers but of definite physical regularities that in any physical
theory precede whatever mathematical modelling. The experience of
previous scientists and my own experience show, if the phenomenology
is free of contradictions, mathematics itself will show, will there be
Fibonacci numbers either some other regularity. Not that is important,
was Butusov first who applied Fibonacci numbers or not. If his
phenomenology has open faults, Fibonacci numbers will not be able to
salvage it, however much would he hide himself behind these numbers.
Can he lift these problems - I will be much pleased for him.
And the same I told you, Sasha. Whether there are strong numerical
regularities or not - this is another question, it may not be cleared
only by way of numerical selection. And note, neither the distances
between celestial bodies nor their masses we know with enough accuracy
which have, suppose, natural numbers. And there basically cannot exist
such exact values, as distances are too variable in time and space.
Masses also permanently change. A meteorite has fallen on the Earth -
the masse changed. Three weeks ago earthquake happened - inertia
momentum changed, axial rotation changed, pole nutation changed. And
this happens with all planets and affects your numbers. Is this
affection small? - yes, in one particular event it is small. But in
the course of evolution these changes are cardinal. Do your numbers
change in the course of evolution? ;-)
Just so I permanently tell you of phenomenology and will be really
happy if you understand the importance and necessity to harness a
horse ahead the cart and to do not put the shaft-horse sideward. ;-)
Best to you,
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
> From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
> Subject:Re: To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
> Newsgroup:sci.physics, sci.astro
> Date:2005-01-13 03:42:24 PST
>
>
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a n timo...@my-deja.com)
> > Subject:Re: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle? (Double)
> > Newsgroup:sci.physics
> > Date:2004-12-24 06:50:12 PST
> > [snip]
> I suppose, that first in USSR, Butusov has applied
> of the Fibonacci numbers in mathematical exposition
> of a structure of the solar system.
>
> No, Sasha, no. In my previous post I wrote not simply
> about Fibonacci
> numbers but of definite physical regularities that in any physical
> theory precede whatever mathematical modelling. The experience of
> previous scientists and my own experience show, if the phenomenology
> is free of contradictions, mathematics itself will show, will there
> be Fibonacci numbers either some other regularity. Not that is
> important, was Butusov first who applied Fibonacci numbers or not.
About Fibonacci numbers:
Look at:
=========================================================
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/index.html
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4a.html
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4b.html
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4c.html
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4d.html
"A. THE FIBONACCI SERIES, PHI-SERIES AND SYNODIC MEAN
That the attested, ubiquitous, and long-revered constant Phi =
1.61803398875... - The Golden Mean provides the underlying foundations
for these exponential planetary functions should surprise no one. The
value is known to occur in many diverse contexts that range from the
structure of quasi-crystals,3 Penrose Tiles,4 the closely related Phi
and Fibonacci series, growth functions, and even the structure of
galaxies, our own barred-spiral galaxy, the Milky Way included, it
would seem:
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/milkyway4r.gif "
=========================================================
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 13 Jan 2005 10:24:44 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: "The Fibonacci Spiral Sequence Found In The Smart Model Line
Spectra"
Message-ID: <20050113052444...@mb-m26.aol.com>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/afc7cd9f6c2b0556?dmode=source
=========================================================
Ron Knott, "Fibonacci Numbers and Golden sections in Nature";
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html#pi...
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html
=========================================================
AT
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b7ab94d04fc4c064?...
=========================================================
> If his
> phenomenology has open faults, Fibonacci numbers will not be able to
> salvage it, however much would he hide himself behind these numbers.
> Can he lift these problems - I will be much pleased for him.
>
> And the same I told you, Sasha. Whether there are strong numerical
> regularities or not - this is another question, it may not be cleared
> only by way of numerical selection.
Sergey, logic of your argumentation precisely corresponds to
the logic of the Newton's argumentation in his critic of
the Kepler's empirical laws of motion of planets. >;^)))
Fundamental set of the empirical physical laws always will
precede a mathematization of the physical theory, but not
in inverse sequence - the set physical experiments always
will precede of the correct mathematical theory of physical
phenomena.
> And note, neither the distances
> between celestial bodies nor their masses we know with enough
accuracy
> which have, suppose, natural numbers. And there basically cannot
exist
> such exact values, as distances are too variable in time and space.
> Masses also permanently change. A meteorite has fallen on the Earth -
> the masse changed. Three weeks ago earthquake happened - inertia
> momentum changed, axial rotation changed, pole nutation changed. And
> this happens with all planets and affects your numbers. Is this
> affection small? - yes, in one particular event it is small. But in
> the course of evolution these changes are cardinal. Do your numbers
> change in the course of evolution? ;-)
>
> Just so I permanently tell you of phenomenology and will be really
> happy if you understand the importance and necessity to harness a
> horse ahead the cart and to do not put the shaft-horse sideward. ;-)
Fundamental set of the empirical physical laws always will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
precede a mathematization of the physical theory,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but not
in inverse sequence - the set physical experiments always
will precede of the correct mathematical theory of physical
phenomena.
"horse ahead the cart and to do not put the shaft-horse sideward. "
>;^)
Best to you,
Aleksand
Aleksandr Timofeev
> From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
> Subject:Re: To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
> Newsgroup:sci.physics, sci.astro
> Date:2005-01-13 03:42:24 PST
>
>
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a n timo...@my-deja.com)
> > Subject:Re: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle?
> > (Double)
> > Newsgroup:sci.physics
> > Date:2004-12-24 06:50:12 PST
> > [snip]
> I suppose, that first in USSR, Butusov has applied
> of the Fibonacci numbers in mathematical exposition
> of a structure of the solar system.
>
> No, Sasha, no. In my previous post I wrote not simply
> about Fibonacci numbers but of definite physical
> regularities that in any physical theory precede whatever
> mathematical modelling.
>
> The experience of previous scientists and my own
> experience show, if the phenomenology is free of
> contradictions, mathematics itself will show, will there be
> Fibonacci numbers either some other regularity.
