Go To ( http://adf.ly/20PrE )-)-) sci.physics - 26 new messages in 14 topics - digest

0 views

Skip to first unread message

sci.physics group

unread,

Nov 25, 2011, 9:11:55 AM11/25/11

to sci.physics digest subscribers

sci.physics
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics?hl=en

sci.p...@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Curvature of Space. ????? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/3866c6cca3f82af3?hl=en
* OT: The law of de Wilde - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/1bf1c3811aeba01c?hl=en
* Compactification and Pythagorean n-tuples - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/049e1ca811f91fc1?hl=en
* 2 Time Dimension in the Quantum Realm? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/473cd6b972d6fe00?hl=en
* Velocity of light. by Mathew Orman - Public release record on November 23
2011. - 10 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/e4de881f40d65f05?hl=en
* What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'? - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/7e8aa7b10485bf35?hl=en
* Uncle Al - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/7c3406d54dc1ac57?hl=en
* BBC, More proof of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/a063b457bdfb0ce0?hl=en
* PETRIFIED PENIS T-SHIRTS HOTTEST ITEM ON BLACK FRIDAY - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ade391f518d2e42d?hl=en
* Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s 'Green' Company Scored $1.4 Billion Taxpayer Bailout -
1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/0a8ee2307638b47a?hl=en
* U.S. announces desert 'solar energy zones' - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/eee9f99c9a3b8d8b?hl=en
* More cuts at UNI-SOLAR in Greenville (Michigan) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/fd5e1b5b942e8813?hl=en
* Narendra Modi inaugurates Asia's biggest solar power plant in Kankrej,
Gujarat - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/b49bd6bc49ad528a?hl=en
* The true nature of motion - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/25317c6fd3cf50d8?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Curvature of Space. ?????
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/3866c6cca3f82af3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 4:04 am
From: HVAC

On 11/25/2011 2:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Creation implies a creator.
>>>
>>>> There are zero facts in evidence to support such a claim.
>>>
>>>> Also, such a postulated creator would have had to come
>>> >from somewhere
>>>
>>> You know this how?
>>>
>>> Are you presuming the logic we apply in this universe is applicable
>>> outside this universe?
>>>
>>> We have no way to test the validity of that presumption.
>>
>>
>> Nor do we have a way to test the assumption that there has to be a
>> creator.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that no one has explained why a "creator would
> have had to come from somewhere."

And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.

--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: The law of de Wilde
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/1bf1c3811aeba01c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 4:56 am
From: Hogwart <..@.>

<e561c051-a0a9-4060...@cc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,gaby de
wilde <gdew...@gmail.com>, wrote:
>On Nov 25, 4:44�am, Cindy <c.thurs...@frell.okb.uwa.edu> wrote:
>> On 24/11/2011 7:56 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
/zapt
>> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
>> with physics, de wilde?
>
>Thanks for the question,
>
>Not to offend you or anything, you ask:
>
>What would classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims have to do
>with physics?
>
>What an excellent question, I would sure like to learn the answer to
>that one. Until I have an acceptable answer I will assert this to be
>how it is suppose to work. You assume my logic to be sound and
>reasonable and we work from there.
/zapt
>
>P.S.
>
>Statements of fact in this posting are not up for debate but you may
>have a fringe attempt at finding an exception. Where "fringe" means
>"outside physics", where historically all the work gets done.
>meanwhile I reserve the right to unfairly and unscientifically
>prejudge everything you havent said acording to traditional physics
>methodology.

Mere mention of "fringe" will send "Cindy" into a cringe, totally
rising the confectionary of a sour disposition supported by a center
which is all Class A: Nut!

Your response is to Paul G Derbyshire of Pembroke, Ontario.
Well installed in the lunatic fringe of Usenet there is a mass
of history compiled by accredited k00k hunters over many years.
Google any of the names listed to find the madness.
The story begins here:
http://groups.google.com/group/carleton.chat.suggestions/browse_thread/thread/5f11363d59e5786b/d13334abf1bfcc79?q=Derbyshire+%22Carleton+University%22

".--- . ... ..- ..." <tharris...@h0tmail.invalid>
00101010 <zerozeroonezer...@h2g2.cazoola>
3k7e4intna <3k7e4...@se0tfbhc.k3y0a.p0z>
3x7r4vagan <3x7r4...@fr0gsoup.x3l0n.c0m>
3x+r4v4g4n <extr4...@fr0gs0up.x3l0n.c0m>
Alice <quax...@example.com>
Arne K�ndoj <akend...@foof.fcl3.org>
Boojum <booj...@gmai1.c0m>
B1ll Gat3s <wm.g...@m1cr0s0f7.c0m>
A Canuck <canu...@tweezit.yahoo.ca>
Canuck <canu...@canada.xyz>
Cindy <c.thu...@frell.okb.uwa.edu>
ClassCastException <zjkg3...@gmail.invalid>
Colonel Panic <carson.t...@h0tma1l.invalid>
Cthun <cthu...@qmail.net.au>
Chad Carmichael <c_carm10782.x@y.z>
dA.b0mB <dab...@gmai1.c0m>
dark-zark-fark <dzf1...@rutgers.edu>
Deep Green <d_gree...@gmail.com> (forgery)
Deeyana <d.aw...@hotmail.invalid>
De Lurker <delanc...@harvard.nospam.invalid>
Derek Yancey <dy190...@nospam.invalid>
Derek K. Wodenhouse <d...@none.of.your.biz>
dibs <di...@dobs.dabs>
Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com>
Eight of Seventeen <eigh...@gmail.com>
Ferdinand the -14th <f...@bar.invalid>
Fistulina Hepatica <f.h...@spore.dispersal.org>
Four of Seventeen <fseve...@gmail.com>
Fuschia, President-Elect of the Bright Purplish-Green Council
<fp-eo...@ibm.com>
George Arctos <g.arc...@hormair.cor>
Greg Kelly <gkell...@gmai1.c0m>
Greg Sandoval <g_san...@gcsma.edu.br>
Gheerax IV <ghee...@gmail.invalid>
Handkea fumosa <hfu...@gmail.com>
Hieronymus S. Freely <hsfr...@xavier.uwsc.edu>
Hydrocon <hcon...@geemail.corn>
Henry Harrison <hharr...@quux.bar.foo>
Henderson <h...@g1.f1>
Heike Svensson <hsvensson...@hotmail.nospam.com.please>
Harry Greer <h_greer...@gmail.xxx>
Janie Zanie <jjeze...@gmai1.invalid>
Jerry Gerrone <scuz...@gmail.com>
John Kirkpatrick XVII <jkx...@ask.me>
Just Plain Nasty <jpn...@nasty.com>
Katie Gerrolds <k.ger...@nbfinlan.net>
Kevin Hadron <kh_mu...@q.us>
kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
KitKat <kitkat...@gmail.example.com>
little kat <lil_k...@gmai1.c0m>
Meerkats <mk_ultr...@gmail.com> (forgery)
Mister Scott <m_scott...@noggles.corn>
Movable Hype <mhyp...@snortwad.net>
Mrs. Danforth <danfo...@hotmail.coo>
Mike Faramis <m_fara...@qmail.nospam.net>
Mamac <mmc.1...@gmai1.com>
Nancy 3 <n...@gmai1.c0m>
Nancy 4 <n...@gmai1.c0m> (forgery)
Nebulous <nebul...@gmail.com>
Nightcrawler <Dirty...@dirtcheap.net>
Nougat Surprise <nsur...@noway.nohow.invalid>
Novice <novice@example..com>
Orange Green <og_b...@netmail.zoog.com.au>
Purpleswandir <ps_12...@gmail.com>
Retahiv Oopsiscame <roop...@gmail.com>
Rhino <no.offline.c...@example.com>
RichB <rich_b...@nowhere.com>
Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.invalid>
Series Expansion <ser...@gmail.com>
scuz...@gmail.com
SFTV_troll <SFTV_...@yah.right>
SFTV_rantings <SFTV_r...@up.yours>
Slartibartfast <slartib...@gmail.com>
Some Guy <So...@Guy.com>
Sulfide Eater <zaxx...@example.com>
<supercalifragilisticexpialadiamati...@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com>
Spock <sp...@starfleet.ufp>
sproing <sproi...@1010.com.quux>
Snicker-snack! <ssna...@g00glema1l.c0m>
Ten Blade <ten....@tenblade.com>
Tim <tharris...@h0tmail.invalid>
Thursday's Leftovers <thursd...@hotmail.com>
thoolen <tho...@tholenbot.thorium>
thoolen <thol...@gmail.com>
thoolen <th0...@th0lenbot.thorium>
Unitary Matrix <umatr...@gmail.com>
Willy Wonka <w.wonk...@gmail.xyz>
Zapotec <z_...@wav.com>

Truth in Conclusions.
"At some point, can't we find a bit
of charity for a guy who looks to be in for some real hellish times up
ahead?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.kia-mennie/msg/c9946955fb73b48c?dmode=source

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:24 am
From: Only Nixon could go to China Blue

In article <4ecf9064$0$1662$c3e8da3$40cd...@news.astraweb.com>, Hogwart <..@.>
wrote:

> <e561c051-a0a9-4060...@cc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,gaby de
> wilde <gdew...@gmail.com>, wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 4:44 am, Cindy <c.thurs...@frell.okb.uwa.edu> wrote:
> >> On 24/11/2011 7:56 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:

> >> In article <aa3a6c21-ed67-4db2...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
gaby de wilde <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > Because that is the law.

