Wave-particle duality
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Colleagues,
Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
" On the wave-particle duality "
*Abstract*
We will study the phenomena of interference and diffraction of
electrons from the point of modelling of processes, basing on the
quantum-mechanical and classical approaches. We will reveal that when
we represent an electron as some wave function of state or of
probability of location in some region of space, it causes considerable
contradictions producing the wave-particle duality and incorrect
description of the phenomenon. In particular, probabilistic
representation of wave function by Born leads to the fact that such
probabilistic distribution has to exist also when electrons do not
interact with atoms. The probabilistic model premises only positive
values of probability, while the wave function is bipolar, which
additionally distorts the idea of properties of electron.
We will establish that the cause, why in the quantum-mechanical
representation the model is distorted, is that in frames of this
formalism the orbital motion of exterior electrons of atom is neglected
and, consequently, the field of atom is taken stationary. Then
interacting electrons have to have some spectrum of frequencies to
interact in resonance with the atom according to the Schroedinger
equation. This last causes full distortion of the wave function of
electron and factually cancels the spectrum of frequencies and as a
consequence the electron must turn into an EM wave of some resonance
frequency.
As an alternative to this representation, we will model the
electron's interaction with atom from the point of classical physics.
In this model the field of atom will be represented as a field of
skeleton and the field of the exterior orbital electron, due to which
the resulting field becomes dynamic in the near of atom. Basing on the
calculated dynamic field, we will model the interaction of the chain of
electrons with this field and reveal that electrons form the periodic
structure with the wavelength proportional to the product of period of
orbiting of orbital electron into the velocity of interacting
electrons. This wave-like formation propagates from the region of
interaction within some angle, gradually changing its shape because of
difference of velocities of the electrons after their interaction with
the atom. The electrons in this set propagate according to the
Rutherford model of scattering with account of the phase of dynamic
field of the atom. The superimposition of many such wave-like
formations causes the interference and diffraction patterns like the
patterns of X-rays.
This model will fully lift the wave-particle problem together with the
discrepancies inherent in the quantum-mechanical formalism.
Please read the full text here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/contents6_1.html#interference
Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin
Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine
Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: self...@yandex.ru , sel...@mail.ru
http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html
ver...@gawab.com
VERGON
In my post in the "What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single
photon' ???" thread I mention that the photons in a stream must travel
in phase in order to register a specific frequency.
The rest of my post is an extrapolation of what a photon is as stated
in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity (http://www.wbabin.net
Under LIST OF AUTHORS click Vertner Vergon).
I shall summarize it here. Since it is a summary, developing processes
are not mentioned and therefore some statements and descriptions may be
a little startling. For full development see above mentioned paper.
First of all I show proof that radiation and matter are composed of the
same basic element.
The "element" mentioned above I call "the quantum". It is the basic
element comprising the entire universe
It is a sphere consisting of a very rarified material that has perfect
elasticity -- expands and contracts ad infinitum because it has no
internal friction. The expansion proceeds to a diameter of one light
second.
It has mass (7.372038 x 10^-48 gr.) and spin. Because of the spin the
equatorial portion creates the magnetic moment, and the
expansion/contraction supplies the electric moment. Note, they are
orthogonal to each other.
Another characteristic of the quantum is that it is co-spatial. That is
multiples can occupy the same space at the same time. However, as the
density mounts this ability is discontinued and more quanta are
rejected.
There are two forms of agglomeration, sequential (which is radiation)
and
concentric (which is matter, i.e., electrons and protons)
In the concentric mode the agglomeration is a standing wave and
therefore
stable (electron and proton). In the sequential mode the quanta act as
waves
and follow Gaussian wave dictates.
Note, when there are sufficient quanta in the sequential mode, i.e.,
high
energy photons, the sequential mode can collapse into the concentric
mode, and the high energy photon transforms into an electron and a
positron pair,
proof that radiation and matter are constructed of the same basic
particle.
This phenomenon also tells us that radiation consists of both matter
and antimatter.
Considering the conformation shown here, the wave/particle duality is
evident
as is wave entanglement.
I spoke of the mass of the quantum. The energy of expansion/contraction
is 6.62566 x 10^-27 erg. (Note this is the energy of Planck's h) Also
note the ratio of energy to mass is c^2. This gives us E/m = c^2 ,
which, when rearranged is E = mc^2.
All these characteristics combine in a fractal manner to create the
universe as we behold it.
As to radiation/matter: Take the mass of the quantum and multiply it by
the frequency of a photon, and you get the mass of the photon
(Eintein's m = E/c^2)
Multiply the quantum mass by the frequency number of the electron,
proton,
and neutron -- and you get their respective masses. Proof that matter
and
radiation are composed of the same element.
If the quantum spheres are traveling in copius numbers, due to their
expansion/contraction and tenuous nature they act as waves. These waves
follow the laws of superposition. Further, they also follow the laws of
Gauss' group waves. The group wave is a standing wave through which
pass, rear to front, the sub-waves that are the photons.
Since the group waves are standing waves they have no motion between
source and observer regardless of motion of same. However, the photons
have a continuous velocity (c) through the group wave. Thus the
velocity
of the photons is constant regardless of motion between source and
observer.
The individual photon is composed of a number of quanta equal to the
frequency number. These are grouped together in the typical Gaussian
manner, i.e., a condensed peaked wave-train. Thus the time of
observation
is less than one second. How much less is a function of its energy
Vergon
critten...@yahoo.com
You inverted simultaneous time. Why did you have all interference of
wave-function collapse disappear like that?
It sounds like a promising avenue of research. Collapse as the collapse
field.
So make the experiment to prove. And the most obvious is to have all
interaction of material be related to inverted time. Each interaction
makes a possible universe in your theory class.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
And yet relation appears
A small relation expanding like the shade
Of a cloud on sand a shape on the side of a hill
-- Wallace Stevens
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
<ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:1156700185.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Harry
Sergey,
It's a very intriguing subject, and your approach looks promising.
Has any of this (or similar) been published - I mean not SELF-published, but
published in a peer-reviewed journal?
I ask that in view of your record of reluctance of accepting criticism,
while IMO you are both brilliant and stubbornly messy, and the quantity of
your writings is impressive. Some of your elaborated writings may be
publishable, after cleaning out the errors.
Sincerely,
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
Harry писал(а):
> Sergey,
>
> It's a very intriguing subject, and your approach looks promising.
> Has any of this (or similar) been published - I mean not SELF-published, but
> published in a peer-reviewed journal?
> I ask that in view of your record of reluctance of accepting criticism,
> while IMO you are both brilliant and stubbornly messy, and the quantity of
> your writings is impressive. Some of your elaborated writings may be
> publishable, after cleaning out the errors.
>
> Sincerely,
> Harald
Dear Harald, thank you for appreciation. But why our journal is worse?
We have about 16-18 000 readers monthly (in August, for today – 21
370), not every respectable journal has so many. As to errors of which
you are saying – we both multiply made sure, these are not errors but
misunderstanding of colleagues too concentrated on the narrow path of
their dogmas and wishing to see nothing around.
So we yet see no reason to change the concrete of our own journal for
semolina of a hint. When I see something concrete, I will discuss it.
:)
We feel no wish to impose ourselves to the journals. :) Let them
publish reports on the launch of photon aircrafts with a water drop on
a mirror ‘to strengthen the effect’. We don’t prevent them. :)
Sergey
Y.Porat
------------------
welcone to the 'chain of orbitals' idea!!!
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Henry Haapalainen
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157196634.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Physics can be made difficult, and the reason are the wrong basic ideas and
theories.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Sergey Karavashkin
critten...@yahoo.com писал(а):
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
> > information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
> > attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
> > electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
> > duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
> >
> > " On the wave-particle duality "
> >
> You inverted simultaneous time. Why did you have all interference of
> wave-function collapse disappear like that?
>
> It sounds like a promising avenue of research. Collapse as the collapse
> field.
>
> So make the experiment to prove. And the most obvious is to have all
> interaction of material be related to inverted time. Each interaction
> makes a possible universe in your theory class.
I inverted nothing, dear crittenburg. There exists the dynamic field of
an atom. The electrons moving with a definite back-sight distance and
with a definite speed fall into this field. Dependently on the phase of
field for each electron, the direction of scattering will be different.
It is well seen in the diagram (this is why we gave different colours
to electrons) that each electron scatters after the Rutherford formula,
but dependently on the phase, the degree of scattering will differ.
Thus, there is no discrepancy, no collapse and no time inversion. There
is an interaction and it causes the scattering which we showed.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Y.Porat писал(а):
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
> > information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
> > attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
> > electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
> > duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
> >
> > " On the wave-particle duality "
> ------------------
> welcome to the 'chain of orbitals' idea!!!
>
>
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------
Oh, dear Mr Porat! We will not come to the chain, this is another
problem. :) But both problems have in common that in them there is no
blurred electrons and wells. Everything is determined. Simply the
problem accounts the dynamic pattern of the field. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Henry Haapalainen писал(а):
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> kirjoitti
> viestissä:1157196634.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> >> Dear Colleagues,
> >>
> >> Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
> >> information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
> >> attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
> >> electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
> >> duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
> >>
> >> " On the wave-particle duality "
>
> Physics can be made difficult, and the reason are the wrong basic ideas and
> theories.
>
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Dear Henry, I don’t expect your $ 1000, as this always is a hard
estimation – “proven – unproven”. But I would like to draw your
attention to the very first your thesis being the statement of your
problem:
<< Gravity appears to be really strange, something inexplicable by
theory. This view has been stated at some time and appears to be well
founded. When an object falls in a gravity field, it seems to be in
accelerating motion. However, this is not so, the acceleration is only
apparent. We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as we
stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the acceleration
as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards. If we could see events
from the "correct" perspective, we would observe that freely falling
objects move forwards at a constant velocity. Gravity is not a force,
but something else. But what is the correct perspective? >>
This is incorrect, and now I will show you, why. You are stating that
it is incorrect to observe the falling body from the Earth surface, as
the observer on the Earth is affected by the opposite buoyant force. If
we look from a ‘correct’ perspective, we will see the body falling
with a constant speed. Let us see. Want we or not, the Earth’s centre
is the centre of gravity, all forces from periphery are directed to it.
During observation, the observer on the Earth’s surface does not
change his distance from the centre. This means, he rests with respect
to the centre (we do not speak of the orbital speed). This is because
the gravity affection is just compensated by the counteraction related
to the deformation of the Earth’s shell. Thus, the observer is
affected by two forces, and if we disregard the Earth’s turn which is
small for our experiment with the falling body, then, according to the
Galilee law, the observer is in the inertial reference frame. And the
falling body has not the counteraction which the observer has, and its
distance from the centre of the Earth is changed in time. Thus, the
body is really affected by the disbalanced resultant, which causes the
accelerated motion of the body. So the gravity is the force, without
any ifs and buts. And if you are satisfied with such opposition to your
thesis, I’m expecting to receive $ 1000 from you. :) But if you are
interesting to know the physical nature of gravity field, this project
would take $ 10 000 000 and 5 years of work of the team. :)
Best to you,
Sergey
Henry Haapalainen
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157828222.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> kirjoitti
> viestissä:1157196634.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> >> Dear Colleagues,
> >>
> >> Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
> >> information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
> >> attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
> >> electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
> >> duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
> >>
> >> " On the wave-particle duality "
>
> Physics can be made difficult, and the reason are the wrong basic ideas
> and
> theories.
>
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Dear Henry, I don't expect your $ 1000, as this always is a hard
estimation - "proven - unproven". But I would like to draw your
Best to you,
Sergey
Dear Sergey
Sorry if I understood something wrong, because my English is not good. I can
read it again with a dictionary in my hands, if it appears to be necessary.
In relativity theory there are some great ideas, like gravity is not a
force, and space is curved, and a falling object is actually moving straight
ahead with a constant speed. All this is accepted in 'falling space', but
Einsteins reasoning concerning the speed of light is proved to be wrong.
Your newtonian ideas are too oldfashioned to me.
Best to you, too
Henry Haapalainen
Sergey Karavashkin
Henry Haapalainen писал(а):
Dear Henry, it looks illogical from your side to dissociate yourself
from the Newtonian theory and at the same time to use the formulas of
classical theory of potentials based on Newtonian ideas. :) The same,
no difference in which way you are trying to substantiate the gravity
field. The experimental fact that I gave you says, the distance between
the observer and centre of gravitating body does not change, and the
distance between the studied body and centre changes. This evidences
that the body moves with acceleration, i.e. the force affects it. If
you want to work in the reference frame of falling spaces, the observer
has to be in this frame, too. Actually, the studied body can move
uniformly with respect to the observer, because the acceleration of
free fall in the quasi-homogeneous region of gravity field is same for
all bodies. This last is not the discovery of Relativity but the
corollary of Galilee experiments and generalisation of the Newtonian
theory. But with it, working in the falling spaces, you have to account
that the observer also has acceleration with respect to the inertial
frame. So, to be correct, you have to re-calculate all laws of
dynamics. Finally, if you apply the force to the observer, putting him
on the surface of the Earth that in the falling spaces will move with
the acceleration, the mutual motion of the observer and body will be
accelerated anyway. This is caused by the passing from the inertial
frame to the frame of falling spaces. And you have to do this passing
namely in frames of classical Newtonian theory. To make sure, it is
sufficient to do not confine yourself to a simple motion of falling
frame and to exceed the limits of homogeneous region of gravity field.
The gravity field is still known to be generally central and Relativity
did not change it. What happens with it, you can analyse on the example
shown in one of our papers,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/blackhole/blackhole15/blackhole15.html
especially see Fig. 10. :)
Thus, don’t be in hurry to dissociate yourself from the regularities
which you use, doing not understanding it. :)
Sergey
Henry Haapalainen
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157875762....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/blackhole/blackhole15/blackhole15.html
Sergey
There may be some interesting things on your pages, but to me it is too
heavy to read. I prefer talking shortly. If you don't understand difference
between acceleration and relative acceleration, it is very difficult to say
anything to you. Maths is important but physics must be understood.
Attraction between masses is impossible, and that is the fact generally
understood. Why don't you read 'falling space' from the beginning to the end
and try to earn the money as promised.
Henry Haapalainen
THE_ONE
looked and under looked.
All Relativistic Events must involve units or Quanta, such that one may
relate to another for an event to occur. This brings Particles into the
picture.
Events occur over Time. It is a case of series of events, one after
another after an other....
Case #1) In the case of a two slit experiment involving Electrons that
are released only one at a time and are not released until the previous
Electron has completed the entire path from start to finish, in the
long run we will see interference patterns at the destination wall.
The Interference pattern becomes an EVENT.
Case #2) If we monitor the passing of each electron through one of the
two slits, then the interference pattern does not evolve. In this case
the first Event to occur, is the detecting of the electron passing
through one of the two slits.
Therefore, in the second case, we have prevented a larger Event from
occurring by replacing it with a smaller events.
If we do not monitor the Electrons passing through the two slits, then
a different kind of Event takes place.
Here, everything is taken into account, meaning all possible paths of
all the electrons are taken into account to determine the final
outcome, an outcome of possible path agreement which results in the
production of wave-like patterns at the destination w
all.
Since one Electron is released at a time, yet all electrons are taken
into account to produce the final wave-like patterns at the destination
wall, this says that this kind of Event, is an event that sees all
electrons at the same time, meaning a point of view that sees across a
given period of time.
So what we have, are events that occur within Space-Time at a present
moment, but we also seem to have other events that are governed by
Space-Time. Here we must think of Space-Time as one huge singular unit
in which we move within, and this means that a
multi-directional Time exists, and we move within it just in the same
way as we move within the multi-directional Space that also simply "
EXISTS ".
So again I say " Events occur over Time. It is a case of series of
events, one after another after an other....".
Therefore, if we attempt to monitor a possible large HOLISTIC event
that takes a given time period of circumstances into account, and we
attempt do this as it is in progress, then we prevent it from even
happening by replacing it with small RELATIVISTIC events that each
occur in what we call the present or real time.