In the conceptual set of the phenomenological basis of the
MODERN ORTHODOX PHYSICS miss the EMPIRICAL
LAWS ACCOUNTABLE for the natural MECHANISMS,
which one drive
a mass DISTRIBUTION in COMPOSITE MANY-BODY SYSTEMS.
If you will remain in boundaries of the conceptual set of the
phenomenological basis of the MODERN ORTHODOX PHYSICS,
you can not theoretically explain:
quantity of electron mass,
quantity of mass of a positive proton,
quantity of mass of a neutron,
a mass DISTRIBUTION in the Solar SYSTEM
and TO FIND rigorous ("honest") mathematical SOLUTION
of a many-body PROBLEM, etc. etc..
I have pointed to you examples of trial attempts of SEARCHINGS FOR of
the EMPIRICAL LAWS ACCOUNTABLE for
natural MECHANISMS, which one drive a mass DISTRIBUTION
in COMPOSITE NATURAL MANY-BODY SYSTEMS.
> Not that is important,
> was Butusov first who applied Fibonacci numbers or not. If > his
phenomenology has open faults, Fibonacci numbers will
> not be able to salvage it, however much would he hide
> himself behind these numbers.
> Can he lift these problems - I will be much pleased for him.
I have pointed to you examples of trial attempts of SEARCHINGS FOR of
the EMPIRICAL LAWS ACCOUNTABLE for
natural MECHANISMS, which one drive a mass DISTRIBUTION in
COMPOSITE NATURAL MANY-BODY SYSTEMS.
In the conceptual set of the phenomenological basis of the
MODERN ORTHODOX PHYSICS miss the EMPIRICAL
LAWS ACCOUNTABLE for the natural MECHANISMS,
which one drive a mass DISTRIBUTION in COMPOSITE
MANY-BODY SYSTEMS.
Till now does not exist rigorous (" honest ")
mathematical SOLUTION of a many-body PROBLEM...
*************************************************
Whether it is an INCIDENTAL for MODERN ORTHODOX
PHYSICS a NON-EXISTENCE rigorous ("honest")
mathematical SOLUTION of a many-body PROBLEM?
*************************************************
[snip]
Best to you,
Aleksandr
Aleksandr Timofeev
Sergey try this Usenet server instead of Google:
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/
*---------------------------------*
Posted at: http://www.GroupSrv.com
Check: http://wwww.HotCodecs.com
*---------------------------------*
Sergey Karavashkin
Subject:Re: To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
Date:2005-01-21 02:54:30 PST
Dear Sasha, I am really pleased that we came to a full understanding
in the issue of sequence of phenomenology and mathematical modelling.
Actually, I am Newtonian follower and told so from the very beginning
of my participation in the NGs. And what concerns Fibonacci numbers,
it seemed, I expressed my views exhaustively, and you could understand
my meaning that no numbers may describe things before phenomenology.
And to the questions which I raised as to Butusov's phenomenology,
there is and can be no real answers, as the very approach to the
problem is anti-physical. But if Butusov begins with putting his
modelling in order, the course of his thought will change and he will
forget of numbers, as in this case it will be physical relations and
regularities what will grow in his works. ;-)
I hope for your correct understanding of this important issue.
Best regards,
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
> From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
> Subject:Re: To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
> Newsgroups:sci.physics, sci.astro
> Date:2005-01-21 02:54:30 PST
>
> Dear Sasha, I am really pleased that we came to
> a full understanding in the issue of sequence
> of phenomenology and mathematical modelling.
What is a phenomenology from your point of view?
Please describe more detailed your conceptual
understanding of a phenomenology in a context
of physical science.
> Actually, I am Newtonian follower and told so
> from the very beginning of my participation in
> the NGs.
Newton HAS PLUNDERED of the EMPIRICIST Kepler,
Newton has stolen the Kepler's priority
of EMPIRICAL DISCOVERY of the LAW of a GRAVITATION!:
*************************************************
FOR THE FIRST TIME in a HISTORY of a CIVILIZATION
the LAW of the GRAVITATION WAS DISCOVERED by Kepler
in the shape of THREE EMPIRICAL laws of motion
of planets around of the Sun.
*************************************************
Newton has not made even one ALONE reference
with the names of Kepler and Hooke in his publications.
The same dirty " the priority approach " Newton
has made concerning Hooke!
PRIORITY of a mathematical statement of the LAW
" of INVERSE QUADRATES of distances " in a gravitation
belongs to Hooke!
So we have three names Kepler, Hooke and Newton!!!
Why names of Kepler and Hooke disaper from
" the UNIVERSAL LAW of the GRAVITATION "????
????????????????????????????????????????????
> And what concerns Fibonacci numbers, it seemed,
> I expressed my views exhaustively, and you could
> understand my meaning that no numbers may
> describe things before phenomenology.
Once again..
What is a physical phenomenology from
your point of view?
> And to the questions which I raised as to
> Butusov's phenomenology, here is and can be no
None
This is not best way - to excuse incorrect approaches by reason of
difficulties of existing mathematical tool. And the many-body problem
is not so unambiguous as it is thought. If speaking of a system of many
elastically constrained bodies, for one dimension we have this problem
fully solved (analytically, for all possible variants, both linear and
nonlinear); you can check the materials in our journal. I can assure
you, 2-D and 3-D problems are also solvable, only their mathematical
tool will be more complicated. ;-) If we approach the system of many
colliding bodies from the view of nonlinear interaction, it also is
basically solvable, we would simply develop this mathematical tool.