What is the law
No spill blood
What is the law
No spill blood

> Your response is to Paul G Derbyshire of Pembroke, Ontario.
> Well installed in the lunatic fringe of Usenet there is a mass
> of history compiled by accredited k00k hunters over many years.
> Google any of the names listed to find the madness.

To the house of pain!
To the house of pain!

--
White folks think they're at the top, | Ha, ha, that is very logical.
ask any proud white male. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
A million years of evolution, | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
and we get Danny Quayle. | At least I can stay in character.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:31 am
From: "Androcles"

Hey gaby!
Leave out that holly fucking universe crap, it ain't xmas yet.

"gaby de wilde" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e561c051-a0a9-4060...@cc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 25, 4:44 am, Cindy <c.thurs...@frell.okb.uwa.edu> wrote:
> On 24/11/2011 7:56 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 9:19 pm, Cindy<c.thurs...@frell.okb.uwa.edu> wrote:
> >>> And finally all discussions will be about Gaby de Wilde,
>
> >>> Because that is the law.
>
> >> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> >> with physics, de wilde?
>
> > Yes very good, this is where the discussion ends.
>
> What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
> with physics, de wilde?

Thanks for the question,

Not to offend you or anything, you ask:

What would classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims have to do
with physics?

What an excellent question, I would sure like to learn the answer to
that one. Until I have an acceptable answer I will assert this to be
how it is suppose to work. You assume my logic to be sound and
reasonable and we work from there.

It is impossible to transmute elements with ease in experiments
performed without the presence of extremely high temperatures
(millions of degrees K) or large acceleration voltages. For now
natural radioactivity and natural or artificial fission are the ONLY
exceptions. And we identified them as such right away back in the
days. (ehm)

It is impossible to obtain significant unexplained excess energy in
experiments with an input energy: All energetic balances in all
experiments must be explained by conventionally understood chemical
reactions, conventionally understood nuclear fission, natural
radioactivity, or conventionally understood nuclear fusion. If there
is any other reported significant excess energy in an experiment that
would suggest a new, unknown source of energy, these alleged
experiments and claimed processes are prima facie to be regarded as
mistakes, or worse. Such problematic editor may be banned from the
proverbial Wikipedia without warning.

There is no such thing as the unknown, at least not inside physics.

The validity of Special Relativity cannot be questioned legitimately.
It is such a well-checked theory that it has achieved the status of
Fact, not Theory. Space and time cannot exist separately. They are
entwined forever as “space-time.”

HALLELUJAH!

The validity of the fundamental structure of Quantum Mechanics cannot
be questioned legitimately. QM is open to many interpretations— The
Copenhagen interpretation, the Multi-Worlds hypothesis, etc., but QM’s
fundamental structure, as already revealed, is not open to revision at
its foundations.

You see? 1) unsubstantiated 2) erroneous AND 3) may not be questioned!

The so-called vacuum— a region of space-time, a plenum, that is devoid
of atoms and molecules and is seemingly “empty”— may be pervaded by
“Dark Matter,” “Dark Energy,” “electromagnetic radiation” and “quantum
fluctuations,” i.e. "zero"-point energy ("Z"PE). However, no table-top
experiment that has ever been performed can tap this vacuum and obtain
technologically useful energies.

Dark Matter comprises 30% of the substance of the universe and Dark
Energy comprises 65% of the universe!

Holly fucking universe!

The nature of these two cosmic constituents is entirely unknown— of
course, theories multiply about what they are— the Establishment has
the chutzpah to claim that a “Theory of Everything” is not far away
and that that theory will most likely be found in terra-electron volt
particle accelerators costing billions of dollars— and most certainly
never in cold fusion/LENR experiments.

The grand unification of science and pop culture — any moment now!

Gravitation is to be understood by General Relativity or its
derivatives— i.e. by the curvature of 4-dimensional space-time. No
other fundamental mode of understanding gravity can be allowed, and
certainly no theory of gravity that would allow anti-gravity to be
demonstrated easily in table-top experiments. Any such demonstration
would make the theory even less credible. This is most ironic because
Establishment physicists freely admit that two major foundation
paradigms to which they subscribe— Quantum Mechanics and General
Relativity— have not yet been shown to be compatible and have not been
unified in an acceptable manner to them. Any such attempt would be
blasphemy in it self.

unsubstantiated AND erroneous!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics can never be violated in macroscopic
systems. One cannot make a “Perpetual Motion Machine of the Second
Kind” that would convert ambient thermal energy to useful work, with
no heat rejection into a lower temperature reservoir.

All this wonderful hocus pocus physics, entirely free from science.

It gets even better in the small print!

Other exceptions may later be added to shift the goal post and make
sure the assertion is always correct.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims may have exceptions but
never refutations.

The law dictates after Einstein any discussion will mature into the
Jesus topic. And lo~and~behold! Look how smooth the transition was.

I thank you for your time.

P.S.

Statements of fact in this posting are not up for debate but you may
have a fringe attempt at finding an exception. Where "fringe" means
"outside physics", where historically all the work gets done.
meanwhile I reserve the right to unfairly and unscientifically
prejudge everything you havent said acording to traditional physics
methodology.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Compactification and Pythagorean n-tuples
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/049e1ca811f91fc1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 4:58 am
From: richard

Compactification (shrinkage of higher dimensions) in Unity Root Matrix
Theory (URM3) gives another method to extend any particular
Pythagorean triple to an infinite set of Pythagorean n-tuples, i.e. it
can use any Pythag triple as the root of a infinite tree of Pythag n-
tuples, choose your n.

In the 3x3 formulation of Unity Root Matrix Theory (URM3), the
'position' eigenvector Xm (~ Xminus ~ X-) is a Pythagorean triple, as
is also the acceleration eigenvector Xp (~ Xplus ~ X+)

Eigenvector equations, for nxn matrix A, eigenvalue C (big C), i.e.

A * Xm = -C * Xm

A * Xp = +C * Xp

(corrected from sci.math original post 1 hour ago)

There is a third 'zero' eigenvector X0, eigenvalue zero, i.e.

A * X0 = 0

This satisfies a hyperbolic, energy conservation equation, conserved
quantity C^2.

To retain the Minkowski-like feature of the 3x3 vectors Xp and Xm,
when extending to an arbitrary number of dimensions 'n', these two
vectors become n-dimensional, but are now Pythagorean n-tuples
instead.

In the case of Xp, this is trivially an n-element vector, all zero
except for the last three elements, which are trivially the 3x3
Pythagorean triple Xp (renamed Xp3), i.e.

Xp = (0, 0, 0, ... Xp3)

But in the case of Xm this now comprises n elements, all generally non-
zero.

The first n-3 elements of Xm, i.e. all higher dimensions n>3, are
simply a multiple of an evolution Tj (jth dimension), j=4..n
multiplied by the eigenvalue C. The last three elements are the
evolved form of the 3D vector Xm (now renamed Xm3)

A four dimensional example is

Xm = ( C*T4, -(T4)^2 * (Xp3) + (Xm3) )

where T4 = evolutionary time fourth dimension

A five dimensional example

Xm = ( C*T5, C*T4, -[(T5)^2 + (T4)^2]Xp3 + Xm3 )

where T5 = evolutionary time fifth dimension

For n, non-zero element n-tuples Xm, set all evolutionary times Tj,
j=3..n to non-zero.

For more details (links below):

3x3 Pythagorean triples Xp (Xp3), Xm (Xm3) See Appendix A (pages
51-54) for analytic and numeric examples

For the four dimensional eigenvectors see Section 8, Page 20.

For the five dimensional eigenvectors see Section 11, Page 31.

For the n-dimensional eigenvectors see Section 13, Pages 36,37.