And so, over time there are series of events occurring, RELATIVISTIC,
HOLISTIC, HOLISTIC, RELATIVISTIC, RELATIVISTIC, ..... , and which type
of event will be next in the series, will be determined by what we do,
or don't do !
Now if this is true, yet it is ignored, then we will continue to try to
find explanations of four dimensional Events while still using three
dimensional thinking. This is a kind of inside thinking that does not
include Space-Time itself, and instead it continues to hold onto a
primitive understanding of Time that says there is a future to come,
but that there is no future yet, and at the same time says that only
the present time exists.
Logic says that we are constantly on the move. If we are at rest in
that multi-directional Space, then we are in motion in that
multi-directional Time. If we are at rest in that multi-directional
Time, then we are in motion in that multi-directional Space. This then
implies that our constant momentum in Space-Time is the equivalent to
the speed of light, yet most of it is across the dimension of Time
unless we change the direction of travel within Space-Time.
Anyhooooo, The point to be looked at is the TWO types of EVENTS,
HOLISTIC and RELATIVISTIC !
Sergey Karavashkin
you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
"Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inertia,
old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the very
beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
real care of reputation.
Sergey
RP
Your premises were only arbitrarily assumed. Is it not also possible
via electromagnetic feedback that the fringe pattern is a property of
the apparatus itself, to which the single electron simply responds?
After all, a change in the geometry of the apparatus will surely
produce a change in the pattern. The probability for the electron to
land in any particular spot on the wall or screen is a result of the
electromagnetic fields through with the electron moves in its path,
which are in turn partially generated by the electron itself as it
sends out an advanced em wave. The path differs for each electron fired
simply because each electron originates at a different place on the
emitter and also with different initial momentum. A mechanical analogy
can easily be derived, but isn't necessary since it is already known
that the wave equation used to derive the Airy pattern applies equally
to mechanical systems, or actually vice versa.
IMO, Bohm's pilot wave is really just a superposition of ordinary em
waves. Sergey is one of the most insightful contributors to have ever
graced this forum.
Richard Perry
Henry Haapalainen
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157961336....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is relative
if you can not feel it yourself.
You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our discussion.
Henry Haapalainen
RP
I have read your theory, and ironically Sergey cut right to the heart
of the matter without reading it. He already understood that you were
simply playing a mathematical trick, which is really just the same one
that Einstein played. Just because you can assume an accelerated frame
from which to work out the laws of physics, this doesn't necessarily
make it the de facto correct approach. If a man that is stationary on
the surface of the Earth is accelerating, then what is he accelerating
wrt ? He is accelerating only wrt to those things that are in freefall.
Conversely, from his FoR, it is the things in freefall that are
accelerating, and he is at rest. What follows is that wrt the
freefalling things the man is accelerating, but even wrt that frame the
man is still at rest wrt the Earth. So then, from either viewpoint,
the man is at rest wrt the Earth, and thus not accelerating wrt it.
QED. It is as Sergey said, there is no net force acting on the man.
There is however tension on his body due to opposing forces, and that
is what he feels rather than acceleration.
Relativity is as simple as "It is the motions of particles wrt each
other that matters." Frames of reference have no bearing whatsoever
upon the outcome, they only determine what we see, and what we see is
subject to any number of interpretations.
Richard Perry
Sorcerer
"THE_ONE" <flop...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:1157955805....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Concerning Particle-Wave Duality, I think the basics have been over
| looked and under looked.
|
| All Relativistic Events
What does relativistic mean, Mr. Over&underlooked?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles.
Sorcerer
"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:aZ8Ng.9405$7H6....@reader1.news.jippii.net...
| Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
FALSE.
Androcles.
Sorcerer
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157964403.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[Androcles]
Yes, but those interpretations must be self consistent.
Aside from individual crackpots such as Haapalainen, Wilson
and Seto who only agree with themselves there are only three
competing theories to consider:
They are:
1) Newtonian - the velocity is light is objectively source dependent
2) Einsteinian - the velocity of light is subjectively time dependent
3) Maxwellian - the velocity of light is objectively media dependent.
The aether theory was thrown out by Michelson, but Maxwell is
still correct for any real media such as air, water, glass, diamond.. etc.
2) is discarded as not being self consistent:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
leaving 1):
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Haapalainen's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body."
Einstein's second postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. "
Karavashkin's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
"The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed."
Androcles.
Sergey Karavashkin
Henry Haapalainen писал(а):
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
> viestissä:1157961336....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > No, dear Henry. It is not worthy to reproach others for what are doing
> > you yourself turning physics inside out. If you are saying,
> > "Attraction between masses is impossible", then, first, your
> > statement "We who observe it are ourselves in accelerating motion as
> > we stand on the surface of the Earth, and we experience the
> > acceleration as the surface of the Earth pushing us upwards" is
> > wrong, as the distance between the centre of gravitating body and
> > observer on the Earth's surface does not change in time. This
> > observer has no where to accelerate, his location in time is constant.
> > Second, no reason to introduce the falling frame. The fall is the
> > directed motion under affection of a force. This is the law of inertia,
> > old chap. And this is physics which you are trying to distort.
> >
> > One has to learn the science to lose with dignity. I said from the very
> > beginning that you will make a scandal but will not admit your
> > incorrectness, to do not fulfil your promise. This only says of your
> > real care of reputation.
> >
> > Sergey
>
> Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body.
> Driving a car, standing on the ground of the earth, even in a space ship
> when using motor power to cause acceleration. Your acceleration is relative
> if you can not feel it yourself.
Dear Henry, as you want to discuss just the physical meaning and I do
so, I would like to draw your attention that there exist two kinds of
forces – mass forces and contact forces. To the mass forces the
gravity force relate, and for a charged cloud – the electric force.
This force affects equally all elementary volumes of the body. So it is
not felt when the body’s motion in the fields being the sources of
mass forces. The contact force affects the body in the vicinity of
contact with the source of force. Such is the surface on which we
stand. This surface fixes only the position of our feet, not of the
whole body. All the rest body remains resting due to the counteraction
of the elastic forces of the body. If these elastic forces are absent,
as for example in a water column above the surface, the water will fall
until it spreads in a thin layer above the surface. The same with a
car. If its front bumper has encountered a hindrance, there stops only
the point that collided with the hindrance. All other parts of the car,
in that number the parts of bumper that are not in contact with the
hindrance, go on moving until they come to balance with the elastic
forces that arise because some parts of the car become resting at the
moment of collision, while the rest parts go on moving. Here you will
not confuse me, Henry. Don’t confuse yourself. :)
> You are right when saying that 'falling space' is turning physics inside
> out. But if you are not going to read it, this is the end of our discussion.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
If this is the end of discussion in which you clearly have understood
the falsehood of your statements and don’t want to admit it, this is
the end of your reputation. To say truly, it is boresome for me to
discuss with you, as you don’t know the initials of physics of which
you make so loud claims, and when you are said how things go in
reality, you even don’t dare to grasp. I can repeat, the falling
spaces have a sense only in case of gravity interaction between the
bodies. Then the studied body falls onto the gravitating centre and
moves with acceleration with respect to this centre. When you pass to
the accompanying frame of the body, you pass to the non-inertial frame.
Just so in Fig. 10 which I showed you, the arbitrarily moving body will
move in this frame in a complicated way. This is practice – the
practice which you are trying to ignore for sake of your loud claims.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
RP писал(а):
I can only agree with you, dear Richard, as you are saying to Henry in
other words just what I said. I would only add, you rightly sounded the
duality of the issue. Actually, if we consider the frame of reference,
we consider the kinematics and are not interesting, what, where and how
was deformed, as we premise the objects either pointed or infinitely
rigid. But if we consider deformations, we have to exceed the limits of
kinematics, but with it we already have to account that the forces
affecting the things are different. As I wrote in my last post to Henry
and as classical physics says, there are two kinds of forces –
contact and mass forces. The gravity and centripetal force are mass
forces, they affect all elementary volumes of the body, so deformations
are absent. Contact forces affect only the vicinity of the body’s
contact with the source of force. And here just arise the deformations
which you are mentioning in your post and whose misunderstanding Henry
has signed.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Sorcerer писал(а):
And they are self-consistent in frames of Newtonian theory. The
Einsteinian theory is a tangle among three trees; Maxwellian theory has
nothing to do here, as we consider a mere mechanical aspect of the
issue. Non-simultaneity of event and of detection of this event by an
observer is really the theme ‘eaten’ long time ago – from the
moment when the science has experimentally proven that the light
propagates in space with a final speed.
> Aside from individual crackpots such as Haapalainen, Wilson
> and Seto who only agree with themselves there are only three
> competing theories to consider:
>
> They are:
>
> 1) Newtonian - the velocity is light is objectively source dependent
> 2) Einsteinian - the velocity of light is subjectively time dependent
> 3) Maxwellian - the velocity of light is objectively media dependent.
>
>
> The aether theory was thrown out by Michelson, but Maxwell is
> still correct for any real media such as air, water, glass, diamond.. etc.
>
> 2) is discarded as not being self consistent:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
>
> leaving 1):
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
>
> Haapalainen's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
> "Any time you are in accelerating motion you can feel it in your body."
>
> Einstein's second postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
> is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. "
>
> Karavashkin's first postulate is not only subjective, it is false:
> "The page cannot be displayed
> The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
> changed."
>
>
> Androcles.
We have checked again: our links work well. If some pages did not open,
try later or apply to your provider. If necessary, we can send you any
paper by e-mail. And second: you cannot find first, second or following
postulates by Karavashkin, as we work in frames of classical physics
based not on postulates but on phenomena and regularities. This is you,
Androcles, who bases on postulates, and I showed you it not once.
Please, don’t conflict on threads.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
THE_ONE писал(а):
> Concerning Particle-Wave Duality, I think the basics have been over
> looked and under looked.
>
> All Relativistic Events must involve units or Quanta, such that one may
> relate to another for an event to occur. This brings Particles into the
> picture.
>
> Events occur over Time. It is a case of series of events, one after
> another after an other....
>
> Case #1) In the case of a two slit experiment involving Electrons that
> are released only one at a time and are not released until the previous
> Electron has completed the entire path from start to finish, in the
> long run we will see interference patterns at the destination wall.
> The Interference pattern becomes an EVENT.
Sorry, dear The_One, I have to return your words to you. Just you have
overlooked and underlooked when reading our paper. Could you point me
the cause, why an electron will behave like the EM wave, two
intensities to give the interference pattern?
> Case #2) If we monitor the passing of each electron through one of the
> two slits, then the interference pattern does not evolve. In this case
> the first Event to occur, is the detecting of the electron passing
> through one of the two slits.
No, One, this is a mere fantasy; when you answer your Case #1, it will
cancel. I will not read further. Please first sort things out with our
substantiation that we gave in the paper: why the wave function is
incorrect in case of interference of electrons.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
RP писал(а):
Generally I agree.
> IMO, Bohm's pilot wave is really just a superposition of ordinary em
> waves. Sergey is one of the most insightful contributors to have ever
> graced this forum.
>
> Richard Perry
Thank you, Richard.
Sergey
Sorcerer
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1157986204.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer ?????(?):
observer is really the theme 'eaten' long time ago - from the
moment when the science has experimentally proven that the light
propagates in space with a final speed.
Idiot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
a.. Open the self...@yandex.ru home page, and then look for links
to the information you want.
b.. If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that
it is spelled correctly.
If you still cannot open the page, click the Internet Explorer
Search button to look for similar sites.
Internet Explorer
If necessary, we can send you any
paper by e-mail.
No thanks, I'm not interested in crackpot aether theories.
And second: you cannot find first, second or following
postulates by Karavashkin, as we work in frames of classical physics
based not on postulates but on phenomena and regularities. This is you,
Androcles, who bases on postulates, and I showed you it not once.
Please, don't conflict on threads.
Please, fuck off, idiot.
Androcles.
Henry Haapalainen
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157964403.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Richard Perry
Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can you
feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be a
force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
Henry Haapalainen
Henry Haapalainen
person who has a theory of his own. But I didn't know that when I answered
Sergey the first time.
For those who understand (!) some basics of physics:
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
RP
There IS a force pushing me upwards, it's the electromagnetic force
between the molecules making up the Earth's surface and the bottom
surface of my shoes. If not for that force I would sucked down into the
Earth. The fact that removing the Earth below me would result in my
downward acceleration shows me that the upward force acting on me is
only a reaction force and not some independent force acting to
accelerate me upward. If gravity were to cease I would not be
accelerated upward anymore, there would simply be no more force acting
on me anymore. In other words I'm in equilibrium when standing on the
surface of the Earth and I'm not accelerating either upward or
downward.
If on the other hand the force of gravity were just a fiction, then I
could conclude that I was actually being accelerated upward by an
expanding Earth. This theory has been tried, and it simply doesn't
pan out. The only way to account for such an expansion is to have the
entire universe uniformly expanding--not just planets and stars away
from each other, but the planets and stars themselves expanding at a
rate that is proportional to their separation from one another. The
gravitational acceleration would then require some master frame with
which to reference acceleration, since wrt a person on Mars you would
be accelerating at a much greater rate than you would from the FoR of
the center of the Earth. It simply doesn't even come close to working
out. From this we have to conclude that there is a force of gravity
associated with the masses, as Newton predicted, or else defer to the
general theory of relativity, which is just Newton plus the special
theory of relativity. Either way, Newton wins the argument.
That does not however mean that the problem of gravity is solved, since
as it so happened Newton "framed no hypothesis." He only quantified
the interaction, which is as far as we know a description of the
surface events only, or in other words a formula that is valid only in
the macroscopic domain. As far as I know the electron has not yet been
shown to exhibit the property of gravitational mass.
There is still plenty of room to describe Gravity in terms of a complex
series of electromagnetic interactions, or perhaps on a level even
subtler than that. In any case, it is a force by definition. If a mass
accelerates then it is changing in momentum and it must therefore have
force acting on it, because force is just that very thing, shorthand
for dp/dt.
Of course we don't necessarily need to include the concept of force
in order to describe trajectories, but as long as we have defined it as
dp/dt, then we have it whether we like it or not. The only way to rid
ourselves of it is to rid ourselves of mass and time.
Richard Perry
critten...@yahoo.com
Well, I have a hard thought to consider for the field expert.
I recently got into trouble because I though matter was a single
physical form. And in field theory it is commonly taught as five
relations of abstract theory. A special field is to be defined for
particles.
So I get lost here. Particles were to be the answer as field. And to
cause the solution of all fields was the form of my answer. So I
mistook time as the field in your last posting. So you clarified.
Thanks.
A hard business you are in good luck.
Sorcerer
|I forgot an important rule: "Engage brain before opening mouth"
You sure did...
Androcles
THE_ONE
If you are not interested, that's fine.
But if you are, I have some rethinking available to you starting at
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm .
The idea was to think of what the requirements are to create motion.
This lead to other interesting outcomes, and all done prior to having
any knowledge of physics.
Granted, all new ideas have absolutely no rights at all in today's
reality, but it is strange that the ideas I came up with seem to answer
a lot of unanswered questions.
Included is Particle-Wave duality, Action at a Distance, Collapse of
the Quantum Wave, the Quantum leap, and the bizarre 1/2 Spin
Properties.
Just the basics are discussed, and so that is not enough to satisfy
most people, since today nothing is accepted unless it is absolutely
complete and must also magically include all errors that have been
foolishly accepted as definite facts instead. This is to be expected
since everyone thinks that all of today's knowledge within physics is
100% error free, but they won't admit this if asked directly, but will
proceed to behave this way when arguing with others.
Sergey Karavashkin
critten...@yahoo.com писал(а):
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > critten...@yahoo.com писал(а):
> Well, I have a hard thought to consider for the field expert.
> I recently got into trouble because I though matter was a single
> physical form. And in field theory it is commonly taught as five
> relations of abstract theory. A special field is to be defined for
> particles.
>
> So I get lost here. Particles were to be the answer as field. And to
> cause the solution of all fields was the form of my answer. So I
> mistook time as the field in your last posting. So you clarified.
> Thanks.
>
> A hard business you are in good luck.