Another meaning has the point where we have a contradiction. First, I
do not belong to "modern orthodox physics". I work in frames of
CLASSICAL PHYSICS. And second: quantum, neither orthodox, nor classical
physics today is able to answer with a sufficient substantiation the
questions you are rising:
<< quantity of electron mass,
quantity of mass of a positive proton,
quantity of mass of a neutron,
a mass DISTRIBUTION in the Solar SYSTEM >>
(add to them also the principal question - phenomenology of measure of
inertia ;-) )
But classical physics is able to sequentially substantiate the
approaches to these issues, - and this is just what we do in our
laboratory. And this is incorrect to rely on the fact that we still
have not the phenomenology of this feature, so we may substantiate by
Fibonacci numbers. It would be correct first to find the phenomenology,
then to substantiate the numbers. If you do not so, someone other will
do it. This is the physics. And Butusov well understands it. In my
previous post I raised a number of descriptions made by Butusov that
are physically wrong. What for did he write them? ;-) This means, he
understands, he may not substitute the phenomenology by numerical
manipulations with approximate values of masses and orbits. This is
what about I wrote you in the post to which you responded in so strange
way. Of course, I can go to Usenet. But this will not change the truth
and horses will not begin croaking. ;-) Thus, as for me, it would be
better to come to understanding, and just in phenomenology. This is the
Ariadne thread holding on to which we can come out of labyrinth of
relativistic Minotaur. ;-)
Regards,
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Dear Sasha,
>
> This is not best way - to excuse incorrect approaches
> by reason of difficulties of existing mathematical tool.
> And the many-body problem is not so unambiguous as it is
> thought. If speaking of a system of many elastically
> constrained bodies, for one dimension we have this problem
> fully solved (analytically, for all possible variants, both
> linear and nonlinear); you can check the materials in our
> journal. I can assure you, 2-D and 3-D problems are also
> solvable, only their mathematical tool will be more
> complicated. ;-)
Really? >;^)
Look at:
http://afrodita.phys.msu.su/download/malyh/atdu.pdf
Pages 51-52
Chapter 4. Algebraic integrals of a motion.
4.1. A problem of N-bodies.
" By the begining of 18 century the numerical solution
of system of the differential equations has allowed
to explain an evolution of elements of orbits of comets
and planets and since then numerous attempts
analytically to decide a problem of N-bodies are done
at any rate for N = 3,
but these attempts are unsuccessful till now.
The reached advance in the solution of a problem
of N-bodies contrasts sharply with spent vast gains:
since 1750 for 1900 there were from above 800 printed
papers on this problem, the part from which one belongs
to greatest mathematicians of a world."
See: Pages 96-99
> If we approach the system of many
> colliding bodies from the view of nonlinear interaction, it also is
> basically solvable, we would simply develop this mathematical tool.
http://afrodita.phys.msu.su/study/malyh/
[snip all the rest for my answer in next my message]
Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr
None
If you are hoping to involve me into lecturing on phenomenology, this
is an error. ;-) The matter is much simpler and I gave a sound to it in
my previous posts. In particular, Butusov says,
<< is given a calculation of the angular widths
of the petals for the diagrams of radiation directions of Sun and
planets on the base of assumption, that gravitation field is a
wave-field >>
A wave means dynamics. To may state as he does, we have first to know
the properties of dynamic gravity field. Neither Newton, nor Kepler,
and even less Einstein have this work done. I can tell, we first have
to know the nature of gravitation. ;-)
The same, he states,
<< It is shown that the
angular intervals between orbits plane of the planet are an integer
number of times as large as the angular width of petal of the Sun's
diagram of radiation directions >>
I already wrote you,
<< he should not forget, between-planets angular intervals are not
invariants, from time to time we have a 'planets parade', which in no
way evidences changed width of petals for the diagrams of radiation
directions of Sun. The same as to tidal resonances. First, there is not
a constant distance between the planets. In this case resonances can be
only temporary. Second, should the tidal resonances take place, this
would first of all reflect on the Earth, just as Moon affects. Can
Butusov show this affection? ;-) In order these resonances to be able
to affect the planets motion, they would have to have a dramatic power
for our Earth. We cannot exclude that civilisation would not be
possible under these conditions, only simplest forms like plancton
would survive. >>
And so on. Read my post and try to answer these questions from the view
of physics. Just the trouble is that everyone is carried away thinking
physics out, while the physical substantiation means a harmonious
structure of causations. We may not, proceeding from wishes, take some
or other phenomenon and make of it a substantiation for studied
process. We have to PROVE that just this phenomenon is revealed here
and just in this way. Then we can model and reduce our solution to
numbers. Violation of this sequence leads us to phantasmagorias.
You are well aware, practically any experimental regularity can be
approximated with the help of several types of functions. Algebraic,
exponential, trigonometric functions will with equal success give us
curves coinciding with observations. So the mathematical approximation
per se says to physicists nothing. The physicist needs to know the
phenomenon revealed in the studied process. Then he, on the basis of
regularity of the very phenomenon, will be able to substantiate also
the kind of mathematical regularity.
I'm sick to death reading fantasies. Substantiation is a very
complicated and multilayered process. Phenomenology, being the
selection of interrelations and causations, puts this all in agreement
with the basic conservation laws and is for the studied process not a
way to think the science out but the subject of investigation. If the
author had this not, this is immediately seen from the abstract. And
the abstract is written just for this purpose.
And it is not worthy to take offences at me. ;-) This will be simply
fruitless for you. ;-) And the wave will not become logarithmic (after
Butusov) because of it. No physical grounds, except Butusov's wish.
That is the point.
Best to you,
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
None wrote:
[snip]
> on the base of assumption, that gravitation field is a
> wave-field
>
> A wave means dynamics. To may state as he does, we have
> first to know the properties of dynamic gravity field.
> Neither Newton, nor Kepler, and even less Einstein have
> this work done.
> I can tell, we first have to know the nature of
> gravitation. ;-)
Agree completely:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/71c6b69af5540722?dmode=source
My message is below. I am very grateful to my friend from Canada
Walter Babin ( http://www.wbabin.net/ ) for rectifying
of my English text of the message:
I feel deep respect to Tom Van Flandern for scientific courage,
" the standard theory of gravitation " is converted into ideological
dogma, which basic purpose is the upkeep of geopolitical interests..."
The fundamental physical constants are " corner granite stones ",
which create the epistemological base of any physical theory.
The epistemological base is deep-seated under deceptive, sparkling
and blinding specular surface of shaky and ephemeral " human Knowledge
of a Nature ", it extends in gloomy depths of our "Ignorance".
Thus both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings concerning
them are purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and the eternal uncertain
boundary flickers between Physics and METAPHYSICS.