Appendix D for 5D example

'Compactification of an n-dimensional eigenvector space over long
evolutionary timescales'

Free PDF paper

http://www.urmt.org/urmt_dimensional_compactification.pdf

or try

http://www.microscitech.com/urmt_dimensional_compactification.pdf

http://www.urmt.org

For an overview of URMT, see

http://www.urmt.org/presentation_URMT_shortform.pdf

Have a good weekend

Richard Miller
see web site for email
http://www.urmt.org

"If Pythagoras was alive today, he'd turn in his grave."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2 Time Dimension in the Quantum Realm?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/473cd6b972d6fe00?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:14 am
From: Glyd

According to Nobel Prizer Steve Weinberg (from Morgan Freeman Through
the Wormhole TV series), there may a second dimension of time in the
quantum realm. Instead of a particle being “spread out” occupying no
address in space until the wave function is collapsed, it rather does
have an address but not necessarily in our time. Is this possible? Can
you refute it?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 6:10 am
From: "G=EMC^2"

On Nov 25, 8:14 am, Glyd <glyd_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to Nobel Prizer Steve Weinberg (from Morgan Freeman Through
> the Wormhole TV series), there may a second dimension of time in the
> quantum realm. Instead of a particle being “spread out” occupying no
> address in space until the wave function is collapsed, it rather does
> have an address but not necessarily in our time. Is this possible? Can
> you refute it?

Weinberg was telling that Planck time in the quantum realm is its
time. Best clock in quantum Planck space is a "photon clock" Reason
for that is a pendulum has no room to swing. Ooops here is a thought
on photon clocks. "they give virtual time" Nobel thought O ya
Planck time is almost instantaneos for its only 10^-43 of a second.
That measurement is how long it takes a photon to cross a Planck
length. Small is so hard for imperial thinkers to grasp. Not I
TreBert

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Velocity of light. by Mathew Orman - Public release record on November
23 2011.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/e4de881f40d65f05?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:17 am
From: John Fields

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:

>
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:ii0rc71c0t2bq7bfr...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:41:09 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Read and learn:
>>>Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
>>>mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>>>Thus relative to source light propagates in constant speed regardless of
>>>its
>>>wavelength.
>>>To produce light which propagates with different speed one must design
>>>charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
>>>The same applies to EM waves.
>>>
>>>Mathew Orman
>>>
>>>Public release record on November 23 2011.
>>
>> There are lots of ways to make photons that don't involve electrons.
>> But the photons all travel at the same speed. This turns out the be
>> the same speed that particles approach if you accelerate them really
>> hard. And (very probably) the same speed as neutrinos. Same speed as
>> gravity.
>>
>> You really don't like c, do you? You keep struggling against it.
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
>Why?
>C is just a speed number not a limit.
>Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.

---
First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."

Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.

Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
see it for your self on my website."

Seems like you're working in a medium with a delay caused by a very
high index of refraction.

--
JF

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:34 am
From: John Fields

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:06:33 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:

>
>
>"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jalmnm$bos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 24/11/2011 14:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:31:37 +0000, Martin Brown
>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/11/2011 00:59, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>>>> C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
>>>>> effect that nothing can go faster.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Be very careful how you phrase that John. It isn't that *nothing* can go
>>>> faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
>>>> physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
>>>> than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
>>>> physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal at
>>>> very slightly ftl with high energy neutrinos if you can ever find a way
>>>> to make enough of them and detect them reliably.
>>>
>>> That remains in doubt.
>>
>> Oh I agree. But wouldn't it be fun if it were true!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In extremely dispersive media at exactly the right frequency you can get
>>>> situations where a naive measurement of "velocity" appears to show ftl
>>>> behaviour. All the reports of apparent FTL signal propagation fall into
>>>> this big pothole. And it is virtually certain that the OP has fallen
>>>> into this trap too. Actually very hard to tell since his rants here are
>>>> basically incoherent gibberish.
>>>
>>> Things like ftl phase velocities are essentially optical illusions.
>>
>> They are real and when you are doing ultra precision measurements have to
>> be corrected for. The speed of light with error bars as a function of time
>> is a salutary lesson in how an error made by a respected expert can remain
>> undetected for quite a while. If memory serves it was a microwave based
>> standing wave method in a vacuum waveguide and one tiny correction for
>> imperfect vacuum was applied in the wrong sense. It didn't show up until a
>> new improved technique gave even more precise answers that were in very
>> close agreement with a previous technique. Subsequent analysis showed in
>> the interim all the other experimenters had replicated the original
>> experimenters error in their analysis.
>>
>> (Actually I would love to find the original textbook this graph was in - I
>> think an undergraduate relativity? text of about the 1970's)
>>
>> The world is getting even more complicated with crazy metamaterials that
>> work in the optical now looking like a realistic possibility.
>>
>>> Simple electrical measurement errors are, too.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Confusion between phase, group and signal velocities account for all the
>> faster than light claims ever made. That or stupidity.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
>Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>
>http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>
>In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always zero
>regardless of the distance between source and sensor.

---
You haven't shown any of that, all you've done is shown an image of a
pulse with a delay of 1.21ns from the _image's_ 10% to 90% amplitude
points so, clearly, your confusion is profound to the point where it
would be difficult to lift the veil.

--
JF

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:41 am
From: "admformeto"

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZTKzq.30022$Mg.2...@newsfe13.iad...
> On 24/11/2011 16:49, admformeto wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:jalsa3$t0s$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 24/11/2011 16:06, admformeto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:jalmnm$bos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>> On 24/11/2011 14:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple electrical measurement errors are, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Confusion between phase, group and signal velocities account for all
>>>>> the faster than light claims ever made. That or stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Martin Brown
>>>>
>>>> Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>>>>
>>>> In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always
>>>> zero regardless of the distance between source and sensor.
>>>>
>>>> Mathew Orman
>>>>
>>>
>>> My money is on ignorance and stupidity in equal measure in this
>>> particular instance.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin Brown
>>
>> Yes, you have no clue.
>>
>> Mathew Orman
>
> I will let history be the judge of that.
>
> If your screenshot shows anything at all it is that you do not have the
> first clue about how you would go about measuring the speed of light.
>
> At best it might show that your scope has a decent trigger circuit and
> that is only if the trace is genuine. How are you going to power your
> spectacular launch of this "product" in Dresden? Using an E-Cat?
>
> Self publicising URL clipped.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown

You will see stereoscopic 3D video recording of the experiment shortly.
Published or various download sites including Youtube.
Those who will attend the show in Dresden will be able to use their own test
equipment and do the experiment by themselves. After Dresden my website will
present all the physics and math modeling as well as the name of famous
scientist who 140 ago produced experimental and mathematical evidence of
instantaneous transfer of energy or information.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:42 am
From: John Fields

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:48:37 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:

>
>
>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:K4ydncbspJWZFlPT...@mchsi.com...
>> On 11/24/11 11:51 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>>
>>> "Quantum entanglement " pure sci.fi.
>>>
>>> Mathew Orman
>>
>> ______________
>>
>>
>> Entanglement between macroscopic objects generated by dissipation
>>
>> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html
>>
>> "When generating entanglement between two objects, physicists typically
>> try to minimize the objects’ interactions with the environment, since this
>> interaction causes decoherence. But contrary to this thinking, scientists
>> in a new study have experimentally demonstrated that dissipation caused by
>> interaction with the environment can continuously generate entanglement
>> between two macroscopic objects (two ensembles of cesium atoms containing
>> about 1 trillion atoms all together). By combining the dissipative
>> mechanism with continuous measurements, the researchers could achieve
>> steady state entanglement between the two atomic ensembles for up to an
>> hour.
>>
>> “We have generated entanglement which is ready-to-use at any unspecified
>> instant in time,” Polzik told PhysOrg.com. “This should be a useful
>> feature for applications where complex entangled networks are required.
>> But perhaps even more important is that we have made the first step in
>> showing how entanglement can be generated by dissipation. With this
>> demonstration, other proposals which use dissipation for quantum computing
>> and communication will hopefully attract the attention of
>> experimentalists.”
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html
>>
>> ______________
>>
>>
>> Entangled En Masse: Physicists Crank Out Billions of Entangled
>> Nucleus-Electron Pairs on Demand Setting ensembles of solid-state
>> particles into entangled pairs holds promise for quantum computation
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entanglement&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20110121
>>
>> "Entanglement, that most counterintuitive quantum phenomenon by which
>> particles share an unseen link that aligns their properties, is looking
>> more mundane all the time. Just last week two groups of researchers
>> reported entangling a photon with a crystal-based device, potentially
>> paving the way for solid-state memories that can store and then release
>> entangled particles as needed.
>>
>> "Another week, another advance. In a paper published online January 19 in
>> Nature a team of physicists announced that they have developed the
>> capability to churn out pairs of entangled particles, billions at a time.
>> (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The advance
>> might someday allow for the streamlined development of quantum processors
>> with a large number of quantum bits working in parallel".
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entanglement&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20110121
>
>Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align itself
>to common force field vector.
>
>This is like saying that two men stand right up because of gravity entangles
>them.