Thank you for a good post, dear Mr Crittenburg. I think, you have not
lost here but we both won, because to understand is always to win. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Sorcerer писал(а):
> We have checked again: our links work well. If some pages did not open,
> try later or apply to your provider.
>
>
> http://self...@yandex.ru :
> The page cannot be displayed
> The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
> changed.
>
..............
> Androcles.
I believe, Androcles, that you will do us all a favour confining
yourself to studying postulates in the page http://selftr...@yandex.ru
that you have invented. D)
Sergey
Henry Haapalainen
Richard Perry
Let's keep that in mind, Richard Perry. Your reason to stay on the ground of
the Earth is the electromagnetic force. That is science!!!!
Henry Haapalainen
Sorcerer
Sorcerer ?????(?):
> Androcles.
Sergey
I don't give a fuck what you believe, you fucking shit.
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for might have been removed or had its name
changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
a.. Open the res://shdoclc/syntax.htm#http:// home page, and then
look for links to the information you want.
b.. If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that
it is spelled correctly.
If you still cannot open the page, click the Internet Explorer
Search button to look for similar sites.
Internet Explorer
Androcles
Sorcerer
You WILL accelerate, you will NOT feel a force (until to reach
the ground) and we will be rid of your stupidity.
Androcles
"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:IstNg.10146$su2....@reader1.news.jippii.net...
Sergey Karavashkin
Henry Haapalainen писал(а):
> Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can you
> feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be a
> force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Which on the Earth words have we, Richard and me, to find, you, Mr
Physicist, to grasp a simple thing: the Earth resists to the force of
gravity. I explained you already at the school level the difference
between the contact force of Earth’s reaction and mass force of
gravity. You are resting on the surface because of balance of these two
forces, and as the gravity force affects all elementary volumes of your
body while the Earth’s reaction – only your feet, here appears just
the deformation which you feel. If you publish your four journals on
cosmetics, such crying misunderstanding of the initials of physics can
be excused, but if on some scientific or engineering field...
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Henry Haapalainen писал(а):
No, Henry, I’m basing not on my own theory. If you wish, you could
find it in any textbook on classical physics, approximately at the
level of 8th year of school study. See, Richard says you same – will
you object that his own theory is same? :) If you introduce a falling
frame and do not understand a simple fact that this frame is
accelerated and that it can be accelerated only under affection of some
force, you should not write physical theories but first study
thoroughly the classical physics, in order to understand at least, what
are you trying to turn from the feet to the head. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
RP писал(а):
Dear Richard, I thought, I’m the last mammoth knowing the classical
physics. I’m so happy that I’m not in one here. You fairly explain
to Henry what he, seemingly, basically does not want to understand,
because it would reveal the silliness of relativistic conception that
wholesome postulated the identity of physical laws in inertial and
non-inertial reference frames.
Now we are in two here; this gives a hope. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
THE_ONE писал(а):
> IT COMES DOWN TO TWO PLANES OF REALITY.
>
> If you are not interested, that's fine.
>
> But if you are, I have some rethinking available to you starting at
>
> http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm .
>
> The idea was to think of what the requirements are to create motion.
> This lead to other interesting outcomes, and all done prior to having
> any knowledge of physics.
>
> Granted, all new ideas have absolutely no rights at all in today's
> reality, but it is strange that the ideas I came up with seem to answer
> a lot of unanswered questions.
>
> Included is Particle-Wave duality, Action at a Distance, Collapse of
> the Quantum Wave, the Quantum leap, and the bizarre 1/2 Spin
> Properties.
If your theory is so good, why don’t you start with a straight
answering the question of my previous post on your Cases #1 and #2? :)
Sergey
Henry Haapalainen
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1158077262.5...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen ?????(?):
> Don't you believe in your own senses. Do you feel like floating or can you
> feel the ground beneath your feet? If it's the latter then there must be a
> force pushing you upwards. There can be no other explanation.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Which on the Earth words have we, Richard and me, to find, you, Mr
Physicist, to grasp a simple thing: the Earth resists to the force of
gravity. I explained you already at the school level the difference
between the contact force of Earth's reaction and mass force of
gravity. You are resting on the surface because of balance of these two
forces, and as the gravity force affects all elementary volumes of your
body while the Earth's reaction - only your feet, here appears just
the deformation which you feel. If you publish your four journals on
cosmetics, such crying misunderstanding of the initials of physics can
be excused, but if on some scientific or engineering field...
Sergey
I told you that our discussion is ended. HH
Henry Haapalainen
> person who has a theory of his own. But I didn't know that when I answered
> Sergey the first time.
>
> For those who understand (!) some basics of physics:
>
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
>
> Henry Haapalainen
No, Henry, I'm basing not on my own theory. If you wish, you could
find it in any textbook on classical physics, approximately at the
level of 8th year of school study. See, Richard says you same - will
you object that his own theory is same? :) If you introduce a falling
frame and do not understand a simple fact that this frame is
accelerated and that it can be accelerated only under affection of some
force, you should not write physical theories but first study
thoroughly the classical physics, in order to understand at least, what
are you trying to turn from the feet to the head. :)
Sergey
I told you that our discussion is ended. HH
G=EMC^2 Glazier
without the other. Reality is they are two sides to the same coin.
All there is has one thing in common all carry a gravity wave Bert
hanson
news:21480-450...@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
> All particles carry a wave.All waves carry a particle One can not be
> without the other. Reality is they are two sides to the same coin.
> All there is has one thing in common all carry a gravity wave Bert
>
... ahahahaha... That is all good and right and it has be known
and demonstrated or speculated upon for at least 70+ years.
What would be new however would be an answer from you
about the waves that your ilk has initiated some 60 years ago.
Here it is:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c63950ab858592a7
Answer it Herbie, or I will repost the question in it again explicitly
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Sergey Karavashkin
Henry Haapalainen писал(а):
Well, this evidences, you really are incorrect, understand it and have
no excuses to get out. You violate your obligation claimed on your
website. This means, your claim of your impeccable reputation is an
idle sound.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
G=EMC^2 Glazier писал(а):
> All particles carry a wave.All waves carry a particle One can not be
> without the other. Reality is they are two sides to the same coin.
> All there is has one thing in common all carry a gravity wave Bert
Sorry, dear Herbert, but you never bother to prove your statements. You
are saying, all particles are waves; so please explain the stationary
potential field that surrounds these particles. Of course, if you have
an intention to explain whatever in physics. :)
Sergey
Autymn D. C.
> All Relativistic Events must involve units or Quanta, such that one may
> relate to another for an event to occur. This brings Particles into the
> picture.
> are released only one at a time and are not released until the previous
> Electron has completed the entire path from start to finish, in the
> long run we will see interference patterns at the destination wall.
> The Interference pattern becomes an EVENT.
>
> Case #2) If we monitor the passing of each electron through one of the
> two slits, then the interference pattern does not evolve. In this case
The double-slit result happens by elèctric induction. There are
elèctròns in the wall, after all.
-Aut
*slam*
G=EMC^2 Glazier
all things are effected by gravity. Bert
hanson
<herbert...@webtv.net> prophesized in message
news:22871-45...@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
> John Wheeler told us all things are effected by gravity. Bert
>
Herbie, Hebie, Herbie, and YOU could tell us your answer
to the question about Israel. Here are the details.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c6dee513388f68a6
All the links cited therein have the common denominator which says:
*** ... oye-weh-Zion Glaser's God is Israel. *** He is one of those
kikes who live in the US, but who do live & operate by the belief of
----- "Israel First, then maybe, just maybe, the USA 2nd" ------
oye-weh-Zion Glaser's own whinings stated in HIS own words that:
::B:: "I stuck up for Israel"
::B:: "We do need the help of Israel to help us"
::B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true".
::B::"Go Figure" .... Jews use that term".
::B:: "I do know how every thing works,
::B:: and pass this information on"
::B:: "Why.. am I not loved by all?" Bert
Now then Bert, since you "know" and you yearn to be "loved",
I think you perhaps will be so, AFTER you "pass on" the
------ answer to why ------
"...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ? --- What good or benefit has come in return to
the American taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that
came off the tables from poor American families?"
------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert -------
hanson
Sergey Karavashkin
G=EMC^2 Glazier писал(а):
> Sergey A photon best describes what I posted. John Wheeler told us
> all things are effected by gravity. Bert
Dear Herbert, no doubt that the gravity field affects all massive
things. The point is the degree of affection. Consider a spaceship in
the orbit, a man going on the earth surface or resistance of friction
on the surface – and we have to account the gravity attraction, of
course. In the problem considered here, with the distances at which the
electron interference is studied, the ratio of forces of the dynamic
field of atom and of the gravity field is so big that if we involve the
gravity force into our model, you will be unable to see this affection
in the diagrams. The more, this cannot have an influence on the
distribution of electron in the quantum approach between two slits. And
you have not answered my question but jumped from your statement about
the wave-particle to the influence of gravity field. I would say, this
is quite inconsequent for a discussion. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
hanson писал(а):
I would say, dear Hanson, different people live on the Earth and each
nation has both kind people and scoundrels. An example is just here:
read the posts by Androcles who lives in the elite county Sussex and
make sure what the level of his culture is. Well, will not we judge by
him of Britons, will we?
It is not worthy to turn the physics and discussions on physics into
the national feud. I would be grateful if you join the discussion in
the context of discussed subject. The more, as far as I can know, you
have what to say on this subject. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Autymn D. C. писал(а):
If I understand you properly, dear Mrs Autymn, you are meaning under
the electric induction the affection of an orbital electron onto the
exterior electron. Correct? Excuse me that I ask you, for me the term
of electric induction is more associated with macro-processes. But if I
understood your meaning, you are right. Simply it is quite unexpected
for me. :)
Sergey
hanson
news:1158166804.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
a diversion attempt to cover for Zionist Glaser... ahahahaha...
Sergey, listen, I didn't ask for your social comments of who is
good or bad or whether Andro lives in an "elite county Sussex",
ahahahaha.... nor am I interested of turning "physics into the
national feud".... ahahaha.. But, I will consider your wish for me
to join your physics discussion you asked me to engage in, after
I get a simple answer to my question from Zionist Herbert Glaser,
or from any other Jew or Goyim:
The question was and is:
"...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ? --- What good or benefit has come in return to
the American taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that
came off the tables from poor American families?"
------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert, or guys -------
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
>
hanson ?????(?):
[Sergey]
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Israel. They know best how things are,and how to protect themselves from
bigots like you. Why don't you go to Iran and protect bin Larden. I
think your American bigoted buddy of yours "El" is sitting on his lap.
Oops I forgot you can't get on a plane Bert
G=EMC^2 Glazier
particle duality" Yes I( must apologise when my thoughts jump around a
little. Best we all remember thinking point particles,waves,and fields
is tricky stuff. Reality is little of QM(micro world) relates in our 3
dimensional macro world. Sergey we know nature creates in pairs,and I'm
hypothesis the photons twin is "virtual" Lets further say they travel
through space horizontally. So coming to a slit the regular photon goes
through the left slit and its virtual twin goes through the right slit.
Thus proving a virtual photon makes a measurable interference pattern.
Now take an electron being a cloud of both virtual photons,and half of
the virtual photons it can give the same results. Can add a bucky
ball,and a virus have been used and the same amazing effect takes place.
Reality the answer like all right answers,are very simple. Reality is
its QM theory stuff,and we don't live in that tiny realm Bert
G=EMC^2 Glazier
wants to tell us who who we should hate. American Jews see to it all
are money goes to Israel.etc. He over plays his hand and in reality can
only be fallowed by stupid bigoted people. He is the cancer that infects
humankind. It might be this cancer that someday might kill all of
humankind. Bert
hanson
news:4963-450...@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
more Anti-Semitism, as if there were not already enough of it,
>
[Glaser]
Herbie, Hebie, Herbie,... ahahaha... but you said that you "know
how everything works" which should include also that you should
know how "aka" works, Bert Glaser... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Bert, it is a hallmark, known to every goy, that Zionists always cry
"'bigot" when they are caught with their pants down, like you were!
... And Hebie, I don't care whether you do or wish to live in Israel.
I don't care about all your Zionist adorations and "sticking up" for
Israel, and I don't see any good in your advice after I have called
them "muslim ass-venters"... ahahaha.... So then, Herbie, why
is it that you constantly do refuse to answer my question below?
>
Here are the details again, Herbie, exclusively for your benefit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c6dee513388f68a6
All the links cited therein have the common denominator which says:
*** ... oye-weh-Zion Glaser's God is Israel. *** He is one of those
kikes who live in the US, but who do live & operate by the belief of
----- "Israel First, then maybe, just maybe, the USA 2nd" ------
oye-weh-Zion Glaser's own whinings stated in HIS own words that:
::B:: "I stuck up for Israel"
::B:: "We do need the help of Israel to help us"
::B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true".
RP
Sergey, I don't think that she implied that at all. I believe she was
only stating generally that "electromagnetic" induction is involved in
the production of the field that guides the electron. I'm afraid that I
don't see the relevance of electron orbitals. Inevitably they must be
involved on the microscopic level, but I think we should start first at
the macroscopic level in describing the production of the field
pattern, and then afterward explain the mechanism in terms of
quantum<sic> interactions. The pattern is macroscopic is it not? Please
explain your statement.
Richard Perry
hanson
>
[Glaser]
Herbie, Herbie, Herbie, you are getting discombobulated in the
best tradition of Zionism. Listen to yourself of how your "Jewishe
Guilt" is twisting you & your statements. Where did I say anything
that creates hate?. That notion is the exclusive property of/in your
own Zionist mind, Herbie. --- Where did I say that "American Jews
see to it all are money goes to Israel"? ... ...but, I certainly would
NOT ask my persistent question if American Jews alone would
finance Zionist/Israeli aims and goals instead tax money extorted
from poor American families. I doubt that "stupid bigoted people"
do like to answer my question. So, Herbie, answer it . Show us
that you are not a Zionist bigot.
>
Here are the details again, Herbie, exclusively for your benefit:
All the links cited therein have the common denominator which says:
*** ... oye-weh-Zion Glaser's God is Israel. *** He is one of those
kikes who live in the US, but who do live & operate by the belief of
----- "Israel First, then maybe, just maybe, the USA 2nd" ------
oye-weh-Zion Glaser's own whinings stated in HIS own words that:
::B:: "I stuck up for Israel"
::B:: "We do need the help of Israel to help us"
::B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true".
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:XaXNg.3924$xr.2276@trnddc03...
| My Rusky friend "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in
| news:1158166804.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| a diversion attempt to cover for Zionist Glaser... ahahahaha...
|
| Sergey, listen, I didn't ask for your social comments of who is
| good or bad or whether Andro lives in an "elite county Sussex",
AHAHAHAHAHA.... too funny, guy!
Actually I live in Kent, but Sussex had the Uni for physics
when I was a student.
| ahahahaha.... nor am I interested of turning "physics into the
| national feud".... ahahaha.. But, I will consider your wish for me
| to join your physics discussion you asked me to engage in, after
| I get a simple answer to my question from Zionist Herbert Glaser,
| or from any other Jew or Goyim:
| The question was and is:
|
| "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
| money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
| to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
| they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
|
| ==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
| buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
| mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
| involved in ? --- What good or benefit has come in return to
| the American taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that
| came off the tables from poor American families?"
|
| ------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert, or guys -------
|
| ahahaha... ahahahanson
I know the answer to that one, hahahanson, but I'll have to tell
you a little story to prove it is true.
As you know, I lived in the USA for 20 years and so I'm familiar
with the American attitude and life style. I know all about Joe Sixpack
and his old fridge riddled with bullet holes at the bottom of the
ravine, laying halfway in the crick and surrounded by beer cans.
I've been there, done that and got the wet T-shirt. I'm not criticizing it,
all I'm saying is that it is different to British attitudes and lifestyles.
If anything tells the real story of America and Americans it is
the movies "Deliverance" and "The Deer Hunter", from the cops
to the hillbillies to the city slickers. I have MET these people,
from a constable in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
who couldn't keep his fly zipped and was loaded down with
child support payments to a genuine psychopath that wanted
to kill more people, he enjoyed himself in Vietnam so much.