METAPHYSICS
" Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
Tom Van Flandern carried out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance
of natural phenomena of GRAVITATION. It is natural, that the fanatical
religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
ideological global political interests, here are switched on too;
so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
All participants of the controversy consider central and key
" METAPHYSICAL concept of velocity of gravitation ".
1. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance is isolated local
process.
2. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has character
spatially of concentrated central interaction.
3. The relativists can not convincingly prove, that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance in gravitational
system is not plurality of spatially - distributed and of
mutual - bound processes.
4. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has not
character character of the off-center interaction, dispersed
in space.
5. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has mixed
character of central and off-center interactions.
Without the experimental solution of problems of local
and non-local gravitational interaction, the scientific argment
regarding the "metaphysical concept " of "gravitation velocity "
is absolutely senseless.
Absurdity and inaccuracy of the logic structure GR.
Tom Van Flandern has yielded some valuable and convincing
experimental examples refuting "relativity" in the politely
latent shape, and as a corollary he has proven the conceptual
physical absurdity and inaccuracy of all logical structure of GR.
Van Flandern convincingly has shown, that in the solar system
the arrangement of celestial bodies is determined by STATIONARY
spatially distributed interdependent gravitational processes,
i.e. the dynamic STATIONARY behaviour of bodies in solar system
does not submit to a principle of a locality of gravitational
interaction, but it submits to a principle of a distributed
nonlocal gravitational interaction.
( The Newton's principle of long-range action follows from here!
The well known physical planetary analog for solar system,
the quantum mechanical description of the model of the atom gives
a relativity principle in complete disarray.)
It is senseless to apply the term " velocity of gravitational
interaction " to a mixed central and non-central gravitational
interaction in stationary gravitational systems making _steady-state
natural gravitational oscillations_ , since the character of the
shape of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
natural system properties of a concrete gravitational system and
does not depend at all on " velocity of gravitational interaction ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE
The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES "
Look at natural oscillations of a string with anchored ends .
The shape of natural standing oscillations of a string does not
depend on the velocity rate of propagation of waves of elasticity
in the material of a string, for any string the shape of standing
waves is same. You instantaneously will claim that you can
calculate the velocity of waves of elasticity utillizing the
oscillation frequency of the string or elastic plate. I propose
the opposite; we have considered waves in "another's" spaces,
and these waves do not have energy sufficient for fracture of
"another's" space. Any electromagnetic waves are always spread
in "another's" spaces, i.e. in "spaces" which are generated by
nonelectromagnetic interaction of substance.
Maxwell's electrodynamics are not applicable for the
description of physical processes inside master cells, which
pluralities create "another's" space in which Maxwell
electrodynamics already becomes applicable. Fundamental
physical principle is that the Maxwell electrodynamics is
applicable only in "another's" spaces, since the Maxwell
electrodynamics demands the assignment of boundary CONDITIONS.
THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are a latent electrodynamic postulate
about physical existence " of ANOTHER'S SPACE " in which the
electromagnetic phenomena are carried out.
The concept of boundary CONDITIONS cannot be eliminated
from electrodynamics.
Maxwell's electrodynamics is a theory about dynamic processes
in " ANOTHER'S SPACES ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE of gravitational systems
The physical gravitational analog of the electrodynamic
concept of boundary CONDITIONS does not exist for Solar system.
>From my point of view just this physical fact ruins any
theoretical attempts at proof of the steadiness and stability
of the Solar system undertaken by physicists until now.
On the other hand, there are phenomenological proofs of
steadiness and stability of the Solar system. This fact yields
the basis for the assumption, that the terms of the Solar
system are a collective source of self-consistent dynamic
INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS for themselves as single unit.
In electrodynamics, the EXTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied. In the gravitational dynamic theory of planetary
systems in latent shape the INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied, therefore the Solar system creates a " PROPER
(NATURAL) GRAVITATIONAL SPACE " and the volume " of
gravitational space " is determined by the gravitational
interaction of bodies of the Solar system. The character
of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
the proper system properties of a concrete gravitational
system and does not depend on the metaphysical concept
of the "velocity of gravitational interaction ".
Who can now calculate the " velocity of gravitational
interaction "on measurings positions of planets if he
can not point out INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in
an explicit way for solar or any other concrete
gravitational system?
Demise of an individualistic relativity
The terms of natural gravitational systems are
collectives of a stationary self-consistent collective
dynamic motion with sad consequences for an individualistic
relativity.
" The experimental time constants " of many processes
of sluggish changes in the motions of the planets are known
now uncertainly or unreliablly. The main difficulty in the
study of "natural" gravitational systems similar to the
solar system is the absence of an opportunity to perform
violent experiments to arbitrarily change the positions
of bodies of the system.
All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
a local character and are carried out in "another's
gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
a hypothetical character.
Comments.
[snip]
Please, Sergey see at manifold trial attempts to grope " a new
unorthodox phenomenology ":
Now you can ask:
Why are you groping about in the dark unorthodox phenomenology?
>;^)))
---
Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Sasha, perhaps you know such childish task on logic. A wayfarer
came to a fork of roads one of which leads to the Liar town and
another to the Honest town. Some man sits there; the traveller knows
neither which road leads to Honest, his aim, nor from which town is
this man. Wayfarer may ask him only one exhaustive question. ;-)
Which question, do you know? Pointing to any road, he has to ask,
"From which town are you?" Whoever would point to Honest. ;-)
You are writing,
>Tom Van Flandern carried out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
>PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
>metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance
>of natural phenomena of GRAVITATION.
Well, what they debated? ;-) That
>both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings concerning
>them are purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and the eternal
uncertain
>boundary flickers between Physics and METAPHYSICS.
This is like one goat passed an examination. Goat-teacher asks,
looking to a crib: "What device measures voltage?" Goat-student, also
looking to a crib: "Voltmeter". Teacher catches student's hand,
disabling him to look to a crib: "And current?" Student, also
disabling the teacher to look to a crib: "Currentmeter". Teacher,
doing not knowing without crib, what to say: "Correct. Your mark is
excellent".
Please show me van Flandern's experimental corroboration that
>the dynamic STATIONARY behaviour of bodies in solar system
>does not submit to a principle of a locality of gravitational
>interaction, but it submits to a principle of a distributed
>nonlocal gravitational interaction.