---
Nonsense.

It's more like saying that two entangled men on opposite sides of the
Earth can talk to each other at speeds faster than it takes light to
propagate the distance between them.

--
JF

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:45 am
From: "admformeto"

"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vl5vc7ps66dpiglqp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:06:33 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:jalmnm$bos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 24/11/2011 14:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:31:37 +0000, Martin Brown
>>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/11/2011 00:59, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
>>>>>> effect that nothing can go faster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Be very careful how you phrase that John. It isn't that *nothing* can
>>>>> go
>>>>> faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
>>>>> physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
>>>>> than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
>>>>> physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal
>>>>> at
>>>>> very slightly ftl with high energy neutrinos if you can ever find a
>>>>> way
>>>>> to make enough of them and detect them reliably.
>>>>
>>>> That remains in doubt.
>>>
>>> Oh I agree. But wouldn't it be fun if it were true!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In extremely dispersive media at exactly the right frequency you can
>>>>> get
>>>>> situations where a naive measurement of "velocity" appears to show ftl
>>>>> behaviour. All the reports of apparent FTL signal propagation fall
>>>>> into
>>>>> this big pothole. And it is virtually certain that the OP has fallen
>>>>> into this trap too. Actually very hard to tell since his rants here
>>>>> are
>>>>> basically incoherent gibberish.
>>>>
>>>> Things like ftl phase velocities are essentially optical illusions.
>>>
>>> They are real and when you are doing ultra precision measurements have
>>> to
>>> be corrected for. The speed of light with error bars as a function of
>>> time
>>> is a salutary lesson in how an error made by a respected expert can
>>> remain
>>> undetected for quite a while. If memory serves it was a microwave based
>>> standing wave method in a vacuum waveguide and one tiny correction for
>>> imperfect vacuum was applied in the wrong sense. It didn't show up until
>>> a
>>> new improved technique gave even more precise answers that were in very
>>> close agreement with a previous technique. Subsequent analysis showed in
>>> the interim all the other experimenters had replicated the original
>>> experimenters error in their analysis.
>>>
>>> (Actually I would love to find the original textbook this graph was in -
>>> I
>>> think an undergraduate relativity? text of about the 1970's)
>>>
>>> The world is getting even more complicated with crazy metamaterials that
>>> work in the optical now looking like a realistic possibility.
>>>
>>>> Simple electrical measurement errors are, too.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>> Confusion between phase, group and signal velocities account for all the
>>> faster than light claims ever made. That or stupidity.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin Brown
>>
>>Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>>
>>http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>>
>>In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always
>>zero
>>regardless of the distance between source and sensor.
>
> ---
> You haven't shown any of that, all you've done is shown an image of a
> pulse with a delay of 1.21ns from the _image's_ 10% to 90% amplitude
> points so, clearly, your confusion is profound to the point where it
> would be difficult to lift the veil.
>
> --
> JF

Yes, because the reply was to group of people who claim that apparent effect
is based on group velocity. And that is why I published just the pulse and
ask them to explain group velocity based on single shot of such pulse.
You will see the stereoscopic 3d video of the full experiment shortly.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:47 am
From: "admformeto"

"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:eq4vc79kjsesp69ev...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:ii0rc71c0t2bq7bfr...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:41:09 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Read and learn:
>>>>Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
>>>>mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>>>>Thus relative to source light propagates in constant speed regardless of
>>>>its
>>>>wavelength.
>>>>To produce light which propagates with different speed one must design
>>>>charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
>>>>The same applies to EM waves.
>>>>
>>>>Mathew Orman
>>>>
>>>>Public release record on November 23 2011.
>>>
>>> There are lots of ways to make photons that don't involve electrons.
>>> But the photons all travel at the same speed. This turns out the be
>>> the same speed that particles approach if you accelerate them really
>>> hard. And (very probably) the same speed as neutrinos. Same speed as
>>> gravity.
>>>
>>> You really don't like c, do you? You keep struggling against it.
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why?
>>C is just a speed number not a limit.
>>Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.
>
> ---
> First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."
>
> Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.
>
> Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
> see it for your self on my website."
>
> Seems like you're working in a medium with a delay caused by a very
> high index of refraction.
>
> --
> JF

I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:47 am
From: John Fields

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:25:49 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:

>
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:cg8tc7l6klqke8etv...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:06:33 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>> wrote:

>>>Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>>>
>>>http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>>>
>>
>> Clear your confusion? Now that's a challenge.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>Yes, since you cannot claim group velocity on a single 1 ns pulse which is
>propagating with no delay over 2 meter distance in space filled by air and
>nothing else.

---
Your picture shows nothing of the sort, and if you think it does
perhaps that's the source of your confusion.

--
JF

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:54 am
From: John Fields

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:19:19 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:

>
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:e6mtc7thsf58v4u72...@4ax.com...

>> ---
>> You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot, since entangled
>> particles are purported to be able to exchange information
>> instantaneously, once entangled, regardless of the distance between
>> them.
>>
>> Your claim is rather specious in that you don't explain how subluminal
>> or superluminal performance can be elicited from a photon in a vacuum.
>>
>>
>> --
>> JF
>
>I do not claim any of such.
>If a photon is created by conventional source it will propagate with
>relative speed of c.
>To create photon which propagates with other speed one must create
>appropriate charge oscillator structure.

---
You keep saying that, but you never elaborate.

Precisely what is this "appropriate charge oscillator structure"?

--
JF

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 6:00 am
From: "admformeto"

"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:2r6vc711tjb6mqv2g...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:25:49 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:cg8tc7l6klqke8etv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:06:33 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>> Clear your confusion? Now that's a challenge.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>>Yes, since you cannot claim group velocity on a single 1 ns pulse which is
>>propagating with no delay over 2 meter distance in space filled by air and
>>nothing else.
>
> ---
> Your picture shows nothing of the sort, and if you think it does
> perhaps that's the source of your confusion.
>
> --
> JF

Both experiment and spice simulation show zero delay over the arbitrary
distance.
But wait, when you see the experiment maybe then you will point to the
source of my confusion.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 6:07 am
From: "admformeto"

"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qk6vc7thak6dd3do8...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:48:37 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:K4ydncbspJWZFlPT...@mchsi.com...
>>> On 11/24/11 11:51 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Quantum entanglement " pure sci.fi.
>>>>
>>>> Mathew Orman
>>>
>>> ______________
>>>
>>>
>>> Entanglement between macroscopic objects generated by dissipation
>>>
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html
>>>
>>> "When generating entanglement between two objects, physicists typically
>>> try to minimize the objects' interactions with the environment, since
>>> this
>>> interaction causes decoherence. But contrary to this thinking,
>>> scientists
>>> in a new study have experimentally demonstrated that dissipation caused
>>> by
>>> interaction with the environment can continuously generate entanglement
>>> between two macroscopic objects (two ensembles of cesium atoms
>>> containing
>>> about 1 trillion atoms all together). By combining the dissipative
>>> mechanism with continuous measurements, the researchers could achieve
>>> steady state entanglement between the two atomic ensembles for up to an
>>> hour.
>>>
>>> "We have generated entanglement which is ready-to-use at any unspecified
>>> instant in time," Polzik told PhysOrg.com. "This should be a useful
>>> feature for applications where complex entangled networks are required.
>>> But perhaps even more important is that we have made the first step in
>>> showing how entanglement can be generated by dissipation. With this
>>> demonstration, other proposals which use dissipation for quantum
>>> computing
>>> and communication will hopefully attract the attention of
>>> experimentalists."
>>>
>>> See:
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html
>>>
>>> ______________
>>>
>>>
>>> Entangled En Masse: Physicists Crank Out Billions of Entangled
>>> Nucleus-Electron Pairs on Demand Setting ensembles of solid-state
>>> particles into entangled pairs holds promise for quantum computation
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entanglement&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20110121
>>>
>>> "Entanglement, that most counterintuitive quantum phenomenon by which
>>> particles share an unseen link that aligns their properties, is looking
>>> more mundane all the time. Just last week two groups of researchers
>>> reported entangling a photon with a crystal-based device, potentially
>>> paving the way for solid-state memories that can store and then release
>>> entangled particles as needed.
>>>
>>> "Another week, another advance. In a paper published online January 19
>>> in
>>> Nature a team of physicists announced that they have developed the
>>> capability to churn out pairs of entangled particles, billions at a
>>> time.
>>> (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The advance
>>> might someday allow for the streamlined development of quantum
>>> processors
>>> with a large number of quantum bits working in parallel".
>>>
>>> See:
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entanglement&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20110121
>>
>>Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align itself
>>to common force field vector.
>>
>>This is like saying that two men stand right up because of gravity
>>entangles
>>them.
>
> ---
> Nonsense.
>
> It's more like saying that two entangled men on opposite sides of the
> Earth can talk to each other at speeds faster than it takes light to
> propagate the distance between them.
>
> --
> JF

Which is not impossible if one man turns on an electromagnet strong enough
to affect the Earth's magnetic field thus allowing the second man on the
other side to detect changes in magnetic field gradient and interpreting it
as information.
Such signal transfer will be instantaneous and the common Earth magnetic
force field will be the entangling element, so to speak to satisfy your
theory.