When I first arrived in the USA naturally I stayed in a hotel,
where within a very short space of time I was acquainted with
a notice board giving me directions to the nearest church
or synagogue. Americans are a religious lot. Oh, and the local
hooker, who was black, but I did not pursue that acquaintance
for fear of disease and the local talent was still available and white.
The British used to be religious in Victorian times and before,
but it was during my stay in the US that some changes took place.
Where before it was illegal to trade on a Sunday, certain
establishments took the bull by the horns and said "Sod it,
we'll pay the bloody fines and trade anyway", and so they did.
After all, they'd invested heavily in DIY stores and people remodel
on the weekend, they work all week, so its a real pisser if the new
bathtub/shower they put in on Saturday still needs a washer and
the job has to be put off for a week.
And so the people were defiant and the law was changed
and they don't give a monkey's toss about going to church
anyway. So now the Brits have freedom FROM religion, but
the USA still has freedom OF religion, which they pay BILLIONS
of US tax-payer dollars to flaunt, having won the right to do so
from the wicked Brits who encouraged them to leave Plymouth
and arrive at Plymouth Rock. All the Brits said was "fuck off",
but the Americans see them as pilgrims.
As a consequence of this new freedom from religion, Britain is
now a place flooded with wogs who build fucking mosques,
and that is what you are paying to keep out!
You cannot be born on the wrong side of the tracks here.
If you are unfortunate enough to be born here at all, Britain
is so crowded it will be ON the tracks with a trainload of
wogs rumbling toward you, even if yo' a nigga, bro'.
Our Jamaican ladies and gentlemen are not niggas, they speak
with a Cockney accent, you can forget that "ebonics" shit.
Now, have some pity on poor old Sergey, he wants to enlist
your aid as an arbiter. I think he sees me as some sort of filthy
capitalist living among the elite rather than a retired engineer who
was once hard-working, living among the ordinary people who
use profanity and blasphemy on a daily basis, and now teaches
common sense in physics to the dreamers. I have no holier-than-
thou attitude, but I do have a smarter-than-thou one.
("thou" doest not include thee, good sir... I bow to thy greater
knowedge of chemistry)
Prove me wrong.
Androcles.
PS...
I am in possession of my daughter's cremated remains.
They look like grey gravy granules which remind me that
my daughter made an excellent Sunday dinner.
Whilst I intend to treat them with due reverence, what
is the chemical composition of them after combustion?
Do they still contain Deoxyribonucleic Acid?
I suspect not, yet I am still a scientist as well as an engineer,
and curious. Alas, my education is lacking.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm
Androcles
hanson
who wrote in news:fYZNg.38268$89.3...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
ahahaha.... Here's the link for others to enjoy your entire account:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d6e8e949450ca5b0
I'll comment here on only a few issues in it :
>
[Andro]
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:XaXNg.3924$xr.2276@trnddc03...
> | My Rusky friend "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in
> | news:1158166804.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> | a diversion attempt to cover for Zionist Glaser... ahahahaha...
> | Sergey, listen, I didn't ask for your social comments of who is
> | good or bad or whether Andro lives in an "elite county Sussex",
>
> AHAHAHAHAHA.... too funny, guy!
> Actually I live in Kent, but Sussex had the Uni for physics
> when I was a student.
>
> | ahahahaha.... nor am I interested of turning "physics into the
> | national feud".... ahahaha.. But, I will consider your wish for me
> | to join your physics discussion you asked me to engage in, after
> | I get a simple answer to my question from Zionist Herbert Glaser,
> | or from any other Jew or Goyim:
> | The question was and is:
> |
> | "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
> | money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
> | to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
> | they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
> |
> | ==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
> | buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
> | mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
> | involved in ? --- What good or benefit has come in return to
> | the American taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that
> | came off the tables from poor American families?"
> |
> | ------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert, or guys -------
> |
> | ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> I know the answer to that one, hahahanson, but I'll have to tell
> you a little story to prove it is true.
>
AHAHAHAHA... I love your cape-waving Shakespearian entree!
>
[Andro]
> I lived in the USA for 20 years and so I'm familiar with the
> American attitude and life style. I know all about Joe Sixpack
> and his old fridge riddled with bullet holes at the bottom of the
> ravine, laying halfway in the crick and surrounded by beer cans.
> attitudes and lifestyles.
>
... Right off the bat, Andro:... the basic underlying law says:
"Different strokes for different folks". So, no offense taken, bro!
>
[Andro]
> If anything tells the real story of America and Americans it is
> the movies "Deliverance" and "The Deer Hunter", from the cops
> to the hillbillies to the city slickers. I have MET these people,
> from a constable in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
> who couldn't keep his fly zipped and was loaded down with
> child support payments to a genuine psychopath that wanted
> to kill more people, he enjoyed himself in Vietnam so much.
>
... Ain't that great!... "a Happy Lot" just as your Henry #5 said.
Over in the Diamond Division, we used to have a gorgeous
secy, a single mother, who wanted to take the day off to see
daddy "Killer Willy " on their daughter's birthday. She came back
crying, shedding crocodile tears, telling me that 30 minutes into
their celebration Willy had to leave... confessing to her that he
had to go to the birthday party of one of his other 5 (illegitimate)
children. It turned out that then 18 year old Willy and his cronies
decided that they wanted to go to war to see action, ... but NOT
before leaving behind a bunch of their genetic copies... ahaha...
>
[Andro]
> Americans are a religious lot.
>
Yeah, but one gets that impression in/from every country, for it is
always the obvert and ever present religious proselytizers who
lay in wait with their godly need n'orders to pervert new converts.
True, here is the US there are more churches, temples, mosques
Ashrams etc then there are police stations, schools & hospitals
combined. That is why most foreigners get your impression.
But at least, our religious establishments are quiet here. In other
countries you are forced to listen to that kacksacking ear
piercing "Glockenspiel" on Sunday mornings, not to mention
those even more horrible sounding prayer calls from the fucking,
wailing and screaming muezzin.
>
[Andro]
> The British used to be religious in Victorian times and before,
> the USA still has freedom OF religion, which they pay BILLIONS
> from the wicked Brits who encouraged them to leave Plymouth
> and arrive at Plymouth Rock. All the Brits said was "fuck off",
> but the Americans see them as pilgrims.
>
... [1] well, goodie-2-shoe racketeering has always been BIG
time biz here, from the traditional Red cross to the "Faith-based
charities" which Bush has launched... conversely, in Europe the
same scam is more institutionalized, in that along with other payroll
withholdings they shave off a 10% cut for the church. Imagine
the scorned looks I received, when I declared myself as "not
religious" and wanted my money back... It went into my record!
>
[Andro]
> As a consequence of this new freedom from religion, Britain is
> now a place flooded with wogs who build fucking mosques,
> and that is what you are paying to keep out!
>
.... Yes, you may have a point, an impression, that all this money
is being paid so that the Jews from Israel will not come to these
shores. But I don't think so. Most have dual citizenship as is and
they come & go as they please anyway. I don't care. Most Jews
are loud, very loud busy bodies who carry their own weight and
they are fun to be around. God forbid that they all leave. IF
the Jews were to leave the US, we'll be thrown back in no time,
into the religious straps and routines of Victorian/Puritan times,
or do penturnal ass-ventings direction Mecca. Jews are an
essential conterweight to keep religious fanatics from herding
the easily lead goyim population back into a state of theocracy.
BTW, unfortunately, it doesn't work always out to our benefit:
The Jews = Neocons and the Evangelicals = Armageddon lobby
joined hands and goaded Bush into the Iraq war. The former to
get even with Hussein because 10 years earlier he had lobbed
some missiles into Israel... and the latter saw an opportunity to
hasten the arrival of the second coming of Christ. ...ahahaha...
>
[Andro]
> You cannot be born on the wrong side of the tracks here.
> If you are unfortunate enough to be born here at all, Britain
> is so crowded it will be ON the tracks with a trainload of
> wogs rumbling toward you, even if yo' a nigga, bro'.
> Our Jamaican ladies and gentlemen are not niggas, they speak
> with a Cockney accent, you can forget that "ebonics" shit.
>
[hanson]
Welcome to the brave new world of globalization... AHAHAHA....
>
[Andro]
> Now, have some pity on poor old Sergey, he wants to enlist
> your aid as an arbiter. I think he sees me as some sort of filthy
> capitalist living among the elite rather than a retired engineer who
> was once hard-working, living among the ordinary people who
> use profanity and blasphemy on a daily basis, and now teaches
> common sense in physics to the dreamers. I have no holier-than-
> thou attitude, but I do have a smarter-than-thou one.
> ("thou" doest not include thee, good sir... I bow to thy greater
> knowedge of chemistry)
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA... ok,ok.. awe... you can put your fiddle away now...
>
[Andro]
> Prove me wrong.
>
[hanson]
For heavens' sake, No, siree-bob! No!
We will not even entertain the thought of it.
[Andro]
> PS...
> I am in possession of my daughter's cremated remains.
> They look like grey gravy granules which remind me that
> my daughter made an excellent Sunday dinner.
> Whilst I intend to treat them with due reverence, what
> is the chemical composition of them after combustion?
> Do they still contain Deoxyribonucleic Acid?
>
[hanson]
No, there is no DNA left. The ashes are mostly Calciumphosphate,
indistinguishable from human to human. To boot, I am fairly
certain that cremated remains from other species (like the vast
amount of ash from Hamburger and Porkchops donors) do show
an analysis that reveals a difference between the eater & eatee.
From dust to dust and ashes to ashes......
[Andro]
Sorcerer
Oh, do me a favour! The US has fake church bells, fucking
loudspeakers and amplifiers with a friggin' keyboard
for the campanologist to play 'em with. The fuckers woke
me up one Sunday morning when I was nursing a hangover,
that was unforgivable.
| >
| [Andro]
| > The British used to be religious in Victorian times and before,
| > but .... now the Brits have freedom FROM religion, but
| > the USA still has freedom OF religion, which they pay BILLIONS
| > of US tax-payer dollars to flaunt, [1] having won the right to do so
| > from the wicked Brits who encouraged them to leave Plymouth
| > and arrive at Plymouth Rock. All the Brits said was "fuck off",
| > but the Americans see them as pilgrims.
| >
| [hanson]
| ... [1] well, goodie-2-shoe racketeering has always been BIG
| time biz here, from the traditional Red cross to the "Faith-based
| charities" which Bush has launched... conversely, in Europe the
| same scam is more institutionalized, in that along with other payroll
| withholdings they shave off a 10% cut for the church. Imagine
| the scorned looks I received, when I declared myself as "not
| religious" and wanted my money back... It went into my record!
| >
Yeah... I think we are responsible for the Sally Ann, too.
The Salvation Army HQ
101 Newington Causeway
London
England
SE1 6BN
As a kid I can remember them having a fucking brass band,
marching up down like fucking soldiers, uniforms as well.
Now all you see is the bastards ringing little bells outside grocery stores.
| [Andro]
| > As a consequence of this new freedom from religion, Britain is
| > now a place flooded with wogs who build fucking mosques,
| > and that is what you are paying to keep out!
| >
| [hanson]
| .... Yes, you may have a point, an impression, that all this money
| is being paid so that the Jews from Israel will not come to these
| shores. But I don't think so. Most have dual citizenship as is and
| they come & go as they please anyway. I don't care. Most Jews
| are loud, very loud busy bodies who carry their own weight and
| they are fun to be around. God forbid that they all leave. IF
| the Jews were to leave the US, we'll be thrown back in no time,
| into the religious straps and routines of Victorian/Puritan times,
| or do penturnal ass-ventings direction Mecca. Jews are an
| essential conterweight to keep religious fanatics from herding
| the easily lead goyim population back into a state of theocracy.
|
| BTW, unfortunately, it doesn't work always out to our benefit:
| The Jews = Neocons and the Evangelicals = Armageddon lobby
| joined hands and goaded Bush into the Iraq war. The former to
| get even with Hussein because 10 years earlier he had lobbed
| some missiles into Israel... and the latter saw an opportunity to
| hasten the arrival of the second coming of Christ. ...ahahaha...
Look at this logically. There he is, up in heaven basking in glory,
squinting down at the US through his telescope and what does
he see?
Fucking crosses everywhere to remind him he ain't fuckin'
welcome, and if he does come back he's gonna get more of the same.
He ain't coming back...
As I thought....
Thanks....
hanson
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:583Og.54888$a9.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Check at the end of the post.
I forgot to add "NOT" re: ashes in [1].
ahahaha... ahahahanson
> | **N OT** show an analysis that reveals a difference between
> | the eater & eatee.
[1]
> | From dust to dust and ashes to ashes......
>
> As I thought....
> Thanks....
>
> |
> | [Andro]
> | > I suspect not, yet I am still a scientist as well as an engineer,
> | > and curious. Alas, my education is lacking.
> | >
> | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm
> | > Androcles
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | hanson ?????(?):
> | > | > ahaha....oye-weh-Zion Glaser aka "G=EMC^2 Glazier"
> | > | > <herbert...@webtv.net> prophesized in message
> | > | > news:22871-45...@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net...
> | > | > > John Wheeler told us all things are effected by gravity. Bert
> | > | > >
> | > | > [hanson]
> | > | > Herbie, Hebie, Herbie, and YOU could tell us your answer
> | > | > to the question about Israel. Here are the details.
> | > | > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c6dee513388f68a6
> | > | > All the links cited therein have the common denominator which
> says:
> | > | > *** ... oye-weh-Zion Glaser's God is Israel. *** He is one of
> | > those
> | > | > kikes who live in the US, but who do live & operate by the belief
> of
> | > | > ----- "Israel First, then maybe, just maybe, the USA
tadchem
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Since in your studies on Relativity and Aether you necessarily use the
> information and results of quantum theory, we would like to draw your
> attention to our new paper. It clears the processes occurring in the
> electron-atom interaction that produced, as is known, the wave-particle
> duality. So now you can read and take into account this paper:
>
> " On the wave-particle duality "
<snip>
Congratulations. You have discovered the fact that the wave model and
the particle model are both incomplete.
The "wave vs. particle" debate goes back to the 1600s with Newton and
Huygens. DeBroglie showed that it extended from photons to massive
particles as well. It is a 400-year old conundrum.
The answer to the "wave-particle" problem lies 'outside the box.' (pun
intended)
The electron is a physical entity.
The wave is a mathematical construct.
The particle is also a mathematical construct.
Depending on the particular set of circumstances (imposed by the
*observer*) one or the other makes a more satisfactory *model* of the
electron. Each has properties that can be well-correlated to observed
properties and behavior of the physical entity, but under mutually
exclusive circumstances.
The failure of both models to work outside the particular set of
circumstances to which they are tailored is an indication that a new
model is needed.
This new model should 'collapse' to either a wave model *or* a particle
model, depending on the particular set of circumstances imposed by the
observer.
The four-tensor is the most parsimonious model that can collapse to
either a particle or a wave, depending on the choice of coordinates to
be used as a reference in making the measurements.
If a coordinate system is chosen in which the physical entity is at
rest, the properties mirror those of a particle. If, on the other
hand, a system is chosen in which the physical entity is in motion, the
properties mirror those of a wave. The conversion from one coordinate
system to another is a simple Lorentzian rotation in Minkowski space.
The four-tensor is thus relativistically invariant.
The *hard* part is divorcing ourselves from models that we can
*visualize* - models that correlate to our everyday macroscopic
experience. The important part is that the properties and the behavior
of the model should correlate to those of the physical entity,
regardless of the choice of coordinates to be used as a reference.
Pretty simple, really, if you are a blind mathematician. We just can't
let our visions blind us to the facts.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Sorcerer
| Glad you enjoyed it as much as I did, John, aqua the "Sorcerer"
| <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:583Og.54888$a9.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Check at the end of the post.
| I forgot to add "NOT" re: ashes in [1].
| ahahaha... ahahahanson
Yes, I was a tad surprised at that, but let it go.
Vote for Tom Potter, he wanted you or I to invent a better
system of government.
( Thread: The most powerful woman in the world...)