I will mark you excellent!!! ;-) And the Newton's principle of
long-range action follows of course from the stationary orbits, just
as Coulomb's law in electrostatics is true only in stationary fields,
but the Sun system evolves, though slow, as all in the astronomical
scale. Thus, it is not a proof. Again, it does not follow a least from
the stationarity and slow evolution that
>It is senseless to apply the term " velocity of gravitational
>interaction " to a mixed central and non-central gravitational
>interaction in stationary gravitational systems making _steady-state
>natural gravitational oscillations_ , since the character of the
>shape of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
>natural system properties of a concrete gravitational system and
>does not depend at all on " velocity of gravitational interaction ".
And as to standing waves, if you know the cited advocates, please tell
them to put it in their pipes and to smoke it: the shape of natural
oscillations of standing waves in a string DEPENDS on the velocity of
elasticity waves in the material of string, as both the propagation
velocity and arrangement of nodes of standing wave depend on the
parameters of string material, my friend. ;-)
One thing I understand. With these methods you cannot achieve much in
your substantiation of Fibonacci numbers. Believe me and throw up all
these lofty phrases. This is only a wasted time. There is greatest
deal of real work, concrete work, not of speculations like
>The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES "
Let them live in caves, without TV, internet, cars, aircrafts, let
them there speculate of their "another spaces". They have no wish?
They all want to have this all available in "these spaces", and to let
out their peacock's feathers about "another spaces", and to accuse all
around of ignorance and religiosity. Again, Sasha, it is not worthy to
follow the way they point with great talks of someone's lie.
Kind regards,
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
What is your estimation for the following?:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-6/Grav-pub.htm
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/0a3f29496c8bdc12?dmode=source
============ start of message =================================
From: a_n_timof...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro
Subject: Commensurable Gravitational Masses and Variations G
Date: 10 Jan 2002 05:52:41 -0800
> A Gravity Experiment Between Commensurable Masses
>
> Authors: D. Sarkadi & L. Bodonyi
> Research Centre of Fundamental Physics
> Abstract -
>
> The gravitational constant G is the least-well measured
fundamental
> constant in nature.
>
> Several recent determinations have not reduced the uncertainty
> and some measurements are in severe disagreement with the accepted
value.
>
> Among others, the most common characteristic of the performed
experiments
> lies in the fact that the "source" masses of the measured
gravitational
> field are much larger then the "test" masses. So far in the related
> literature we have not found the determination of G in the case of
> interaction between commensurable masses. Over the last few years, a
> very simple but highly sensitive experiment has been developed for
> investigating gravity by using relatively large physical pendulums.
> This new measuring system has been useful for finding the
gravitational
> interaction between equal or nearly equal size masses. From such
> experiments it has become obvious that there is a strong dependence
of
> gravitational attraction on the mass ratio of interactive bodies.
> We have observed a well-defined minimum in the gravitational
interaction
> energy in case of equal size of masses.
Read complete text:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-6/Grav-pub.htm
The Nature realized idea of the given experiment in the Solar system:
THE SYMMETRY INSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAndNews.com
FORBIDDEN (by compasses & bricklayer's trowel) ground: >;^)))
Gravitational mass - some properties
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/
============ end of message =================================
[snip]
Kind regards,
Aleksandr
Sergey Karavashkin
stupidity of the net. Unfortunately, it is too boresome to be a
free-of-charge reviewer, and I have no time. I have too much real
work.
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> Dear Aleksandr, it seems like you will tell me to analyse all
> stupidity of the net.
Dear Sergey.
You have encyclopaedic physical knowledges. You have independent,
severe and penetrating thinking. You know how to overcome stereotypes
of orthodox physical thinking. Here we yield personal expert
estimations to specific scientific and philosophical problems. I read
your reviews with great pleasure, though I have the consent with your
position on specific scientific problems not always. Here we have
freedom of choice by what of arguing and Here we have complete free
will in embodying response or in absence of any response.
We have entertainment in the rather specific shape when for this
purpose there is an excess of free time...
We have entertainment absolutely free of charge...
We are the fans or amateurs of latitudinarianizm in physical
comprehension of perception of the NATURE by human mind...
" to analyse all stupidity of the net. "
And as frequently happens, lonely in the troubles Ohm was right but
all dear scientific community trusted in the absolutely error
theories on the given problem. Validity of the physical theories
cannot be established by voting even very important bigwigs.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6ceb23be6b3c900f?dmode=source
Approximately to 1860, the electrodynamics was considered
as science already finally systematized and completed
(similarly to a gravitation now) due to the proceedings by:
G. Helmholtz, F. Neumann and W. Weber.
W. Weber in one scientific paper 1864 has made the
statement, that the _equality of a _velocity of propagation of
an electrical wave in a conductor and _speed of light is simple
_random _coincidence.
Maxwell has died in 1879!!!
In 1884 Henry Hertz, former disciple and the assistant of Helmholtz,
has begun study of the Maxwell theory. In that instant, the Hertz' act
carried pure dissident character. In 1887 the Maxwells theory
experimentally was confirmed by Hertz!!! ...
Maxwell has died in 1879!!!
In 1887 the Maxwells theory experimentally was confirmed by Hertz!!!
...
By paths built by Hertz the remaining ORTHODOX scientific biorobots
have directed to glory...
Some years back, in difficult for me times, my good friend Andre
Michaud from Canada has told to me very illuminative a history about
one remarkable physicist:
The most famous scientists of Europe sneered 20 years at the
Maxwell's theory during his life. The most famous scientists of Europe
sneered at the Maxwell's theory 13 years after death of Maxwell...
The similar history has taken place with the great Russian
scientist Mendeleyev. The most famous scientists of all world sneered
at Mendeleev more than 30 years. The most famous scientists of all
world sneered at the periodic Law of chemical properties of atoms
depending on mass! ...
And so on indefinitely. The mankind do not vary...
I have opened and has read the good old book on a history of
physics. To the deep surprise I have learned, that
the similar stories were repeated uncountable number of times...,
even Ohm has not avoided this destiny!