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/7e8aa7b10485bf35?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:25 am
From: "Androcles"

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:vhuuc718v8jm6plsj...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:15:30 -0000, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
| >news:ruftc75nq9vd3uoij...@4ax.com...
| >| On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:28:44 -0000, "Androcles"
| >| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
|
|
| >| >Make sure the difference plot has the same phase as the red plot.
| >|
| >| OK. You have discovered something. I expect half share of your
| >fame....(and
| >| three boxes of red).
| >|
| >| http://www.scisite.info/AtheA2.jpg
| >|
| >| The yellow curve is the difference.
| >|
| >| The interesting aspect is that the frequency of the difference is
double
| >| that of the others UNLESS both curves are pure sinewaves...in other
words
| >| when L is infinite.
| >|
| >| If you can translate this into some kind of stellar model, it could
| >explain
| >| the existence of what appear to be 1st harmonics in many brightness
| >curves.
| >
| >
| >Oh dear... can you not see that where two red dots are furthest apart
| >is the greatest difference, and where they are closest is the least
| >difference?
| >The height of the yellow curve should be at a maximum where the slope
| >of the red curve is greatest. That is, the yellow curve should be phase
| >shifted 90 degrees from the red curve.
|
| You can't argue with reality.
|
| Maybe the curves I producesd are not what you wanted.
|
| What the fuck are you talking about?
|
1) R/L = 1, we are finished with the family, ok? Just one curve.
There are no square roots or X coordinates in this, L & R are the
hypotenuse of two different triangles, one on top of the other.
|\
| \ L
| \
/|
/ | R
/ |

2) Height of crank = R.sin(t), so it's range is from -R to +R.
3) Height of piston = Height of crank +L.sin(t) for t=0 to pi,
so it's 0 to 2 to 0.
4) Height of piston = Height of crank -L.sin(t) for t=pi to 2pi,
so it's 0 to 0 to 0.
That's the red curve done, although you have to scale it to fit the
screen for display.

For the green curve:
5) GreenCurve[n]= RedCurve[n] - RedCurve[n-1]
That's the green curve done, although you have to scale (differently) it to
fit the screen for display.

Even if it looks strange at first, let the computer do its job.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Uncle Al
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/7c3406d54dc1ac57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:36 am
From: "Androcles"

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:76Jzq.11170$ov2....@newsfe10.iad...
| On 11/24/2011 9:03 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
| > On 11/24/11 7:27 AM, Glyd wrote:
| >> Retired nuclear physicist (which he is) is very in demand in Iran and
| >> the middle east with twice or three times the pay of that in the
| >> United States. Reading the archive a few weeks ago. I thought I read
| >> he was hinting of the above work. His messages here are some of the
| >> most advanced of all (google it).
| >
| > Ref: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/uncle-al-schwartz/b/28/317
| >
| > Fine and exotic synthesis, CAD molecules; insect ecdysteroid mimesis;
| > human implantable prostheses, radiation grafting, hydrogels, and medical
| > polymers; novel routes to growing large diamond crystals. Equivalence
| > Principle parity violations reduced to practice. Growng exotics like
| > Aristolochia gigantea brasiliensis, night blooming Cereus and jessamine,
| > South African pencil tree, Datura metel, Amaranthus cruentus, etc.
|
| Go get 'em Sam!
| Notice how Glyd comes through with one more example of "if it's on the
| internet it has to be true!" But then I'm not surprised that you and
| the NSA have the true scoop on old uncle Al. Got to give him credit even
| in his absence for his spelling of stoopid though. I love to use it,
| even on you!
|
| But in this case it's "Glyd" who is stoopid!
|
I believe three o's are required, stooopid.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BBC, More proof of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/a063b457bdfb0ce0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:49 am
From: Marvin the Martian

Yeah.

This has been shown at other institutions.

This IEEE article is 6 years old, for example.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/bubble-power

This is not technically cold fusion; it is a new way to produce hot
fusion. It is a LENR, however.

Cold fusion takes place in a solid metal hydride.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:28:09 +0000, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:

> aka Cold Fusion:
>
> Students and enthusiasts attending a recording for BBC Radio 4 have
> probably seen a new state of matter only recently discovered, an expert
> says.
>
> The state of matter is a plasma (ionised gas) like those in nuclear
> fusion tests, but at higher densities.
>
> And far from needing hundred-million-pound apparatus, the conditions can
> be achieved in a simple glass tube containing a routine liquid.
>
> The professor behind the demonstration says it can be achieved for a
> mere £10.
>
> The audience were attending a demonstration lecture by chemist Professor
> Andrea Sella being recorded at University College London for Spooklights
> on Radio 4.
>
> During the lecture, Professor Sella demonstrated a phenomenon called
> sonoluminescence - flashes of light created by collapsing bubbles in a
> fluid. The flashes are extraordinarily faint, but in the darkened
> auditorium, those attending could see the evanescent sparks quite
> clearly.
>
> As the name suggests, sonoluminescence is traditionally created by
> intense sound waves - rapid pressure oscillations - focused into a
> liquid. In the low-pressure regions of the sound waves, fluid is ripped
> apart to create tiny bubbles, the source of the light.
>
> Professor Sella's demonstration is far simpler, involving a simple
> sealed glass tube part filled with phosphoric acid and traces of the
> inert gas xenon. Then all that's needed is a gentle shaking of the tube.
> As the acid hits the tube's bottom, there's a distinct metallic clink,
> as if a heavy ball bearing is striking the glass wall.
>
> Hotter than the Sun
> In fact, it's just a water-hammer effect, an impact that shatters the
> liquid column, creating a trail of bubbles that are clearly visible in
> daylight.
>
> With the lights off, what's seen is a trail of blue sparks - the
> sonoluminescence.
>
> "When the bubbles collapse," Professor Sella explains, "they generate
> incredibly high temperatures - 10 thousand degrees. That's twice the
> temperature of the surface of the Sun."
>
> Seeking more information on what goes on inside that bubble, Professor
> Sella contacted a world authority on the effect, physicist Seth
> Putterman of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). And he
> learned far more than he bargained for.
>
> Professor Putterman has also long been trying to understand the precise
> source of the light. Judging from its intensity and characteristics, the
> light demands a source containing billions upon billions of free
> electrons.
>
> But although ten thousand degrees sounds extreme by human experience,
> it's nowhere near enough to strip the electrons from the molecules and
> atoms in the sonoluminescence.
>
> Dense plasma
> What Professor Putterman realised earlier this year is that under these
> peculiar circumstances a kind of electrical cascade can take place. If a
> few electrons escape the embrace of their home atoms, their field makes
> it easier for further electrons to escape, and so on until the entire
> bubble interior has become ionised.
>
> "Not only is it creating a plasma," Professor Putterman explains, "we
> believe it's an new state of matter because it's an extremely dense
> plasma - the density is hundreds to ten thousand times the density they
> achieve inside nuclear fusion experiments."
>
> According to Professor Putterman's experiments, the plasma goes through
> a phase transition - analogous the melting of ice to water. Which is why
> he feels justified in describing the plasma as an entirely new state.
>
> He also confirmed that the conditions in Andrea Sella's "plink tube"
> demonstration are precisely those needed to create this new state.
>
> Not that that means nuclear fusion is occurring inside the tubes. Claims
> of nuclear fusion inside fluid bubbles have been extremely
> controversial.
>
> Professor Putterman is emphatic: "We have not yet succeeded - no-one has
> yet succeeded - in generating nuclear fusion inside these bubbles.
> However, we're looking around for that trick that could boost our
> parameters by a factor of 10, to get it to the region of fusion."
>
> Professor Sella, meanwhile, is delighted that his simple demonstration
> should reveal to onlookers a state of matter that has only just been
> discovered.
>
> "I can't wait to tell my nuclear physicist friends, that for a cost of
> around £10, I'm up in the region that they do for the cost of hundreds
> of millions of pounds. It's very exciting."
>
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15876145