Androcles
Sergey Karavashkin
RP писал(а):
> Sergey, I don't think that she implied that at all. I believe she was
> only stating generally that "electromagnetic" induction is involved in
> the production of the field that guides the electron.
Just so, dear Richard. So it was unexpected for me. Although on the
other hand you will not argue, if the macrofield is produced by
electrons, in the microscale it will be an alike field. Another matter
that after the quantum conception has been introduced, it is done to
separate the macro- and micro-fields. We have to consider these issues
not in the context, whether these fields are really different, but
whether such separation is correct in frames of quantum conception. I
will emphasise it below. If we don’t introduce such artificial
separation, the outer electron’s interaction with the field of atom
is same EM induction and has to obey its laws, has not it?
> I'm afraid that I
> don't see the relevance of electron orbitals. Inevitably they must be
> involved on the microscopic level, but I think we should start first at
> the macroscopic level in describing the production of the field
> pattern, and then afterward explain the mechanism in terms of
> quantum<sic> interactions. The pattern is macroscopic is it not? Please
> explain your statement.
>
> Richard Perry
Let us, dear Richard, sequentially sort out the amount of questions you
raised.
1. As to the influence of electron orbitals. In the discussed work we
showed the electron’s interaction with the dynamic field of atom that
produces the quasi-wave of charge after interaction. But the dynamic
field, - and we showed it in our paper, too, - is produced due to the
electron’s orbiting. We showed that the length of electron wave that
arises after its interaction with the field of atom has to be
proportional to the frequency of electron’s orbiting and to the speed
of particle running on. Well, this all what I wrote tells of direct
influence of the kind of orbit on formation of the resulting
interference pattern. If we advance in our calculation and account two
or more orbital electrons of an atom, the charge wave will reflect the
total pattern that arises due to the complicated dynamic field. From
the view of QM we have no right to form such dynamic field of the atom,
even for one orbital. According to Bohr postulate which we lifted in
other our paper,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/quant/quant39/quant39.html
in the non-excited state the atom has no field. We just showed that the
dynamic field of nucleus stabilises and disables the electron to
‘fall’ onto the nucleus. Bohr had to introduce his postulate and to
blur the electron over the orbit, because it was impossible at his time
to model the dynamic field. His biographers write, he applied to many
mathematicians and physicists for help in solving this problem. The QM
founders undertook a simpler and incorrect way – they introduced the
discrepancy in macro-field and absence of field of the non-excited
orbital electron, keeping the charge of electron and charge of nucleus.
Is not it a nonsense: the charge exists, the general configuration of
atom agreing with the central motion of electron (even blurred in the
orbit in the Bohr model) exists – and the field that caused such
structure does not exist. None the less, just this is reflected in the
quantum conceptions in whose limits the quantum theory supporters tried
to consider interference. Just so they never were able to consider the
interaction of the outer electron with a neutral atom which is
indifferent to the electron running on – and introduced the
non-compensated charge of atom, in order to so-so substantiate the
interaction. We described it here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/interference/interference47/interference47.html
Thus, if we approach the quantum problem conventionally, the duality
with all its discrepancies is unavoidable. But from the view of
classical conception where the fields of electron and proton does not
disappear in the non-excited state of the atom, - there remains the
dynamical field, the duality is lifted and all things get their proper
places.
2. I know, you will have a natural objection on the item 1 related to
the quantified radiation of atom. This logical consequence at due time,
in works by Nicholson and then Bohr, made a breakthrough, and at the
same time it took physics into the absurd of discrepancies, due just to
Bohr’s postulate. Let us look at the work of Planck and Bohr from the
view of method they used in their models. We will see, they both
applied the energetic approach to solve the problem. Both had no
interest in the physics, how the system passes from one state to
another. They only took the initial and final states. From this view,
noting the resonance pattern of the system of atom, we clearly see
discrete energetic transitions. This predestined the success of
Bohr’s model.
But on the other hand, with all that the energetic approach itself is a
powerful method that allows to greatly simplify the solutions, - the
very method has considerable limitations. Thinking only of the initial
and final states in our model, we may not, basing on this solution,
make any physical interpretation substantiating the process, how the
system passed from one energetic level to another. We may only register
the fact of passing and total energy necessary for passing. The fathers
of QM have violated this rule, introducing the dualities, some
mathematical formulas like the Schroedinger equations etc. in attempts
to squeeze their description of energetic passing, taking off the
features of initial model and introducing the virtual ideas through the
likeness from the outwards. They did not lift the problem of Bohr’s
postulate that introduces the discrepancy between the presence of
charge of nucleus and electron and absence of fields of these charges.
If we ionise the atom, both atom and electron will have fields. But if
they join again into the neutral atom, the fields disappear. This all
exceeds the limits where the initial technique was correct. Thus, we
get a heap of paradoxes and absurds like EM waves as photons, electrons
as chains of waves and so on. This all is lifted at once when we come
back to classical physics and, doing not rejecting the way of Planck
and Bohr, go this way not in the energetic approach but modelling the
process of system’s passing from one energetic level to another. Here
we already may model processes and write the modelling equations
without risk to pass to unphysical fantasies.
Thus, if speaking of the future of quantum physics, the terms it uses
now will pass to non-existence. The Schroedinger equation (which, by
the way, is the analogue of the classical equation of the body’s
motion in the central field) will gain its initial meaning, and the
wave function being its solution will become nothing else than the
equation describing the electron’s orbiting. No dualities and
statistic distributions. This is how I see the future of science.
3. You are also right that, considering the issues of passing from the
macro- to micro-level, we should not forget that far from all problems
of EM field theory have been resolved at the macro-level. I mean the
problems of physical nature of magnetic field, of relativistic EM
field, correct account of dynamics of field and so on. Partially we try
to solve these issues and you can see it in our journal. In particular,
we showed that the conservation law of divergence of vector changes in
dynamic fields,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/archive/div/divergence/div1/div1.html
We showed that the induction laws being conventionally thought a genial
guess of Maxwell are factually the corollary of the conservation law
for dynamic vortex fields. In these frames we showed that the idea of
vortex electric field is incorrect. Also theoretically and
experimentally we proved that the gradient of scalar in dynamic field
has other appearance and substantiated the appearance of vectorial
potential, which still was not substantiated. We theoretically
substantiated and experimentally produced the longitudinal EM and
transverse acoustic waves. So we fully closed the analogy in EM field
and gas medium, having proven the possibility, transverse waves to
propagate in media without shear deformation. Of course, this is far
from being all necessary. Here we have mountains of work. We simply
have to go in parallel and to solve problems: on one hand, we have to
elaborate the field theory at the macro-level up to the state of close
conception, and on the other – noting the features of approaches to
modelling, we have to join correctly the models at the micro-level with
the dynamic macro-pattern.
Indeed, I described it very brief and schematically, but this is how I
see the way of solving the problem in complex.
Sergey
Autymn D. C.
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > If I understand you properly, dear Mrs Autymn, you are meaning under
> > the electric induction the affection of an orbital electron onto the
> > exterior electron. Correct? Excuse me that I ask you, for me the term
> > of electric induction is more associated with macro-processes. But if I
> > understood your meaning, you are right. Simply it is quite unexpected
> > for me. :)
> only stating generally that "electromagnetic" induction is involved in
> the production of the field that guides the electron. I'm afraid that I
> don't see the relevance of electron orbitals. Inevitably they must be
> involved on the microscopic level, but I think we should start first at
> the macroscopic level in describing the production of the field
> pattern, and then afterward explain the mechanism in terms of
> quantum<sic> interactions. The pattern is macroscopic is it not? Please
> explain your statement.
Orbitals go out to the edges of the universe, as do fields and thus all
bodies. Neutrality is only a matter of scale and average, and a free
elèctròn will easily disrupt and polarize the orbitals of nearby
matter so that its charges can act as a repeater (in the transmission
sense) so that one particul can behave as ae extended near-field
influence that some folks interpret as a wave rather than the self-same
particul.
-Aut
hanson
> | <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
> | news:583Og.54888$a9.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | Check at the end of the post.
> | I forgot to add "NOT" re: ashes in [1].
> | ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Yes, I was a tad surprised at that, but let it go.
>
re: Ashes. From the land of unlimited possibilities of
fads, gags, raves and cons, some of which you enjoyed,
comes the news that there is a thriving biz of cherishing
and memorializing the ashes of ones dearly departed:
The Calcium phosphate is brought to the potter's shop who
mixes it into his clay, forms/sculpts and burns an object from
it according to your instructions: Head/Bust, Vase, Picture-
frame/stand, Whiskey mug or Hippy type HD jewelry,etc....
Kinda sweet. Don't you think so....
Reportedly, one loving woman had her toilet bowl glazed
with her husband's ashes... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA..
>
[Andro]
> Vote for Tom Potter, he wanted you or I to invent a better
> system of government.... [ahahaha... Yeah, maybe... ahaha]
> ( Thread: The most powerful woman in the world...)
> Androcles
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> | > news:Yf0Og.3695$xh3.442@trnddc01...
> | > | Great story, John, aka "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
> | > | who wrote in news:fYZNg.38268$89.3...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | > | ahahaha.... Here's the link for others to enjoy your entire account:
> | > | http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d6e8e949450ca5b0
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> | > | > news:XaXNg.3924$xr.2276@trnddc03...
> | > | > | My Rusky friend "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote
> | > | > | news:1158166804.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> | > | > | a diversion attempt to cover for Zionist Glaser... ahahahaha...
> | > | > | Sergey, listen, I didn't ask for your social comments of who is
> | > | > | good or bad or whether Andro lives in an "elite county Sussex",
> | > | >
[Andro]
> | > | > AHAHAHAHAHA.... too funny, guy!
> | > | > Actually I live in Kent, but Sussex had the Uni for physics
> | > | > when I was a student.
> | > | >
[hanson to Sergey]
> | > | > | When do I get a simple answer to my question from
> | > | > | Zionist Herbert Glaser, or from any other Jew or Goyim:
> | > | > | The question was and is:
> | > | > | "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
> | > | > | money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
> | > | > | to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
> | > | > | they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | ==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
> | > | > | buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
> | > | > | mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
> | > | > | involved in ? --- What good or benefit has come in return to
> | > | > | the American taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that
> | > | > | came off the tables from poor American families?"
> | > | > | ------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert, or guys -------
> | > | >
[Andro]
> | > | > PS...
> | > | > I am in possession of my daughter's cremated remains.
> | > | > They look like grey gravy granules which remind me that
> | > | > my daughter made an excellent Sunday dinner.
> | > | > Whilst I intend to treat them with due reverence, what
> | > | > is the chemical composition of them after combustion?
> | > | > Do they still contain Deoxyribonucleic Acid?
> | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm
> | > | >
[hanson]
> | > | No, there is no DNA left. The ashes are mostly Calciumphosphate,
> | > | indistinguishable from human to human. To boot, I am fairly
> | > | certain that cremated remains from other species (like the vast
> | > | amount of ash from Hamburger and Porkchops donors) do
> [1] | **N OT** show an analysis that reveals a difference between
> | > | the eater & eatee.
> | > | From dust to dust and ashes to ashes......
> | >
[Andro]
> | > As I thought....
> | > Thanks....
> | >
[hanson to Glaser]
> | > | > | > Herbie, Hebie, Herbie, and YOU could tell us your answer
> | > | > | > to the question about Israel. Here are the details.
> | > | > | >
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c6dee513388f68a6
> | > | > | > All the links cited therein have the common denominator
> | > | > | > which says:
> | > | > | > *** ... oye-weh-Zion Glaser's God is Israel. ***
> | > | > | > Glaser is one of those kikes who live in the US,
> | > | > | > but who do live & operate by the belief of
> | > | > | > "Israel First, then maybe, just maybe, the USA 2nd"
Y.Porat
Hi Auty
welcome to the world of innovators
anyway
is the above idea an original of yours ?
or may be you borrowed it from someone else??
if borrowed may be you can mansion the original ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
Sorcerer
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:fV9Og.40243$89.3...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
| > news:wg5Og.2117$FS.1593@trnddc04...
| > | Glad you enjoyed it as much as I did, John, aka the "Sorcerer"
| > | <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| > | news:583Og.54888$a9.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > | Check at the end of the post.
| > | I forgot to add "NOT" re: ashes in [1].
| > | ahahaha... ahahahanson
| >
| [Andro]
| > Yes, I was a tad surprised at that, but let it go.
| >
| [hanson]
| re: Ashes. From the land of unlimited possibilities of
| fads, gags, raves and cons, some of which you enjoyed,
| comes the news that there is a thriving biz of cherishing
| and memorializing the ashes of ones dearly departed:
| The Calcium phosphate is brought to the potter's shop who
| mixes it into his clay, forms/sculpts and burns an object from
| it according to your instructions: Head/Bust, Vase, Picture-
| frame/stand, Whiskey mug or Hippy type HD jewelry,etc....
| Kinda sweet. Don't you think so....
Yes... That is in fact a very interesting idea. A bust made from
her own ashes... I'll give that one some thought, see what the
family thinks of it. Thanks.
|
| Reportedly, one loving woman had her toilet bowl glazed
| with her husband's ashes... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA..
LOL!
RP
All of which means that I understood perfectly what you previously said
and implied.
This is precisely correct in my book. The so-called em wave is simply
an illusion generated by the delay that we observe between electron
interactions. The only fields that exist in a tangible sense are those
of charged particles (electrons/positrons). The quantum of charge in
turn exists entirely in the form of its em field. This field extends
infinitely in all directions and superposes over all other similar
fields to produce the macroscopic field that was interpret as space.
Because of the superposition, the macroscopic field consists of
patterns. Because of the relative motions of the charges, those
patterns continuously change over time. If we look at some high density
region of the field, where for instance E is very strong, then the
migration of this "node" will have the appearance of something moving.
The only thing moving however is the charges, since if we trail along
with this node in its travels we may find that at the far end of the
conductor the E field is now associated with an entirely different set
of electrons. A wave occurred, but the wave itself didn't have motion,
it was an illusion of motion such as occurs on the television screen.
It was the electrons that were in motion, passing energy along to each
of their neighbors along the wire. A wave is a process, not a thing.
If anything can be said to have migrated, that would be energy, but is
energy a thing? I think not.
An em wave is technically just a phase wave. It is a propagation of
"changes" in field strength and/or polarization brought about by the
motions of particles (to which the fields belong) wrt each other. Those
changes are in turn not changes in the electron fields, nor even
distortions in them, but rather of the pattern produced by
superposition of many such electron/positron fields, each of which
extends infinitely through space-time. Contrary perhaps to Sergey's
stance, I don't find the Minkowski formalism to be objectionable in and
of itself. I do feel strongly however that it is carelessly misapplied
to electromagnetic phenomena. And since I feel that there exists
nothing but charged particles, each having no other property than its
electromagnetic field and motion wrt other such fields, it follows that
I feel that the Minkowski metric is misapplied in general as well, that
is, since em is all that exists. Besides the discrepancies that I've
noted here many times between special relativity and magnetostatics, I
believe it to be a simple fact that any theory that regards a frame of
reference as having some physical influence on events must necessarily
be an incorrect theory, or in the least a special case of a more
general theory that deals only with absolutes in nature. I'm not
certain that the theory of general relativity entirely fits the bill
either, since it begins with the premise that the gravitational
interaction is fundamentally different than the electromagnetic
interaction, whereas I have seen no sound logical conclusion drawn to
that effect, just an arbitrary assumption based upon circular
reasoning.
My primary objection is that the field of the electron isn't an
electrostatic field, it is a dynamic field, meaning that until there is
relative motion between charges there is no interaction between them.
In other words, it is the superposition of the em fields of the quanta
of charge that establishes the space-time metric, they being the
substance of space itself. When there is no relative motion, there is
no cause for curvature of motion, seeing as there is no motion to
curve.
The alternate view, that two purely electrostatic fields can induce
motion of their respective sources without an active mechanism, is in
my mind the greatest absurdity. This would be literally equivalent to
generating something from nothing, or in other words it would be a
reaction without an initial action to react to. The question is similar
to asking "what happened before time began".