Boltzmann has made suicide in 62 age, because of
non-recognition of his ideas for statistical physics.
What is criterion for crowd for difference of the genius from
the fool in the field of creation of new scientific knowledge?
What is criterion for so-called "experts" for difference of the
genius from the fool in the field of creation of new scientific
knowledge?
Two remarkable examples:
The idea of equivalence of heat and mechanical work was put
forward independently and simultaneously by lot of the young
scientists, which were not connected to official science i.e.
these young scientists were the simple amateur(fan) physicists or
even nonphysicists!
The good luck accompanied among many others to Robert Mayer and
James Joule.
The doctor(!!!) Hermann Helmholtz has received an official refusal
in the publication of paper about the energy conservation law in 1847!
The energy conservation law called _sneers in the _academic _circles.
==================================================
Let's glorify of dissident physics.
Let's glorify of amateur physics.
Let's glorify of amateur dissident physicists.
==================================================
Do not read the modern books on a history physics, they are a dirty
political history of physics.
Let's glorify of dissident physicists and dissident physics!
> Unfortunately, it is too boresome to be a
> free-of-charge reviewer, and I have no time. I have too much real
> work.
We are the fans or amateurs of latitudinarianizm in physical
comprehension of perception of the NATURE by human mind...
We have entertainment absolutely free of charge...
>
> Sergey
"The Physical Theories are Daughters of the Past,
Mothers of the Future
and always Bondmaids of the Present."
Gustave Le Bon in THE CROUD
"A person is not religious solely when he worships a divinity,"
wrote Gustave Le Bon in The Crowd, "but when he puts all the
resources of his mind, the complete submission of his will, and
the whole-souled ardor of his fanaticism at the service of a cause
or an individual who becomes the goal and guide of his thoughts
and actions."
All scientific theories represent the special specific religious
systems, among the competing scientific theories win most effective,
with flow of time...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Have great fun:
Alby E. warned:
"Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality".
Not every horny devil is a Maxwell's Demon.
Here we consider a Alby's Demon - "Particle - Photon".
Unhappy, but the imaginary Demons do not exist in the Nature.
Unfortunate joke for this Sacred place:
The chimeras are prohibited to the laws of the Nature.
Nothing is sacred to them.
***
" The Nature's Children seek out regularities and rules in
acquiring Nature's Language. " Aleksandr Timofeev
***
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to
hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those
who think differently.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
***
;-)
PS
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html
The _Farce of Physics
Texinfo Edition 1.01, November 1994
by Bryan G. Wallace
Table of Contents
Introduction
Sacred Science
Pathological Physics
Mathematical Magic
Publication Politics
Light Lunacy
Relativity Revolution
Ultimate Unification
References
Aleksandr Timofeev
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > Dear Aleksandr, it seems like you will tell me to analyse all
> > stupidity of the net.
>
> Dear Sergey.
> You have encyclopaedic physical knowledges. You have independent,
> severe and penetrating thinking. You know how to overcome stereotypes
> of orthodox physical thinking. Here we yield personal expert
> estimations to specific scientific and philosophical problems. I read
> your reviews with great pleasure, though I have the consent with your
> position on specific scientific problems not always. Here we have
> freedom of choice by what of arguing and Here we have complete free
> will in embodying response or in absence of any response.
>
> We have entertainment in the rather specific shape when for this
> purpose there is an excess of free time...
> We have entertainment absolutely free of charge...
>
> We are the fans or amateurs of latitudinarianizm in physical
> comprehension of perception of the NATURE by human mind...
>
> " to analyse all stupidity of the net. "
>
> And as frequently happens, lonely in the troubles Ohm was right but
> all dear scientific community trusted in the absolutely error
> theories on the given problem. Validity of the physical theories
> cannot be established by voting even very important bigwigs.
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6ceb23be6b3c900f?dmode=
>
> Approximately to 1860, the electrodynamics was considered
> as science already finally systematized and completed
> (similarly to a gravitation now) due to the proceedings by:
>
> G. Helmholtz, F. Neumann and W. Weber.
>
>
> W. Weber in one scientific paper 1864 has made the
> statement, that the _equality of a _velocity of propagation of
> an electrical wave in a conductor and _speed of light is simple
> _random _coincidence.
>
> Maxwell has died in 1879!!!
>
> In 1884 Henry Hertz, former disciple and the assistant of Helmholtz,
> has begun study of the Maxwell theory. In that instant, the Hertz' act
> carried pure dissident character. In 1887 the Maxwells theory
> experimentally was confirmed by Hertz!!! ...
>
> Maxwell has died in 1879!!!
> In 1887 the Maxwells theory experimentally was confirmed by Hertz!!!
Dear Sasha! Swedish Conservation Laws Preprint Server has elevated me
to the range of the same great people. No effect had even that
submitted paper already has passed the peer review and was published
internationally. ;-)
> The energy conservation law called _sneers in the _academic _circles.
>
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D
> Let's glorify of dissident physics.
> Let's glorify of amateur physics.
>
>
> Let's glorify of amateur dissident physicists.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D
If you were recognising me as a some kind of expert (thank you), I can
notice, one does not follow from another. The only criterion to differ
a clever man from a fool is to do not differ them at all but to
consider the material as such in its mere essence as the author has
presented. Suppose, you can take offence at me that I am thundering
against your idea of Fibonacci numbers. Aether conceptions supporters
take offences that I fulminate their conceptions. Adherents of void
space do the same. And nothing to say of relativists and adherents of
photon conception. But the essence is simple up to be funny. No matter
what scientific trend am I analysing. I proceed from the logic of
relations and from the problem which this conception has to fulfil in
the course of its formulation and substantiation. If the conception
satisfied and its postulates are mutually consistent, there is no
problem. But if there were discrepancies, I ask some questions.
Usually these questions make the authors bursting the banks. This
means the end of discussion and of conception. If the author did not
understand me immediately, I explain him in phrases which he is able
to understand. ;-) It is not worthy to take offence at me, as I play
only a part of mirror. ;-)
> Do not read the modern books on a history physics, they are a dirty
> political history of physics.
>
>
> Let's glorify of dissident physicists and dissident physics!