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PETRIFIED PENIS T-SHIRTS HOTTEST ITEM ON BLACK FRIDAY
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ade391f518d2e42d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:55 am
From: ignorant bastard

<
===========================
< BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
===========================
<
HAPPY VALLEY, Pa. (Rueters) --
The economic slowdown in this Central
Pennsylvania community has gotten
a shot in the arm with the incredible
sale of Penn State Petrified Penis T-shirts.
Walmart and other major department
stores were bombarded with Black Friday
shoppers at 5 a.m. eager to acquire a few
of them, one for every member of the family.
<
http://myblack-friday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/black_friday_2011_sales_crowds_2.jpg
<
"It's the hottest item they've had since
Playstation 2 or the Hula Hoop," said a
really older woman, wearing earmuffs.
She said her mother used to work
at the store in the mid-1950s and sort
of remembers the mob that jammed
the store to get those yo-yos that
used to light up.
The petrified penis is the rage of
Happy Valley because it apparently
is a relic of our GGGGGGGGG-Great
Grandpa and proves that man existed
on earth in almost our present form
long before evolution was a twinkle
in the eye of Charlie Darwin's daddy.
Ed Conrad, who discovered the
petrified penis in his coal bin, greeted
shoppers and revealed that T-shirts
will go on sale on eBay later today.
They can be found by calling up
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=T-shirts&_sacat=See-All-Categories
<
========================

< EARLIER STORY
<
=========================
< BREAKING NEWS
=========================
<
STATE COLLEGE, Pa (Rueters)
-- An estimated 110,000 turned out
at Beaver Stadium today for the
inaugural display of Ed Conrad's
petrified penis.
<
"Actually, it was even more than we
get for a sellout Penn State football
game," said a longtime beer vendor.
<
http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/pennstate.jpg
<
Beaver Stadium can comfortably
seat 106,572 rear ends which makes
it the second largest stadium in the
Western Hemisphere and fourth
largest in the world.
<
The penis, discovered between
coal veins, was the hit of the day
and many waiting in the long lines
paid $25 just to touch it.
<
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/PetrifiedPP.jpg
<
Evolutionists and corrupt physical
anthropologists admit that it -- and
many other petrified human remains
found in the same Carboniferous
strata -- prove that our ancestors
inhabited the earth eons before
Charles Darwin's absurd theory
put us here.
<
Visitors came from many miles
away to see the exhibit, some from
as far away as Jersey Shore which
I'm told is a two-hour drive directly
south of Atlantic City.
<
The petrified penis will be on
display Friday and Saturday before
being packed and shipped in a
Brink's armored truck to Washington,
D.C., where it will be on display at
The Smithsonian.
<
< AN EVEN EARLIER STORY
<
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.science/browse_thread/thread/c51b7e47a3f38c49/cfb5d6b759764946?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=alt.astronomy+petrified+penis+ed+conrad#cfb5d6b759764946

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s 'Green' Company Scored $1.4 Billion Taxpayer
Bailout
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/0a8ee2307638b47a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:58 am
From: Marvin the Martian

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:42:58 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

> Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s 'Green' Company Scored $1.4 Billion Taxpayer
> Bailout
>
> http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/11/16/robert-kennedy-jr-s-green-
company-scored-1-4-billion-taxpayer-bailout/
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti

As I have said before, that's how "green" works.

"Renewable" energy ideas that work, like hydro, are implemented
regardless of taxpayer support. Presuming, of course, that the government
isn't being bribed to throw a monkey wrench into their development.

Renewable energy ideas that are frauds DEPEND on taxpayer support. If
they really worked, greed would have motivated the market to implement
them.

"Green Energy" depend upon the massive scientific ignorance of the voters
to work. Which is explains why the liberals who back "green energy" are
the very same liberals who have usurped control of the U.S. public
education system; a system which churns out the most scientifically and
mathematically ignorant graduates in the developed world.

Suckers are not just born, they are crafted by the grossly misnamed
"liberals" and "progressives".

==============================================================================
TOPIC: U.S. announces desert 'solar energy zones'
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/eee9f99c9a3b8d8b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 10:41 pm
From: ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

In sci.physics use...@mantra.com wrote:
> U.S. announces desert 'solar energy zones'
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-solar-energy-zones.html

It is just an attempt to get around environmental lawsuits and it remains
to be seen if the ploy will work.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More cuts at UNI-SOLAR in Greenville (Michigan)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/fd5e1b5b942e8813?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 10:43 pm
From: ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

In sci.physics use...@mantra.com wrote:
> More cuts at UNI-SOLAR in Greenville (Michigan)
>
> http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/montcalm_county/more-layoffs-at-UNI-SOLAR-in-Greenville
>

Solar electricity is an economic loser even with government subsidies; what
a surprise.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Narendra Modi inaugurates Asia's biggest solar power plant in Kankrej,
Gujarat
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/b49bd6bc49ad528a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 5:28 am
From: fanabba

On Nov 25, 1:54 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> > Narendra Modi inaugurates Asia's biggest solar power plant in
> > Kankrej, Gujarat
>
> >http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/11/narendra-modi-inaugurates-...
>
> > 24.11.11
>
> > NARENDRA MODI INAUGURATES ASIA'S BIGGEST SOLAR POWER PLANT IN
> > KANKREJ, GUJARAT
>
> > Oct 14, 2011 Gandhinagar, Friday - Chief Minister inaugurates Asia's
> > biggest solar power plant in Kankrej World's largest solar park to
> > change face of arid north Gujarat region, Gujarat set to be the Solar
> > Capital of the World - Narendra Modi
>
> > Gandhinagar, Friday: Even as Gujarat Government has decided to
> > harness renewable sources of energy to maximum possible extent to
> > solve the nation's power shortage, Chief Minister Narendra Modi today
> > said the State is set to become the 'Solar Capital of the World'.
>
> > He was inaugurating the 30 MW solar power project in near Gunthaw ada
> > vill age in Kankrej taluka in Banaskantha district, bordering the
> > Rann of Kutch. The plant set up by Mozer Baer Green Energy Company on
> > 320- acre at a cost of Rs.465-crore in the private sector was
> > commissioned in four months.
>
> > While the Centre could not start any solar plant even after
> > announcing its solar power policy, Mr. Modi said, Gujarat has set up
> > four such projects, including one at Charnaka.
>
> > Mr. Modi said the world's largest solar park combining the vast
> > stretches of land with ample supply of sunrays is also coming up in
> > the region. The initiative should go a long way in solving the coal
> > shortage. He said that Gujarat has already succeeded converting
> > disasters into opportunities, as Kutch became the fastest growing
> > district in the country during the last decade. Gujarat's 1,600-km
> > long coastline is humming with a number of seaports. And now it is
> > converting the arid Kutch, Banaskantha and Patan districts into
> > prosperous power producing regions.
>
> > He recalled that Gujarat was a power deficient state but today
> > distributing 24-hour electricity to all the 18,000-odd villages in
> > the state. With proper conservation and management of water and
> > electricity, he said, Jyoti Gram Yojna has changed the socio-economic
> > conditions of Gujarat, creating a mass awareness too. While the
> > Centre has been reduced to a power-corrupt government amidst zero
> > development, Mr. Modi said, Gujarat has shown how power could be
> > utilized for all all round growth. The state has undertaken new
> > initiatives in recycling biomass and agro-waste.
>
> > Mozer Baer Company's president Dipak Puri and project chairman Ratul
> > Puri said the project should provide electricity to 50,000 villagers.
> > They praised the Gujarat Government's proactive policies.
>
> > Others present on the occasion included Social Justice Minister
> > Fakirbhai Vaghela, Ministers of State Liladhar Vaghela and Parbat
> > Patel, ex-MP Haribhai Chaudhry, MLAs and office-bearers.
>
> > October 14, 2011
>
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
> > - [image:http://narendramodi.in/news/news_detail/1700#]
>
> >http://www.ibtl.in/news/gujarat/1477/narendra<http://www.ibtl.in/news/gujarat/1477/narendra-modi-inaugurates-asia-s...
>
> > -----
>
> > S. Kalyanaraman
>
> > Indus script cipher: Hieroglyphs of Indian linguistic area (2010)
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/cpj7bqs
>
> > Member, Action Committee Against Corruption in India (ACACI)
>
> > End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> Forwarded post from M. J.
>
> Thursday, November 24, 2011
>
> Excellent news. You see mountains of salt in the background. Using
> solar energy for electricity generation and desalination at the same
> time. Jai Ho NaMo.
>
> End of forwarded post from M. J.
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Modi Jee Kee Jai Ho !