As many of you know I have derived a complete electromagnetic theory
based upon the above premises. It is similar to the theory proposed by
Wilhelm Weber, that he introduced just before Maxwell took the stage
and ousted him with many loud and even rude public debates.
To be more precise, the premises of my theory were just the empirical
data and a few logical principles. I had no knowledge of Weber's theory
whatsoever. The above details were actually conclusions. I began my
argument by simply working out a few mathematical and logical problems
in em, from which was eventually derived the surprising conclusion that
the electrostatic field was not fundamental, but was instead a
macroscopic effect produced by the rapid motions of electrons wrt each
other. I certainly wasn't looking for that conclusion, and would
probably had scoffed at others had they proposed it to me without a
sufficient supporting argument to back it up. In other words, I had no
preconceived notions; I was simply following the argument where it led
me.
If Sergey isn't familiar with my electrical theory, then perhaps he
can at least appreciate my statement about dynamism of the
electrostatic field. As for his own arguments regarding electron
orbital, I agree 100% with his opinions on that matter, or at least
with those that I understood. :)
Richard Perry
Sergey Karavashkin
G=EMC^2 Glazier писал(а):
Dear Herbert, before your ideas get a right to exist, they have to be
consistent with some criterions of relevance to the nature, haven’t
they? So I will list you some discrepancies, doing not touching the
physics of photons but concentrating exceptionally on the wave-particle
duality.
1. As to virtual photons. Should the surrounding nature be virtual,
there would not exist such science as archaeology. Virtual things do
not leave tracks. Only that leaves them what really occurs in nature,
irrespectively of, observe we or not, or are we trying to study the
consequences of what happened some time ago. This shows, we may not
operate in physics with the concept of virtual. This violates the
conservation laws and leads us not to the study of regularities of
nature given us by God but to the fantasy as if God puts the truth into
your mouth.
2. “Sergey we know nature creates in pairs, and I'm hypothesis the
photons twin is "virtual" Lets further say they travel through space
horizontally”. Doing not touching the issue, how absurd the
conception of photons is, I would mention that photons have no virtual
pair. The idea that photon travelling oppositely to another photon is
anti-photon, or that a photon having another rotation of the
polarisation plane is anti-photon, is basically incorrect. In both
cases an anti-photon is not virtual and is not the pair for a photon.
Should two photons were responsible for radiation, it would violate the
Planck law. Also, should the main photon have energy and second one,
being virtual, have not, nothing could be summed on the screen. Closing
the slit through which your energetic photon passes, you would yield
the darkness, as the eye, photographic plate or detector react to
something related to the real energy that excites the receivers of eye,
crystals of sensitive layer of the photo-plate or the coating of
photo-cathode. No energy – no detection. So your statement of parity
of photons is incorrect.
3. “Now take an electron being a cloud of both virtual photons”.
This statement is also incorrect. First, as you know, photons have no
mass of rest. So the amount of photons also has no mass of rest. As
opposite to it, electron has the mass of rest; it has no cause to
appear if we imagine the electron as a cloud of photons. Furthermore,
electron is known to have an electric field. A photon out of itself
basically cannot have such field, as, first, it is neutral by
definition, and second, if photon has an outer field similar to that of
electron, photons will interact with each others, and we would never be
able to observe the focusing of light beams in the region without outer
accelerating field. We would observe only scattering of photons. At the
same time we have distinctive laws of geometrical optics valid in the
regions without outer accelerating fields. While for electrons the laws
of geometrical optics are applicable only and exceptionally in the
regions where the outer field is present.
4. “and half of the virtual photons it can give the same results”.
If I suppose, following you, that a half of virtual photons goes to one
slit and another half – to another slit, and these virtual photons
jointly are an electron, you should premise that going through two
slits, the electron splits. Well, as you are saying, after the slit we
yield not some particle but the interference pattern; consequently,
different parts of electron would have to hit into different points of
screen. At the same time, as we showed in our paper, the experiments
demonstrate electron to be integer in the region where we observe the
interference pattern,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/interference/interference44/interference44.html
Moreover, in our paper, in Fig. 3a, you can see the photo that shows,
in each separate case the photo-plate detects a separate electron, not
some interference pattern produced by semi-clouds of photons that
compose an electron, as you are saying. Only the statistic pattern in
Fig. 3b looks like diffraction pattern produced by light.
Thus, all basic points of your reasoning appear grounded not so well,
and you dismay build on its basis the model which would describe the
wave-particle duality. I regret, dear Herbert, but this is so.
Sergey
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Not so fast. Photons can not have a rest mass because they are never at
rest. reality is they can't be slowed or speeded up.(my spin is in
theory) There are no anti-photons but there sure are "virtual photons"
On NOVA Brian Greene showed it was virtual photons that gives magnetisim
its attraction,and repulsion. Please Sergey tell us the structure of
fields. Accelerators use fields to push electrons up to 99.999999999 of
'c'. Laser light can push electrons up to 99.999 of 'c'. When
an electron and its anti particle the positron collide what comes out of
this annihilation?. PHOTONS Many theories like to use photons as
building blocks of all things. I use them for the structure of
electrons. Best to keep in mind it would not be an electron unless it
had spin. Bert
hanson
<herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28749-450...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
> PHOTONS I use them for the structure of electrons.
> Best to keep in mind it would not be an electron unless it
> had spin. Bert
>
ahahaha.... ahahahaha.... AHAHA...Herbie Herbie, Herbie
that must be the same spin you use when you praise & adore
Israel into high heaven, yet why are you NOT able or willing to
give an even simple answer to the question re: Israel, and
instead you do scream more 'Heil Zion', usually accompanied
by your seeding & fomenting of more Anti-Semitism with your
nasty and extremely bigoted comments instead of answering
the simple question:
== What good or benefit has come in return to the American
taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that came off the
tables from poor American families?"
== "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ?
------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert -----
PS: in one of your recent nasties, instead of you answering
the above, you said: "Why don't you go to Iran and protect
bin Larden." ... But Herbie, a much more pertinent comment
by you would have been why it is that that one of the "Ten most
Wanted" on the FBI list happens to be a TERRORIST JEW by
name of Adam Pearlman from Riverside, California, aka.
Adam Yahiye Gadahn who is Al Qaida's #3 chieftain. This Jew
turned Muslim threatened that LA and Melbourne will be the
next target of terrorist attacks and "much less compassionate"
then the London & Spain massacres were.. see: 09-12-05
abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/ 102904_nw_american_alQaeda.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/31400b26f8948943
Sergey Karavashkin
tadchem писал(а):
Dear Tom, thank you very much for high appreciation of our work. I’m
happy that at least at one point we now agree. However, I think, we
have not to destroy this agreement, inserting Relativity and trying to
state it to be able to describe waves and particles with Einstein’s
four-tensor. GR to be able to correctly describe whatever, it has first
to be consistent in its postulates. In particular, in Einstein’s
postulate that the laws in inertial and non-inertial frames are
identical. Here, above, Richard and me showed to Henry Haapalainen,
this is not so. And we have proven it in our paper to which I linked
Henry,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/blackhole/blackhole15/blackhole15.html
You and me, we both know, if we take this postulate off GR, all
construction of GR destroys, including the four-tensor. This is why I
would like, before trying to connect the solution of wave-particle
duality to GR, to know better, to what will we connect it. Or we will
yield from the solution the basis for new circuit of discrepancies and
paradoxes. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Autymn D. C. писал(а):
> Orbitals go out to the edges of the universe, as do fields and thus all
> bodies. Neutrality is only a matter of scale and average, and a free
> elèctròn will easily disrupt and polarize the orbitals of nearby
> matter so that its charges can act as a repeater (in the transmission
> sense) so that one particul can behave as ae extended near-field
> influence that some folks interpret as a wave rather than the self-same
> particul.
>
> -Aut
Dear Autymn, no doubt, the fields decrease to the infinity, i.e. ‘to
the edges of the universe’. Only as to orbitals, I did not understand
your meaning. Atomic orbitals have an appearance quite limited in
space, or atom would have an infinite size. In distinct from field that
is formed in direction from the source, and according to the
conservation laws, decreases with the distance from source, the orbital
is only the trajectory of electron’s motion, it cannot go out ‘to
the edges of the universe’. This is the path of electron. Or explain
me please your meaning in more details. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
G=EMC^2 Glazier писал(а):
> Sergey I regret to say you are taking all your points as reality Hmmmmm
> Not so fast. Photons can not have a rest mass because they are never at
> rest.
Not because of it, dear Herbert, but by definition. Should photon have
the rest mass, with its speed C its mass would be infinite. :)
> reality is they can't be slowed or speeded up.(my spin is in
> theory)
Correct, they cannot be slowed or speeded up, while electron can be and
in quite broad range. If your electron consists of photons, when the
whole cloud decelerates, each photon has to decelerate. If you premise
some orbital motion of photons, you should point some specific
experiment in which the light beam would be able to interact with
another light beam, the more would be able to orbit, as the light also
consists of multitude of photons. All known experiments say opposite.
> There are no anti-photons but there sure are "virtual photons"
Are your photons in pairs? Where from the second part of pair arises?
>From the Planck equation? :)
> On NOVA Brian Greene showed it was virtual photons that gives magnetisim
> its attraction,and repulsion.
Could you give me a link? I would like to see. :)
> Please Sergey tell us the structure of
> fields.
A part of description already has been stated in our journal.
Unfortunately, we still were not paid for these studies. In this
circumstance I can speak only in limits of published material, and you
surely will understand me in it. If speaking of the structure of
photon, after Feynman, it has to have the quantum size, and the
between-photons distance has to be much larger than the size of photon.
So you will never be able to create the monochromatic light, as the
quantum size predicts a broad spectrum of Fourier-expansion, and you
cannot avoid it without danger to cancel the very photon, and no
monochromators will help to eliminate it.
> Accelerators use fields to push electrons up to 99.999999999 of
> 'c'. Laser light can push electrons up to 99.999 of 'c'. When
> an electron and its anti particle the positron collide what comes out of
> this annihilation?. PHOTONS Many theories like to use photons as
> building blocks of all things. I use them for the structure of
> electrons. Best to keep in mind it would not be an electron unless it
> had spin. Bert
If dynamite explodes, it turns into gas. Does it follow from it that
the dynamite consists of gas? :) We both know, folks make many
fantasies, basing on discrepancies of quantum conception. But it does
not mean that we have to repeat and replicate all this nonsense –
haven’t we, Bert? :)
Sergey
RP
Thank you, I missed that statement. I assumed that she was only stating
that their influence extends to infinity (the field), but I see that
she mentions the field seperately as also extending to infinity. I
agree with you on this point, the electron at the center of the field
has a finite velocity, and cannot be everywhere at once.
Richard Perry
Sergey Karavashkin
RP писал(а):
> Thank you, I missed that statement. I assumed that she was only stating
> that their influence extends to infinity (the field), but I see that
> she mentions the field seperately as also extending to infinity. I
> agree with you on this point, the electron at the center of the field
> has a finite velocity, and cannot be everywhere at once.
>
> Richard Perry
Dear Richard, please excuse my insistence, but I did not hear from you,
what’s your attitude to my explanation of features of quantum
approach that relates, by my opinion, to the illegal extension of the
Planck’s and Bohr’s energetic method by the adherents of quantum
theory. I’m interesting to hear your opinion.
Thank you,
Sergey
RP
Sure. I haven't had time to go over the material that you have linked,
but from your reply, I can only say that I have stated essentially the
same many times. There are of course many others who share similar
views. The primary difference between all of these people lies in their
particular suggested solutions. As of yet I have seen no full-fledged
alternative model that would be of practical use to those such as
engineers and working physicsists. That includes my own model, since I
have only the fundamental interaction between quanta of charge and some
speculations as to what behavior would result in on a time averaged
basis. In order to track the macroscopic time averaged effects produced
by this interaction we would need a powerful computer and a lot of
time, because even the smallest macrosystem borders on being infinitely
complex. I see the wave equations in the same light that you see them,
i.e that they address only the superficial effects, while ignoring the
fundamental mechanisms and causes. It would be all the same for those
quantum theorists to regard the graph of a sales trend as the trend
itself. Certainly Maxwell never confused the average behaviors of gas
molecules with the behaviors described by Newtonian Mechanics. There
are statistical averages, and there is the underlying activity that
produced those averages. A wave isn't fundamental, it requires
something to be waving.
Henry Haapalainen
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> kirjoitti
viestissä:1158302450.8...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
tadchem ?????(?):
Please, leave me out of this! HH
Sergey Karavashkin
Henry Haapalainen писал(а):
> Please, leave me out of this! HH
No one invited you, a person without reputation.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
RP писал(а):
> Sure. I haven't had time to go over the material that you have linked,
> but from your reply, I can only say that I have stated essentially the
> same many times. There are of course many others who share similar
> views. The primary difference between all of these people lies in their
> particular suggested solutions. As of yet I have seen no full-fledged
> alternative model that would be of practical use to those such as
> engineers and working physicsists. That includes my own model, since I
> have only the fundamental interaction between quanta of charge and some
> speculations as to what behavior would result in on a time averaged
> basis. In order to track the macroscopic time averaged effects produced
> by this interaction we would need a powerful computer and a lot of
> time, because even the smallest macrosystem borders on being infinitely
> complex. I see the wave equations in the same light that you see them,
> i.e that they address only the superficial effects, while ignoring the
> fundamental mechanisms and causes. It would be all the same for those
> quantum theorists to regard the graph of a sales trend as the trend
> itself. Certainly Maxwell never confused the average behaviors of gas
> molecules with the behaviors described by Newtonian Mechanics. There
> are statistical averages, and there is the underlying activity that
> produced those averages. A wave isn't fundamental, it requires
> something to be waving.
Dear Richard, you have intrigued me. Can I see in Internet something of
your work, of what you are ready to show?
Sergey
RP
Well Sergey, I haven't had my site up and running for some time now,
having grown bored with it at the time that I deleted its contents. But
I managed to find this passage from an old thread. I suppose that this
would count as something "in Internet," as you put it. :)
* Prefatory note: This was posted in response to a thread about the
"production of em waves." It is an extract of that reply and
simultaneously of my paper, on the subject of static electromagnetic
principles, or "First Principles", as I titled it. I have revised the
paper since that printing, though the following portion was barely
changed:
* Also note that the first equation is for the resultant force
acting between two point charges in motion wrt each other. I used small
q in contrast to popular convention to mean "charge", and large Q to
mean l"ine density of charge" or "q/L." The second equation is
perfectly equivalent to the first. You can excahange the constants of
permittivity and permeability at will, since they are related by a
constant conversion factor. In other words they have no intrinsic value
as physical descriptors. There is only one force, and thus the decision
to use one constant over the other reduces to a purely arbitrary
decision. ]
To be quite honest with you, I'm am much more proud of my derivation of
an invariant and more general form of the Newtonian centripetal force
equation, which is provided in the text below. Without which I could
not have derived a stable atomic orbit with such mathematical
simplicity. Regards, Richard Perry]
"[...]
-F = [ 3 mu_o q q' ( v_q sin_a - v_q' sin_b )^2 ] / ( 16 pi d^2 ) (
Eq.14 )
Or the equivalent form:
-F = [ 3 k q q' ( v_q sin_a - v_q' sin_b )^2 ] / ( 4 c^2 d^2 ) (
Eq.15 )
In both Eq.14 and Eq.15 v_q and v_q' differ from the similar
expressions incorporated earlier , in that these are
the scalar speeds of the particles through the observers frame of
reference (space) such that:
v_q = sqrt [ ( v^2_q_x ) + ( v^2_q_y )] and v_q' = sqrt [ (
v^2_q'_x ) + ( v^2_q'_y )], where the quanta are moving along
the same plane. The force is always directed along the line
joining the charges. (Sin a) is the angle formed by the line of
motion of q and the line joining the particles, and (sin b) is the
angle formed by the line of motion of q' and the line
joining the particles. Both of these sines are equal to 1 when the
particles are moving in parallel paths and are joined by a
perpendicular drawn through those paths, such as found in a
circular orbital system.
d is not the radius, but rather the displacement between the charges.