>
>
> > Unfortunately, it is too boresome to be a
> > free-of-charge reviewer, and I have no time. I have too much real
> > work.
>
> We are the fans or amateurs of latitudinarianizm in physical
> comprehension of perception of the NATURE by human mind...
>
> We have entertainment absolutely free of charge...
For a little exception. They are so much alike... I long ago feel no
pleasure to show to these seekers of variants who fully ignore the
physics and physical understanding, what silly things do they mind. No
pleasure of their offences, arrogance, boycotts, attacks, attempts to
affect my financial situation through their channels. Thus, again, one
does not follow from another. I also am not pleased when these
'ignoring me' people were in hurry to submit for publication my ideas
on behalf of them and boycott my threads. The counter on my web site
reports of 1200-1500 readers monthly - in absence of replies on
threads. Experts in NASA are now re-making the Hubble images, as in
their previous interpretations we showed them their mistakes. Is there
at least one who referred to our works? Should we speak of a pleasure,
we would have to speak in other style and of other subjects, it should
be other talk at all. To make of me a rara avis and a boy for beating,
while now our ideas produce a revolution in the world science - spare
me.
We all make mistakes sometimes. Only that never mistakes who never
acts. But the knowledge and success come to that who achieved the
level at which he is able to improve mistakes, to anticipate mistakes,
and the main, to have a respect to other's opinion. Unfortunately,
only few people in the newsgroups are able to do so. And among these
few, too many are too faint-hearted and think it normal thing - to
compromise the truth with requirement of frenetic part of scientific
bosses to follow the way of absurdity, - thus, there are too little of
really knowing professionals. That is the fact.
So I will not comment the material you asked me. Around physics, there
always walk many so-called philosophers minding themselves Jesus
bringing the Truth. They are surprisingly fruitful and talentless.
Just as street by itself teaches to use bad language, they need not to
be taught to speculative manner of thinking. But all these
philosophers never had a soldering iron in hands. They have no
trustworthy work in their stock. And we can repeat for them Jesus'
words: "Many will come and call themselves with My name".
Kind regards,
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:<1110714127.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
[Snip]
> Experts in NASA are now re-making the Hubble images,
> as in their previous interpretations we showed them
> their mistakes. Is there at least one who referred
> to our works? Should we speak of a pleasure,
> we would have to speak in other style and of other
> subjects, it should be other talk at all. To make of
> me a rara avis and a boy for beating, while now our
> ideas produce a revolution in the world science -
> spare me.
[Snip]
> They have no trustworthy work in their stock.
> And we can repeat for them Jesus' words:
> "Many will come and call themselves with My name".
>
http://www.scientific.ru/dforum/altern/1112443487
The experience shows, that the electrical charges
of all elementary particles exactly are identical.
Probably nobody does not understand yet, why their
electrical charges are equal with a fancy degree of
an exactitude.
Obviously, that the quantization of an electrical
charge is the mysterious and universal law of a Nature.
In this article I demonstrate
quantization of a gravitational charge
being based on experimental data for magnitudes
of masses of planets of a Solar system.
http://www.scientific.ru/dforum/altern/1112609524
--------------------------------------------------------
About distinction or difference between
GRAVITATIONAL MASS and INERT MASS... -
http://www.scientific.ru/dforum/altern/1112955517
---
Kind regards,
Aleksandr
Sergey Karavashkin
Sasha, I have to look this paper through. Please give me some time.
Best,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
seemingly I have already answered to it. Well, what's new? Please, do
not take offences, but there can be only direct quantization. If one
adds and subtracts, as you do, and in sequence of planets that is
irrelevant to distances from Sun, this is already not quantization,
this is sharing money a la Panikovsky. ;-) And why not to account the
Moon? Is not it a planet? Or Titan which has an atmosphere and
tectonics? Is it neither? ;-) And small planets named by whoever wants
to call them? Is not this quantization? Well then, what is it
quantization, if there exists something behind the system of this
quantization? No, Sasha, if you are saying 'quantization', we must not
have any masses except these so-called quanta in our Solar system. If
we have, it is not worthy to pant. You can make no one advancing step
than cabbalism. Believe me, this is so, and don't take offences.
Best to you,
Sergey
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<1113288021.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
Aleksandr Timofeev
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> Dear Sasha, I already have read it on Google in fuller version. And
> seemingly I have already answered to it. Well, what's new? Please, do
> not take offences, but there can be only direct quantization. If one
> adds and subtracts, as you do,
I gave to V. B. Braginsky for the review only kernel of my paper:
http://april.friends-partners.ru/partners/russeds/unknown/astrochem/index.htm
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/oldeng.htm
V. B. Braginsky has not required from me confidentiality of our
discussion, therefore I have the moral right to give an account of
his some sights on the given subject.
V. B. Braginsky has apprehended paper absolutely seriously and he
has asked of my consent to show my paper (1996) to other experts.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d353194774113bf3?dmode=source&hl=en
V. B. Braginsky is the internationally recognized expert in the field
of an experimental
gravitation.
Please, your comments
"Opinions differ" - proverb >;^)
My opinion:
SOURCE of DISASTROUS SHOCKS for the modern theories of a gravitation,
which one expect us in the near future ... :
http://www.scientific.ru/dforum/altern/1114513772
You can write here by Russian...
> and in sequence of planets that is
> irrelevant to distances from Sun, this is already not quantization,
> this is sharing money a la Panikovsky. ;-)
Are Balmer, Rydberg, Ritz, Runge "sharing money a la Panikovsky " ???
>;^)
Balmer:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Balmer.html
" The major contribution which Balmer made, however, depended much more
on his mathematical
skills than on his understanding of physics, for he produced a formula
which gave the
wavelengths of the observed lines produced by the hydrogen atom without
giving any physical
explanation. Balmer's famous formula is
lambda = hm^2/(m^2 - n^2).