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The true nature of motion
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/25317c6fd3cf50d8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 25 2011 6:08 am
From: cjcountess

On Nov 24, 8:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/11 6:10 PM, cjcountess wrote:
>
> > This is where E=hf = E=mc^2 = F=mv^2/r = h/2pi/2 uniting SR, GR, and
> > QM.
>
> > And it was "SOOO" SIMPLE.
>
> > And I am the one who discovered it.
>
> Totally wrong, Conrad. You can't do a calculation with these
> equations.

Correction Sam,

"YOU" can't caculate anything with these equations, but I can and have
shown that they all converge around Electron, as measurement of
different aspects of Electron.

It's the "Geometical Picture" worth a thousands words and equations,
including these, which unites all these and SR, GR, QM

With this (Geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
sphered) all that and more is caculated.

Conrad J Countess

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.physics"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.physics...@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to ab...@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

--
Go to Master Mind Home Base Income Website :-

http://adf.ly/20PrE

Unsubscribe All Group Post :- http://j.gs/624707/unsubscribe

http://q.gs/624707/unsubscribe

Subscribe All Group Post :- http://j.gs/624707/subscribe

http://q.gs/624707/subscribe

Join Now Today (Paid Income) :-

http://adf.ly/20PrE

http://adf.ly/?id=624707

http://adf.ly/20PrE

sci.physics group

unread,

Nov 26, 2011, 2:42:27 PM11/26/11

to sci.physics digest subscribers

sci.physics
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics?hl=en

sci.p...@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't they
measure the one-way speed of light?? - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/4831bb5163bc0986?hl=en
* ?? ?? Athism | Agnosticism ?? - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/487622fbb19da3af?hl=en
* penthouse 60 feet down PIC will blow your mind - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/3866c6cca3f82af3?hl=en
* In the beginning - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/fac94e7b9b1b9702?hl=en
* Relativity defies thermodynamics - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/fd9a66b12d6aa24f?hl=en

* Velocity of light. by Mathew Orman - Public release record on November 23

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
they measure the one-way speed of light??
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/4831bb5163bc0986?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 10:37 am
From: Bruce Richmond

On Nov 25, 10:25 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:07:14 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Aetherist" wrote in message
> >news:c5l0d7p87pbkg6adf...@4ax.com...
> >> Then enlighten us...
>
> >Learn yourself. Try a physics course, or read some books on the subject. I
> >don't have time to be your physics tutor .. though i will happily correct
> >your mistakes and misconceptions.
>
> Thought you were all bluff...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
> Since I were NOT! talking about transforming FOR's it irrelevant to
> 'net' speed distance divided by time. In the case I presented
> if one assumes that the light traveled d not d' the transit time
> from B to A' is d'/c and net speed is d/(d'/c). Likewise, if
> A sent to B it would be d'' and speed would be d/(d''/c). You
> explain to us how d/(d'/c) = c UNLESS d' = d, ditto for d/(d''/c)

>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have read your corrispondence with Mark in this thread and have held
off writing because he is doing a good job of getting some ideas
across. But I am going to stick my 2 cents in because sometimes a
slightly different perspective can help.

In another thread we were discussing how to measure the one way speed
of light. What it came down to was that the result depends entirely
on how you choose to synchronize the two clocks needed to make the
measurement.

Given A and B who are not moving relative to each other, they agree
that light travels at the same speed in either direction. They need
to make some assumption about the speed in order to sync their clocks
and this assumption keeps everything symetric. You wanted to have A
and B moving so you added an observer C moving relative to them. But
that doesn't actually affect their state of motion. In the coordinate
system A and B have constructed they are still at rest, it is C that
is moving. They are moving in the coordinate system of C, but there
is nothing special about C that would convince A and B that they
should consider themselves to be in motion.

We will now add observer D who is not moving relative to C. When they
sync their clocks they assume light travels at c relative to them, not
A and B. They are making the same assumption that A and B did but are
using a different frame of reference so their clocks will be out of
sync with those of A and B.

When A sends a light signal to B they measure the distance traveled
using their own coordinate system and time it with their clocks. When
C and D measure the distance traveled from A to B they get a different
distance because of the motion of A and B in the C and D coordinate
system, but they also get a different time because of the different
clock sync. Both frames will end up measuring the light to travel at
c because both frames assumed light traveled at c relative to them
when they synchronized their clocks.

Bruce

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:01 am
From: PD

On 11/25/2011 7:03 PM, set...@att.net wrote:
> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> same set of synchronized clocks)??
> The answer to this question:
> The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> distance dependent.

No, Ken, that's already been ruled out in other measurements. Idiot.

The reason is you can't measure the speed of a signal using clocks
synchronized with the same signal. Idiot.

Furthermore, since the one way speed of light is already completely
determined by experiments done PRIOR TO the redefinition of the meter --
namely measurements of the two way speed of light and of the isotropy of
the speed of light -- there is no rational justification for doing a
one-way light speed measurement. Idiot.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:02 am
From: Aetherist

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:37:47 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Nov 25, 10:25 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:07:14 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >"Aetherist" wrote in message
>> >news:c5l0d7p87pbkg6adf...@4ax.com...
>> >> Then enlighten us...
>>
>> >Learn yourself. Try a physics course, or read some books on the subject. I
>> >don't have time to be your physics tutor .. though i will happily correct
>> >your mistakes and misconceptions.
>>
>> Thought you were all bluff...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>>
>> Since I were NOT! talking about transforming FOR's it irrelevant to
>> 'net' speed distance divided by time. In the case I presented
>> if one assumes that the light traveled d not d' the transit time
>> from B to A' is d'/c and net speed is d/(d'/c). Likewise, if
>> A sent to B it would be d'' and speed would be d/(d''/c). You
>> explain to us how d/(d'/c) = c UNLESS d' = d, ditto for d/(d''/c)

>>
>>
>>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

>I have read your corrispondence with Mark in this thread and have held
>off writing because he is doing a good job of getting some ideas
>across. But I am going to stick my 2 cents in because sometimes a
>slightly different perspective can help.
>
>In another thread we were discussing how to measure the one way speed
>of light. What it came down to was that the result depends entirely
>on how you choose to synchronize the two clocks needed to make the
>measurement.
>
>Given A and B who are not moving relative to each other, they agree
>that light travels at the same speed in either direction. They need
>to make some assumption about the speed in order to sync their clocks
>and this assumption keeps everything symetric. You wanted to have A
>and B moving so you added an observer C moving relative to them. But
>that doesn't actually affect their state of motion. In the coordinate
>system A and B have constructed they are still at rest, it is C that
>is moving. They are moving in the coordinate system of C, but there
>is nothing special about C that would convince A and B that they
>should consider themselves to be in motion.
>
>We will now add observer D who is not moving relative to C. When they
>sync their clocks they assume light travels at c relative to them, not
>A and B. They are making the same assumption that A and B did but are
>using a different frame of reference so their clocks will be out of
>sync with those of A and B.
>
>When A sends a light signal to B they measure the distance traveled
>using their own coordinate system and time it with their clocks. When
>C and D measure the distance traveled from A to B they get a different
>distance because of the motion of A and B in the C and D coordinate
>system, but they also get a different time because of the different
>clock sync. Both frames will end up measuring the light to travel at
>c because both frames assumed light traveled at c relative to them
>when they synchronized their clocks.
>
>Bruce

Bruce, Please note that I am not (nor ever was) disputing what A
perceives, in fact I commented on this when I said, specifically,

"... BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d."