In the case of two quanta of charge, only a magnetostatic
interaction (non-classical) is provided by the equation, i.e.
there will be no electrostatic component of force generated
between
two quanta of charge. The electrostatic interaction
is a macroscopic effect generated between aggregates of charge, as
previously discussed.
Eq.14 (or Eq.15) integrates to produce all of the previous
equations precisely as they are presented within this text, and
is proposed as the fundamental electromagnetic event, from which
all effects can be derived, through integration.
The following is an additional relevant observation: Given a
circular orbit of a positron/electron pair, the Newtonian
centripetal force is given by the vector form of the Newtonian
equation:
F_centripetal = [ m m' ( v_m - v_m' )^2 ] / ( m + m' ) d (
Eq.16)
Since the magnetostatic force given by Eq.15 is the centripetal
force binding the masses in orbit, then in this instance
Eq.15 = Eq.16, i.e. the two equations give same force, or:
[ -3 k q q' ( v_q - v_q' )^2 ] / ( 4 c^2 d^2 ) = [ m m' ( v_m -
v_m' )^2 ] / ( m + m' ) d
This reduces to:
-3 k q q' / ( 4 c^2 d ) = m m' / ( m + m' ) Which rearranges to
form:
-k q q' / d = [ 4 m m' c^2 ] / [ 3 ( m + m' ) ] ( Eq.17 )
Or:
-P.E._electrical = [ 4 m m' c^2 ] / [ 3 ( m + m' ) ] ) Or
simply:
-E = [ 4 m m' c^2 ] / [ 3 ( m + m' ) ]. If m = m' then this
reduces finally to:
-E = m c^2 (2 / 3) The famous equation, with a slight
correction to the classical factor of 1, simply falls into our laps.
*When m<<m' the factor resolves to (4 / 3); an average of the two
limits (2 / 3) and (4 / 3) is approximately 1 thus providing as a
general case for neutral masses:
-E = m c^2
Moreover, rearranging Eq.17 shows that d, the displacement between
particles (the orbital diameter), is constant and
independent of the angular velocity of the particles, viz.:
-k q q' / d = [ 4 m m' c^2 ] / [ 3 (m + m' ) ] ( Eq.17 )
d = [-3 k q q' ( m + m' )] / [ 4 m m' c^2 ] ( Eq.18 ) "
This last equation expresses the constancy of orbital 'diameter', the
orbital radius is therefore also constant. Note also that 'invariance'
is provided by using only invariant expressions in the equations. This
was apparently too obvious an approach for those who had earlier
thought
it wise to overcomplicate the issue of the principle of relativity. It
is the speeds of particles 'relative to one another' that determines
the
[the outcome of the interactions]. Our frame of reference cannot
logically
alter the involved elements as is the case with Maxwell/Lorentz,
wherein
the magnetic field exists or doesn't exist depending only upon our
frame of
reference.
[...]"
edited slightly from the original. In those days I had a
misunderstanding regarding Minkowski's spacetime, which I later
resolved. I still find Purcell's relativistic description of the
magnetic force to be contradictory to reason and even to the empirical
evidence. The primary source of error in treating static forces with
special relativity, is that there are no delays involved, and thus we
are dealing with a perfectly time independent Euclidean plane. We are
not forced to transform between frames of reference either, but can
resolve to describe every detail without leaving our place of
observation. Once having done so from one frame, the objective outcomes
must necessarily be the outcomes derived wrt any other frame, be it
inertial or accellerated. Thus in the case of statics, special
relativity has no final jurisdiction.
Sue...
[...]
<< I still find Purcell's relativistic description of the
magnetic force to be contradictory to reason and
even to the empirical evidence. The primary source
of error in treating static forces with
special relativity, is that there are no delays involved,
and thus we are dealing with a perfectly time independent
Euclidean plane. >>
Indeed... few realise how aburd the Purcell description is or how
little is returned in Smith-Purcell radiation. There seems no
substitute for a through foundation in the time independent
three dimensional integral form and far too little tutorial
material on the web. I use this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
...with the hope that someone will put a bit more polish
on it someday. Hint hint ;o)
Sue...
Autymn D. C.
> Autymn D. C. писал(а):
> > Orbitals go out to the edges of the universe, as do fields and thus all
> > bodies. Neutrality is only a matter of scale and average, and a free
> > elèctròn will easily disrupt and polarize the orbitals of nearby
> > matter so that its charges can act as a repeater (in the transmission
> > sense) so that one particul can behave as ae extended near-field
> > influence that some folks interpret as a wave rather than the self-same
> > particul.
> the edges of the universe’. Only as to orbitals, I did not understand
> your meaning. Atomic orbitals have an appearance quite limited in
> space, or atom would have an infinite size. In distinct from field that
> is formed in direction from the source, and according to the
> conservation laws, decreases with the distance from source, the orbital
> is only the trajectory of electron’s motion, it cannot go out ‘to
> the edges of the universe’. This is the path of electron. Or explain
> me please your meaning in more details. :)
Don't you know that orbitals are only limited in drawings to some
fraction of their size, like psi_90? When atoms bond, only their nodes
intersect to give the illusion that the atoms have that size. Every
quantum has ae inner size, which corresponds to its barucèntre and
elèctrocèntre and its classic size as a mote, and ae outer size,
which corresponds to its domain and range. When one thinks of the path
of your elèctròn, one draws a 1D world line rather than as it should
be, a 4D world.. uh.. gline, as in glome. As there are no regions at
absolute zero, there are none with no E or M or S fields (Google my
strofsis and strofic) because, by definition, the universe and its
coordinates only exist where they and their corollary forces exist.
Size and distance are the same.
-Aut
RP
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> > Autymn D. C. писал(а):
> > > Orbitals go out to the edges of the universe, as do fields and thus all
> > > bodies. Neutrality is only a matter of scale and average, and a free
> > > elèctròn will easily disrupt and polarize the orbitals of nearby
> > > matter so that its charges can act as a repeater (in the transmission
> > > sense) so that one particul can behave as ae extended near-field
> > > influence that some folks interpret as a wave rather than the self-same
> > > particul.
> > Dear Autymn, no doubt, the fields decrease to the infinity, i.e. ‘to
> > the edges of the universe’. Only as to orbitals, I did not understand
> > your meaning. Atomic orbitals have an appearance quite limited in
> > space, or atom would have an infinite size. In distinct from field that
> > is formed in direction from the source, and according to the
> > conservation laws, decreases with the distance from source, the orbital
> > is only the trajectory of electron’s motion, it cannot go out ‘to
> > the edges of the universe’. This is the path of electron. Or explain
> > me please your meaning in more details. :)
>
> Don't you know that orbitals are only limited in drawings to some
> fraction of their size, like psi_90? When atoms bond, only their nodes
> intersect to give the illusion that the atoms have that size.
Ok.
> Every
> quantum has ae inner size, which corresponds to its barucèntre and
> elèctrocèntre and its classic size as a mote, and ae outer size,
> which corresponds to its domain and range.
Then you believe the barycenter to occupy a non-zero volume? Evidence
thus far suggest strongly that it does not, down to the limits of
measuability. It is a singularity.
> When one thinks of the path
> of your elèctròn, one draws a 1D world line rather than as it should
> be, a 4D world.. uh.. gline, as in glome.
I can't speak for Sergey's electron, but my electrons are 4D
extentions. The singularity represents the point in time at which we
observe the electron. With the electron at rest its field is described
by concentric isobaric spheres. These isobars represent regions of
constant curvature of space. As we travel radially away from the
singularity the magntude of the curvature decreases. in terms of the
force exterted on another electron lower curvature corresponds to a
smaller force. It is an inverse square field. Additionally the
successive layers of this onion correspond to different points in time,
according to the Minkowski metric.
t = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)/c
The electron's field is a rigid structure when viewed from the 4D
perspective. But against the backdrop of 3D space plus time (Galilean
spacetime) that we are accustomed to think in terms of, the field is
only inverse square so long as the electron remians at rest. In this
special case the field strength at r at times t and t' remains
constant. But when the electron is in motion this no longer holds, or
in other words the field appears to lag behind the electron, which in
turn produces the observed finite speed of interaction, which occurs at
c. This constant thus defines the relationship between 4D spacetime and
our Galilean perspective.
However, in the context of 4D spacetime the isobars are perfectly
fixed wrt the singularity, and I would say "at all times" but for the
fact that there is no time in 4D spacetime there is instead a ct axes,
which is dimensionally another spatial extention. Interactions occur
directly between electrons with no medium of propagation, nor even with
the help of mediators, because they don't actually occur. Instead these
are just regular patterns in a rigid 4D block manifold.
For all practical purposes we can dispense with the field altogether as
a physical entity and say simply that all electrons are related one to
the other by a set of values that represent some unkown relationship,
and which share an ordering between them. The field can be considered
to be a mathematical entity only, with points not occupied by an
electron being just a prediction of the mathematical relationship that
would exist with any electron that might happen migrate into that
position. What the substance of these relationships might actually be,
we cannot know, but we are designed by nature to interpret them in a
practical way, fit for our functioning and survival.
The most natural interpreation of space is of some invisible physical
substance separating visible objects. This hypothetical substance was
given the name space, and later assumed to be something similar in
nature to matter, in the form of the Aether. Einstein, and especially
with the help of Minkowski, showed by logical argument, that our
perceptions were not trustworthy. We are only looking at shadows on the
wall.
With his box-within-a-box argument, he quickly concluded that if we
were to retain the notion of space as a substance, then a different
space must be rigidly attached to each and every frame of reference in
the universe. There would have to be an infinite number of aethers, all
in motion wrt each other. Thus bringing to an abrupt end the notion of
space as a singular entity distinct from the objects within it. Space
isn't something that objects move relative to. Motion can be defined
only in terms of objects changing position wrt each other.
In my view there are indeed an infinite number of aethers, and these
are what we call electrons, whose fields are these many spaces that
Einstein referred to and simultaneously the substance of those
electrons. Space, matter, and field are all one and the same thing.
I'm speaking of electrons of both the positive and negative sort, and
thus am implying positrons as well.
> As there are no regions at
> absolute zero, there are none with no E or M or S fields (Google my
> strofsis and strofic) because, by definition, the universe and its
> coordinates only exist where they and their corollary forces exist.
Aha!! I should have made reference to your statement here, when I said
as much above. I'm happy to find that you've been paying some
attention. :)
> Size and distance are the same.
>
> -Aut
Richard Perry
Sergey Karavashkin
Autymn D. C. писал(а):
> Don't you know that orbitals are only limited in drawings to some
> fraction of their size, like psi_90? When atoms bond, only their nodes
> intersect to give the illusion that the atoms have that size. Every
> quantum has ae inner size, which corresponds to its barucèntre and
> elèctrocèntre and its classic size as a mote, and ae outer size,
> which corresponds to its domain and range. When one thinks of the path
> of your elèctròn, one draws a 1D world line rather than as it should
> be, a 4D world.. uh.. gline, as in glome. As there are no regions at
> absolute zero, there are none with no E or M or S fields (Google my
> strofsis and strofic) because, by definition, the universe and its
> coordinates only exist where they and their corollary forces exist.
> Size and distance are the same.
>
> -Aut
I think, dear Autymn, you ought not to try thinking the classical
physics in terms of quantum conception. In the quantum conception, the
concept of orbitals is senseless. There exists only the state in the
potential well whose size is limited. In the problem that we presented
for discussion here, the wave-particle duality is solved strongly in
frames of classical physics. Just due to this, there appeared orbitals,
dynamic field of atom and interaction with the outer electron. If you
think in frames of quantum conception, you should agree with inevitable
duality and with many silly things which this conception takes as an
absolute truth. Then our solutions are useless for you. :)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
RP писал(а):
> Ok.
>
> > Every
> > quantum has ae inner size, which corresponds to its barucèntre and
> > elèctrocèntre and its classic size as a mote, and ae outer size,
> > which corresponds to its domain and range.
>
> Then you believe the barycenter to occupy a non-zero volume? Evidence
> thus far suggest strongly that it does not, down to the limits of
> measuability. It is a singularity.
Sorry, dear Richard, but here, just as in the post of Autymn, the idea
of barycentre clearly is irrelevant to the problem which we suggested
to discuss. :) This is rather like Feynman’s puzzle play when one
takes from different areas of physics some flowery scientific-like
terms to make from them an infernal cocktail. :)
> > When one thinks of the path
> > of your elèctròn, one draws a 1D world line rather than as it should
> > be, a 4D world.. uh.. gline, as in glome.
>
> I can't speak for Sergey's electron, but my electrons are 4D
> extentions. The singularity represents the point in time at which we
> observe the electron. With the electron at rest its field is described
> by concentric isobaric spheres. These isobars represent regions of
> constant curvature of space. As we travel radially away from the
> singularity the magntude of the curvature decreases. in terms of the
> force exterted on another electron lower curvature corresponds to a
> smaller force. It is an inverse square field. Additionally the
> successive layers of this onion correspond to different points in time,
> according to the Minkowski metric.
>
> t = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)/c
Oh, what a cocktail! First, after Einstein, in one frame the
simultaneity is impossible. It arises as a consequence of passing from
one frame to another. This causes double time in the frame. One time
relates to the frame, it is homogeneous in the whole frame and all
events from the point of this time can be agreed in the view of
simultaneity. The second concept of time arises in passing from one
frame to another. Here appears just the mythical non-simultaneity which
factually is nothing else as incorrect inclination of the plane of
events which arises in the Lorentz transforms. If you admit the
Minkowski construction, you automatically admit Einstein’s postulate
of the constant speed of light in all frames. With it, your objection
to Henry Haapalainen concerning accelerated frames becomes strange for
me.
Second, if we follow the logic which you posted me, stationary fields
are basically impossible. You multiply use the product of your quantum
charge (projection of charge onto the axis). Any statistic work with
this result will give zero in the average in all directions of motion.
>From this, such charged bodies like electrostatically charged balls
basically cannot exist. Furthermore, you are operating with the
determined location of charge in space. From the point of QM it is
basically impossible. And the charge as such is absent in QM, there is
the wave function and its properties.
So my opinion is, you would make yourself a great favour if stopping
attempts to join the relativistic and quantum gibberish with classical
formalism. Choose for yourself, in which formalism do you work. If in
quantum and relativistic – you can better forget the terms with which
you are operating now. There are no orbitals, no central field, there
you can simply prove that electrons, protons and any other particles
are black holes. You can simply delete your formulas, as you have
introduced them (hopefully) in other premises.
But if you are trying to operate with classical formalism, it is
strange when you agree with Autymn concerning psi-function. The more
that she is also incorrect in this sense, she demonstrates merely
formal approach to the wave function and illegitimately interrelates
the idea of wave function with the idea of orbitals. There are no and
basically cannot be orbitals in QM. Furthermore, if we consider your
solutions in frames of classical formalism, we will find few important
objections related to the forces of interaction between the charges
incorrectly equalised to the gravity interaction:
[ -3 k q q' ( v_q - v_q' )^2 ] / ( 4 c^2 d^2 ) = [ m m' ( v_m -
v_m' )^2 ] / ( m + m' ) d
Even in your formulas, when changing the sign of one of your quanta (q
or q'), the resulting force will change its direction to the opposite.
Or does your mass change its sign? And in the left part you have a sign
‘minus’, while you haven’t it in the right part; with related
values of quantum charges (both positive either both negative), the
equality will be true with accuracy to the sign. Finally, in the left
part you have used the dielectric constant, while in the right part the
gravity constant is absent. If you account it, you will see that with
the known experimental values of charges, the right part never will be
equal to that left but will be well less. Due to your equalisation, the
gravity interaction between these particles will change to the
opposite.
Thus, as to me, you can be sure: we don’t play with the absurdity of
Minkowski space and with smeared electrons of QM, and don’t advice
you to play with them. :) There are no solutions, as it is impossible
to join incompatible things, combining the phantasmagorias of modern
physics with the basis of classical physics.
Sergey
RP
Dear Sergey,
Here I have provided a recipe for stability of classical atomic orbits
involving only electromagnetic influences, and you argue that I am
discussing a quantum model? Tsk.