Putting n = 2 and h = 3654.6 10^-8 cm, the wavelengths given by the
formula for m = 3, 4, 5, 6
were correct to a high degree of accuracy. Previous attempts had looked
for formulas of quite
different types and had failed to come up with anything which matched
the experimental
evidence. Putting m = 7 gave Balmer a predicted value for the next line
and indeed a colleague
at the University of Basel was able to tell Balmer that this line had
been observed and the
wavelength agreed with a high level of accuracy with the one Balmer's
formula predicted.
In his paper of 1885 Balmer suggested that giving n other small integer
values would give the
wavelengths of other series produced by the hydrogen atom. Indeed this
prediction turned out to
be correct and these series of lines were later observed. The reason
why the formula holds was
not understood in Balmer's lifetime and had to wait until the
theoretical work of Niels Bohr in
1913.
Balmer's formula led to more general formulas for the spectral lines of
other atoms. Others
who, basing their ideas on those of Balmer, were able to achieve such
results included Rydberg,
Kayser and Runge.
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson"
Rydberg:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Rydberg.html
"Rydberg's most important work is on spectroscopy where he found a
relatively simple expression
relating the various lines in the spectra of the elements (1890). He
hoped to determine the
structure of the atom but, although his work did provide the basis for
the structure theory, he
himself did not reach his goal.
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson"
Runge:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Runge.html
"Runge did a great deal of experimental work and published a great
quantity of results. He
succeeded in arranging the spectral lines of helium in two spectral
series and, until 1897,
this was thought to be evidence that hydrogen was a mixture of two
elements.
In 1904 Klein persuaded Göttingen to offer Runge a chair of Applied
Mathematics, a post which
Runge held until he retired in 1925.
Runge was always a fit and active man and on his 70 th birthday he
entertained his
grandchildren by doing handstands. However a few months later he had a
heart attack and died.
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson"
http://n-t.proc.ru/ri/br/rf06.htm
> And why not to account the
> Moon? Is not it a planet? Or Titan which has an atmosphere and
> tectonics? Is it neither? ;-) And small planets named by whoever
wants
> to call them? Is not this quantization? Well then, what is it
> quantization, if there exists something behind the system of this
> quantization? No, Sasha, if you are saying 'quantization',
Schroedinger, "Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem", 27 jan 1926,
Annalen der Physik.
" Quantization as a problem about eigenvalues " <=>
<=> "Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem"
> we must not
> have any masses except these so-called quanta in our Solar system. If
> we have, it is not worthy to pant. You can make no one advancing step
> than cabbalism. Believe me, this is so, and don't take offences.
Are "problem about eigenvalues" equal rights with "cabbalism" ???
>;^)
Schroedinger, "Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem", 27 jan 1926,
Annalen der Physik.
Kind regards,
Aleksandr
None
We all are different, and me so. Please understand me, I don't rely on
opinion of authorities, I consider only the problem as it is, how much
completely and correctly is its phenomenological and mathematical
description. In this sense I showed you discrepancies which I got to
see. Arbitrary arrangement of masses and distances and just the fact
that you arrange them disable any speaking of primary, neither
secondary quantification. All the rest is insufficient, the same as,
whether the authors whom you mention did such operations. The essence
remains. Again, if the statement of problem was defective, we need not
consider corollaries, even if they were grandiose and stupendous, as
the trustworthiness of corollaries directly follows from the
correctness of solution of the basic problem.
While the heart of the issue is in phenomenology of gravitation and in
correct description of the evolution of planetary system. Geometry, as
well as number theory, is powerless here, at least because they only
reflect the statement of problem. If it was absent, the solution will
be in accordance with the absence.
This is the nut which I permanently try to deliver to you. All the rest
depends already on your willing to understand the said. ;-)
I would add, Sasha, I will duplicate this post to your e-mail box, as I
hardly will be able to post it on Google, because of the next turn of
blockade organised on this forum. Such are these "authorities" and
their methods of "proof". Thrice abolished account during one year. ;-)
The today blockade is because we have solved the problem of transverse
Doppler effect and showed that relativistic solutions are in hard
disagreement with phenomenology, and mistakes in solutions. Rough
mistakes. So it is. And you are saying, Braginsky. . .
Best to you,
Sergey
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Dear Sasha,
>
> We all are different, and me so. Please understand me, I don't rely on
> opinion of authorities, I consider only the problem as it is, how much
> completely and correctly is its phenomenological and mathematical
> description. In this sense I showed you discrepancies which I got to
> see. Arbitrary arrangement of masses and distances and just the fact
> that you arrange them disable any speaking of primary, neither
> secondary quantification. All the rest is insufficient, the same as,
> whether the authors whom you mention did such operations. The essence
> remains. Again, if the statement of problem was defective, we need not
> consider corollaries, even if they were grandiose and stupendous, as
> the trustworthiness of corollaries directly follows from the
> correctness of solution of the basic problem.
Dear Sergey
Each of us has remained at own philosophical judgement on surveyed
problems...
I am very tired now for this heavy year.
I require rest on some time.
By the way, whether you will participate in conference in 2006?:
"FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENGINIRING",
St.Petersburg University, Russia,
http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru
We could there meet and to have an exchange of ideas.
> While the heart of the issue is in phenomenology of gravitation and in
> correct description of the evolution of planetary system. Geometry, as
> well as number theory, is powerless here, at least because they only
> reflect the statement of problem. If it was absent, the solution will
> be in accordance with the absence.
>
> This is the nut which I permanently try to deliver to you. All the rest
> depends already on your willing to understand the said. ;-)
>
> I would add, Sasha, I will duplicate this post to your e-mail box, as I
> hardly will be able to post it on Google, because of the next turn of
> blockade organised on this forum. Such are these "authorities" and
> their methods of "proof". Thrice abolished account during one year. ;-)
I am experienced in your situation many times...
> The today blockade is because we have solved the problem of transverse
> Doppler effect and showed that relativistic solutions are in hard
> disagreement with phenomenology, and mistakes in solutions. Rough
> mistakes.
"transverse Doppler effect"
It would be very good, if you have managed to fuel this problem here:
http://www.scientific.ru/dforum/altern
It demands considerable gains, if you are there beginner.
> So it is. And you are saying, Braginsky. . .
Braginsky is the best and honest man of them.
Braginsky is honest about this matter with me.
Best to you,
Aleksandr