As for the negative sign on the left with none on the right, perhaps
you were bit shortsighted--surely you relize that any variable
expressed as a letter can be either a negative or positive value. For
instance the equation
c = b-a
Now if a is larger than b, then c will be negative, and yet I suppose
because we have omitted the negative sign you find fallacy in this
standard algebraic convention. On the right hand side of the force
equation you should note that charge exists in the positive and the
negative forms, and that as you suggested, yes, if you change the sign
of either of these then the force will become positive, which is
perfecly in accord with the empirical data, is it not?
As for my views concerning the principle of equivalence, I see no
reason for concern on your part. The PoE is nothing more than an idea,
an idea that has no counterpart in the mathematical formalism. It plays
the same role in the general theory of relativy that Aether played in
the Lorentz interpreation of his transform. It is redundant.
In his simple derivation of gravitational time dilation, where Einstein
compared the ticking rates of clocks located at different postions on a
spinning disk, the result was that the ticking rate was related to an
inertial potential (counterpart to electrical potential), which
Einstein called at the start of the derivation a gravitational
potential. Now whether the force be centripetal or gravitational, there
exists an inertial potential, and thus the ticking rate must be altered
in either of these fields. From this mathematical observation one
cannot derive the PoE, as it was stated "the equivalence of
gravitational field and an accellerating frame". This simply doesn't
follow. As you should be able to see, by describing initially the
potential of the observer on the spinning disk as "gravitational", the
conclusion after that it was a gravitaional potential is a classical
example of circular reasoning, or "assuming the consequent". So you
see dear Sergey, I have not contradicted myself on this subject. The
fact that an object in freefall in the Earth's gravitational field can
be described as having an "inertial potential", relates only to the
fact that it is a mass. The force could easily be electromagnetic and
we would have the same result.
You might also take into consideration that with the equation I
provided, I was able to derive the entire spectra of the hydrogen atom
in terms of the periods of the electron in its orbit. I believe you
mentioned something along the same line. Don't be so hasty to make
blind assumption--such is the very reason for the patchwork nature of
physical theory in its present state.
Richard Perry
Sergey Karavashkin
RP писал(а):
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> Dear Sergey,
> Here I have provided a recipe for stability of classical atomic orbits
> involving only electromagnetic influences, and you argue that I am
> discussing a quantum model? Tsk.
> As for the negative sign on the left with none on the right, perhaps
> you were bit shortsighted--surely you relize that any variable
> expressed as a letter can be either a negative or positive value. For
> instance the equation
>
> c = b-a
>
> Now if a is larger than b, then c will be negative, and yet I suppose
> because we have omitted the negative sign you find fallacy in this
> standard algebraic convention. On the right hand side of the force
> equation you should note that charge exists in the positive and the
> negative forms, and that as you suggested, yes, if you change the sign
> of either of these then the force will become positive, which is
> perfecly in accord with the empirical data, is it not?
No problem, dear Richard. Rather, no problem with the differences, they
are squared in both parts. The problem is with products. If you take
two protons or two electrons, q q’ will be positive, and whole left
part will be negative. While in the right part m m’ will be strongly
positive. :) And even if your particles can have negative masses, the
product of two negative values gives plus. Maybe, your formulas are
applicable only to the oppositely charged particles? Then they are not
general, as necessary for the theory, are they?
> As for my views concerning the principle of equivalence, I see no
> reason for concern on your part. The PoE is nothing more than an idea,
> an idea that has no counterpart in the mathematical formalism. It plays
> the same role in the general theory of relativy that Aether played in
> the Lorentz interpreation of his transform. It is redundant.
I wonder, why you argued Henry if you have same opinion with him? Or
something changed in Danish Kingdom? Well, the nature remained
unchanged, it does not obey to any conjecture. :)
> In his simple derivation of gravitational time dilation, where Einstein
> compared the ticking rates of clocks located at different postions on a
> spinning disk, the result was that the ticking rate was related to an
> inertial potential (counterpart to electrical potential), which
> Einstein called at the start of the derivation a gravitational
> potential. Now whether the force be centripetal or gravitational, there
> exists an inertial potential, and thus the ticking rate must be altered
> in either of these fields. From this mathematical observation one
> cannot derive the PoE, as it was stated "the equivalence of
> gravitational field and an accellerating frame". This simply doesn't
> follow. As you should be able to see, by describing initially the
> potential of the observer on the spinning disk as "gravitational", the
> conclusion after that it was a gravitaional potential is a classical
> example of circular reasoning, or "assuming the consequent". So you
> see dear Sergey, I have not contradicted myself on this subject. The
> fact that an object in freefall in the Earth's gravitational field can
> be described as having an "inertial potential", relates only to the
> fact that it is a mass. The force could easily be electromagnetic and
> we would have the same result.
Not with any force you will yield such result; this is the first.
Second, the accelerated frame, especially rotating frame, causes
additional forces – such as the Coriolis force. Wishing to introduce
the relation between the inertial and non-inertial frames, you would
have to introduce additionally too many things which Einstein did not
introduce when established his principle of equivalence. Third,
Einstein needed his equivalence principle to convert the light speed
postulate from the inertial to non-inertial frame and to have the
possibility to use SR when working out GR. But the Lorentz transforms
don’t work in non-inertial frames, you can easily make sure,
calculating. Well, they don’t work in inertial frames, too; I could
easily prove you it, should you want to hear, not to defend the dogma.
Thus, things are not so simple with equivalence as relativists would
like to show. A simple example with the close carriage of Einstein. He
assured that the acceleration of carriage is equivalent to the
imaginary gravity potential. Let us see. If the carriage accelerates by
locomotive, the passenger will be pressed into the chair, yes? But if
the carriage is freely falling in some gravity field, the passenger
will feel weightlessness. Such is ‘the equivalence’.
> You might also take into consideration that with the equation I
> provided, I was able to derive the entire spectra of the hydrogen atom
> in terms of the periods of the electron in its orbit. I believe you
> mentioned something along the same line. Don't be so hasty to make
> blind assumption--such is the very reason for the patchwork nature of
> physical theory in its present state.
>
> Richard Perry
Dear Richard, I showed you two errors, but they are far from being all.
It was Bohr who has derived, and quite accurately, the orbitals and
their correspondence to the emission spectrum of hydrogen. His solution
in frames of energetic approach is true for every known spectra. No
problem to adjust, these are already matters of QM. First lift the
discrepancies of your conception, in that number related to the
equalised electric and gravity forces. And again, where in this
expression is the gravity constant? :)
Sergey
Autymn D. C.
> > Every
> > quantum has ae inner size, which corresponds to its barucèntre and
> > elèctrocèntre and its classic size as a mote, and ae outer size,
> > which corresponds to its domain and range.
>
> Then you believe the barycenter to occupy a non-zero volume? Evidence
> thus far suggest strongly that it does not, down to the limits of
> measuability. It is a singularity.
The mote occupies narrow however broad its mass is. It's only of zero
r if it's of infinite E. However, the whit is not the mote--the whit
is broader the heftier it is, but it's broader inward or
distance-inversely rather than outward.
> > When one thinks of the path
> > of your elèctròn, one draws a 1D world line rather than as it should
> > be, a 4D world.. uh.. gline, as in glome.
>
> I can't speak for Sergey's electron, but my electrons are 4D
> extentions. The singularity represents the point in time at which we
> observe the electron. With the electron at rest its field is described
> by concentric isobaric spheres. These isobars represent regions of
> constant curvature of space. As we travel radially away from the
> singularity the magntude of the curvature decreases. in terms of the
t = r/c: all are finite. Motes do not have inherent 3D continuose
summètry such as R^n-balls; their outer boundaries are indefinite
until they have other motes to interscribe. They only approach the
ball-shape if the motes get infinitely-many and -even in R^n. The
sfaira is only a model of what a mote can describe if other motes are
there.
> In my view there are indeed an infinite number of aethers, and these
> are what we call electrons, whose fields are these many spaces that
> Einstein referred to and simultaneously the substance of those
infinite which means?
-Aut
Sue...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
<< First lift the
discrepancies of your conception, in that number related to the
equalised electric and gravity forces. And again, where in this
expression is the gravity constant? :) >>
>
> Sergey
Sergey,
I agree with you that this Coulomb / gravity equivalence cannot
be as Einstein tried to construct it...
However, there is a plausible toy model that retains some of
of the Lorenz components to explain the reaction force
which causes a rifle to recoil.
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
The toy model is not very 'polished' but has some features very
consistant with a recent GR experiment:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
and also is consistant with some recent coherent matter
experiments and a commercially availible gyrocompass:
http://www.ixsea.com/downloads/techno/0001-Octans_highly_compact.pdf#search=%22Octans_highly_compact%22
I wouldn't suggest RP should throw the baby out
with the bath water ;-)
Sue...
Sergey Karavashkin
Sue... писал(а):
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
People pant attempting, dear Sue. :) But until the funding
organisations recall the old good rule – it is cheaper to fund the
authors than to seek some ‘kitchen’ copies, their money will sink
in sand. :) Thank you for references. I see once more that no one walks
in the trend of our knowledge and our know-hows are out of danger. This
author, Kouropoulos, has taken an artificial model, composed incorrect
formulas for oscillations, started seeking additional frequencies and
squeezing the artificial Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulas, adjusting
them for Einsteinian gravity potential. Basically, he did not succeed.
Einsteinian formula is other, only the bracket is like, as here and
there are two summands and Phi in the numerator. This is same useless
as the experiment to which you refer, as if it corroborates the paper.
One nonsense ‘corroborated’ another one. About 10 years ago some
such ‘experimenter’ contacted me. He took two loops, calculated the
electro- and magneto-dynamic interaction between them, checked
experimentally and, basing on the fact that his calculation disagreed
with the experiment, claimed to the whole world that he produced
longitudinal EM waves. A boy! – he and these to whom you are
referring. One more million has sank – which time now...
Again, great thanks for these links, you presented me few minutes of
laughing.
Sergey
Sue...
Thank you for your opinion on that. Something about the way the
domains are sized and his references to frequency instead of
phase I found troubling as well. I lack the mathmatics to view it
as you did but we find fault in the same general area. I suspect
he has made a poor choice of oscillator for what he is trying to model
and as I like to say "beating it to fit and painting it to match".
Still it serves a reminder of mechanisms that can't be ignored
in more formal approaches.
> Einsteinian formula is other, only the bracket is like, as here and
> there are two summands and Phi in the numerator. This is same useless
> as the experiment to which you refer, as if it corroborates the paper.
> One nonsense ‘corroborated’ another one. About 10 years ago some
> such ‘experimenter’ contacted me. He took two loops, calculated the
> electro- and magneto-dynamic interaction between them, checked
> experimentally and, basing on the fact that his calculation disagreed
> with the experiment, claimed to the whole world that he produced
> longitudinal EM waves. A boy! – he and these to whom you are
> referring. One more million has sank – which time now...
>
> Again, great thanks for these links, you presented me few minutes of
> laughing.
Ah! You've never seen may best comedy material. I avoid putting
anything in my own math expressions to spare readers from splitting
their sides apart laughing at it. :o)
Sue...
>
> Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Sue... писал(а):
> Thank you for your opinion on that. Something about the way the
> domains are sized and his references to frequency instead of
> phase I found troubling as well. I lack the mathmatics to view it
> as you did but we find fault in the same general area. I suspect
> he has made a poor choice of oscillator for what he is trying to model
> and as I like to say "beating it to fit and painting it to match".
> Still it serves a reminder of mechanisms that can't be ignored
> in more formal approaches.
You are absolutely right, dear Sue, it is not worthy to ignore the
processes of interaction. You can read however many our papers and see,
this is just our work – to account the trifles omitted by those who
are in hurry. And the matter is not, or is not so much, in these
trifles as in the unbiased modelling. One who tries in his modelling to
adhere to some formula of authors of modern physics, be they Einstein,
Fermi, Landau or someone else, at a definite step must cheat. This is
seen, and you have seen it in the work of Kouropoulos, and I saw. I
looked through further, too, but already laughed seeing how he passes
from modelling to manipulation with formulas, and immediately passes to
the generalised coordinates, then to Hamiltonian, separating the path
of his solution from the special points of his model, to untie the
hands for these manipulations. This is a beloved trick which apply all
heralds of theories of everything, beginning from the authorities of
Relativity and QM. I can say more: these conceptions are based on this
trick. So they lay special stress not on regularities, not on
scrupulous modelling but on postulating and solving the problems in
distracted spaces. While those who really wants to model never finish
with the radius of the universe starting with modelling of two
oscillators. :) Believe me, if you don’t apply such trick in your
models but thoroughly model and determine the limits of your model and
if you do not exceed these limits, mathematics will never let you down.
These heralds and dogmatic relativistic dilettantes will be angry with
you, but your models will work. And if the solutions of authorities
were correct, then, when meeting your solutions, they have to satisfy
your solutions, not vice versa. :) Don’t afraid the authorities. They
are same people with their mistakes which they often had to do, being
afraid to lose their authority. Just so it was with Einstein. When I
read his letters, I pitied him much: he understood the whole precipice
over which his conception hanged and inevitably had to break down. He
understood more than we even can imagine, but he was the hostage of the
stakes to which he dared when was young.
Sergey
Sue...
> Sue... писал(а):
>
> > Thank you for your opinion on that. Something about the way the
> > domains are sized and his references to frequency instead of
> > phase I found troubling as well. I lack the mathmatics to view it
> > as you did but we find fault in the same general area. I suspect
> > he has made a poor choice of oscillator for what he is trying to model
> > and as I like to say "beating it to fit and painting it to match".
> > Still it serves a reminder of mechanisms that can't be ignored
> > in more formal approaches.
>
> You are absolutely right, dear Sue, it is not worthy to ignore the
> processes of interaction. You can read however many our papers and see,
> this is just our work – to account the trifles omitted by those who
> are in hurry. And the matter is not, or is not so much, in these
> trifles as in the unbiased modelling. One who tries in his modelling to
> adhere to some formula of authors of modern physics, be they Einstein,
> Fermi, Landau or someone else, at a definite step must cheat. This is
> seen, and you have seen it in the work of Kouropoulos, and I saw. I
> looked through further, too, but already laughed seeing how he passes
> from modelling to manipulation with formulas, and immediately passes to
> the generalised coordinates, then to Hamiltonian, separating the path
> of his solution from the special points of his model, to untie the
> hands for these manipulations. This is a beloved trick which apply all
> heralds of theories of everything, beginning from the authorities of
Kouropoulos is quite up-front about a companion paper that explores
inertial propulsion and he does nothing to conceal the speculative
nature of the work so I would use the term 'sketchy' in preference
to 'tricky'. If you can apply the rigour youself, you are certainly
justified in taking some offense when others don't do the same.
Again... it is a toy model, more like brain-storming and
not a formal model so I don't pick apart something that is admitted
to be barely glued together.
> Relativity and QM. I can say more: these conceptions are based on this
> trick. So they lay special stress not on regularities, not on
> scrupulous modelling but on postulating and solving the problems in
> distracted spaces. While those who really wants to model never finish
> with the radius of the universe starting with modelling of two
> oscillators. :) Believe me, if you don’t apply such trick in your
> models but thoroughly model and determine the limits of your model and
> if you do not exceed these limits, mathematics will never let you down.
> These heralds and dogmatic relativistic dilettantes will be angry with
> you, but your models will work. And if the solutions of authorities
> were correct, then, when meeting your solutions, they have to satisfy
> your solutions, not vice versa. :) Don’t afraid the authorities. They
> are same people with their mistakes which they often had to do, being
> afraid to lose their authority. Just so it was with Einstein. When I
> read his letters, I pitied him much: he understood the whole precipice
> over which his conception hanged and inevitably had to break down. He
> understood more than we even can imagine, but he was the hostage of the
> stakes to which he dared when was young.
Indeed, I believe he would have quickly dropped the particle model
of light, if it were not linked to his Nobel prize. He was no stranger
to Maxwell's equations.
Perhaps they should award those things posthumously to
avoid putting productive scientists inside boxes they have
constructed only for the purpose of communicating a concept.
Sue...
>
> Sergey