How much clearer could I be? I was, and am, taking Einstein's postulate
as true, and, verbatium, namely:

"... and also introduce another postulate, which is
only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
namely, that LIGHT IS ALWAYS PROPAGATED IN EMPTY
SPACE WITH A DEFINITE VELOCITY C WHICH IS INDEPENDENT
OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY"

And assumed that by empty space he means a region devoid of matter.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:18 am
From: Bruce Richmond

On Nov 26, 2:02 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:37:47 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 10:25 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:07:14 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >"Aetherist" wrote in message
> >> >news:c5l0d7p87pbkg6adf...@4ax.com...
> >> >> Then enlighten us...
>
> >> >Learn yourself. Try a physics course, or read some books on the subject. I
> >> >don't have time to be your physics tutor .. though i will happily correct
> >> >your mistakes and misconceptions.
>
> >> Thought you were all bluff...
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
> >> Since I were NOT! talking about transforming FOR's it irrelevant to
> >> 'net' speed distance divided by time. In the case I presented
> >> if one assumes that the light traveled d not d' the transit time
> >> from B to A' is d'/c and net speed is d/(d'/c). Likewise, if
> >> A sent to B it would be d'' and speed would be d/(d''/c). You
> >> explain to us how d/(d'/c) = c UNLESS d' = d, ditto for d/(d''/c)

>
> >> - Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>

> >I have read your corrispondence with Mark in this thread and have held
> >off writing because he is doing a good job of getting some ideas
> >across. But I am going to stick my 2 cents in because sometimes a
> >slightly different perspective can help.
>
> >In another thread we were discussing how to measure the one way speed
> >of light. What it came down to was that the result depends entirely
> >on how you choose to synchronize the two clocks needed to make the
> >measurement.
>
> >Given A and B who are not moving relative to each other, they agree
> >that light travels at the same speed in either direction. They need
> >to make some assumption about the speed in order to sync their clocks
> >and this assumption keeps everything symetric. You wanted to have A
> >and B moving so you added an observer C moving relative to them. But
> >that doesn't actually affect their state of motion. In the coordinate
> >system A and B have constructed they are still at rest, it is C that
> >is moving. They are moving in the coordinate system of C, but there
> >is nothing special about C that would convince A and B that they
> >should consider themselves to be in motion.
>
> >We will now add observer D who is not moving relative to C. When they
> >sync their clocks they assume light travels at c relative to them, not
> >A and B. They are making the same assumption that A and B did but are
> >using a different frame of reference so their clocks will be out of
> >sync with those of A and B.
>
> >When A sends a light signal to B they measure the distance traveled
> >using their own coordinate system and time it with their clocks. When
> >C and D measure the distance traveled from A to B they get a different
> >distance because of the motion of A and B in the C and D coordinate
> >system, but they also get a different time because of the different
> >clock sync. Both frames will end up measuring the light to travel at
> >c because both frames assumed light traveled at c relative to them
> >when they synchronized their clocks.
>
> >Bruce
>
> Bruce, Please note that I am not (nor ever was) disputing what A
> perceives, in fact I commented on this when I said, specifically,
>
> "... BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d."
>
> How much clearer could I be? I was, and am, taking Einstein's postulate
> as true, and, verbatium, namely:
>
> "... and also introduce another postulate, which is
> only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
> namely, that LIGHT IS ALWAYS PROPAGATED IN EMPTY
> SPACE WITH A DEFINITE VELOCITY C WHICH IS INDEPENDENT
> OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY"
>
> And assumed that by empty space he means a region devoid of matter.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So what are you disputing? That perception is reality?

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:38 am
From: Tom Roberts

On 11/25/11 11/25/11 7:03 PM, set...@att.net wrote:
> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> same set of synchronized clocks)??

Because light does not penetrate the earth for 730 km, but neutrinos do.

> [... more of hist usual nonsense]

Tom Roberts

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:40 am
From: Aetherist

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:18:42 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Nov 26, 2:02 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:37:47 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 25, 10:25 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:07:14 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >"Aetherist" wrote in message
>> >> >news:c5l0d7p87pbkg6adf...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> Then enlighten us...
>>
>> >> >Learn yourself. Try a physics course, or read some books on the subject. I
>> >> >don't have time to be your physics tutor .. though i will happily correct
>> >> >your mistakes and misconceptions.
>>
>> >> Thought you were all bluff...
>>
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>>
>> >> Since I were NOT! talking about transforming FOR's it irrelevant to
>> >> 'net' speed distance divided by time. In the case I presented
>> >> if one assumes that the light traveled d not d' the transit time
>> >> from B to A' is d'/c and net speed is d/(d'/c). Likewise, if
>> >> A sent to B it would be d'' and speed would be d/(d''/c). You
>> >> explain to us how d/(d'/c) = c UNLESS d' = d, ditto for d/(d''/c)

>>
>> >> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>

>> >I have read your corrispondence with Mark in this thread and have held
>> >off writing because he is doing a good job of getting some ideas
>> >across. But I am going to stick my 2 cents in because sometimes a
>> >slightly different perspective can help.
>>
>> >In another thread we were discussing how to measure the one way speed
>> >of light. What it came down to was that the result depends entirely
>> >on how you choose to synchronize the two clocks needed to make the
>> >measurement.
>>
>> >Given A and B who are not moving relative to each other, they agree
>> >that light travels at the same speed in either direction. They need
>> >to make some assumption about the speed in order to sync their clocks
>> >and this assumption keeps everything symetric. You wanted to have A
>> >and B moving so you added an observer C moving relative to them. But
>> >that doesn't actually affect their state of motion. In the coordinate
>> >system A and B have constructed they are still at rest, it is C that
>> >is moving. They are moving in the coordinate system of C, but there
>> >is nothing special about C that would convince A and B that they
>> >should consider themselves to be in motion.
>>
>> >We will now add observer D who is not moving relative to C. When they
>> >sync their clocks they assume light travels at c relative to them, not
>> >A and B. They are making the same assumption that A and B did but are
>> >using a different frame of reference so their clocks will be out of
>> >sync with those of A and B.
>>
>> >When A sends a light signal to B they measure the distance traveled
>> >using their own coordinate system and time it with their clocks. When
>> >C and D measure the distance traveled from A to B they get a different
>> >distance because of the motion of A and B in the C and D coordinate
>> >system, but they also get a different time because of the different
>> >clock sync. Both frames will end up measuring the light to travel at
>> >c because both frames assumed light traveled at c relative to them
>> >when they synchronized their clocks.
>>
>> >Bruce
>>
>> Bruce, Please note that I am not (nor ever was) disputing what A
>> perceives, in fact I commented on this when I said, specifically,
>>
>> "... BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
>> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d."
>>
>> How much clearer could I be? I was, and am, taking Einstein's postulate
>> as true, and, verbatium, namely:
>>
>> "... and also introduce another postulate, which is
>> only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
>> namely, that LIGHT IS ALWAYS PROPAGATED IN EMPTY
>> SPACE WITH A DEFINITE VELOCITY C WHICH IS INDEPENDENT
>> OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY"
>>
>> And assumed that by empty space he means a region devoid of matter.- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

>So what are you disputing? That perception is reality?

That perception IS NOT necessarily reality. All good magicians know
this... I am currently working on a posting which will discuss this
topic in depth. I am arguring that take Einstein postulates verbatium
and you're realize that he to distinguishes perception (as in
determined values) from actual. Thus his early comment on
irreconciliable facts. How does one reconcile two things that are
logically paradoxical? By showing that the tools used to make
measurement aren't telling the truth. Here is an excerpt from that
writeup...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
If we take as true the statement that:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion..."

and is isotropic, then logic requires us to also accept as fact that
this must represent a physically unique universal background. IOW,
empty space itself is the origin frame for all light propagation.
This also mean light always move distance d = ct, for any time t IN
THE BACKGROUND. Of course this leads directly to:

0 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (ct)^2

as its identity. This would seem to argue for an universal framework
for both distance and time, who's linkage is tied directly to this
"empty space". It is this inexscapable logic that I beleive forms the
basis for Einstein's later declaration:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; FOR IN SUCH SPACE THERE NOT ONLY WONLD
BE NO PROPAGATION OF LIGHT, BUT ALSO NO POSSIBILITY OF
EXISTENCE FOR STANDARDS OF SPACE AND TIME (MEASURING-RODS
AND CLOCKS), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the
physical sense."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For taken in context with the above, that entire comment makes perfect sense...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ?? ?? Athism | Agnosticism ??
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/487622fbb19da3af?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 10:41 am
From: HVAC

On 11/26/2011 1:21 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, that's crap.
>>
>> Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
>> fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
>> or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
>>
>> That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
>
> Evidence my dear boy, just evidence. Don't you know the difference?
> Between evidence and proof? Most atheists don't know the difference.
> Most theists don't know the difference either.
>
> All your above experiment *proves* is that particles may exist for
> double or triple their usual lifetimes when they are accelerated to
> near light speed. It does NOT by ANY MEANS necessarily indicate that
> the flow of time has been changed for them.
>
> Your calling it a "real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof"
> speaks volumes about how you like to "jump the gun" as regards the
> results of experiments. That puts you in good company.

Nice attempt at a dodge....

--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 10:43 am
From: HVAC

On 11/26/2011 1:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>>
>>> As humans, we often have a tendency to live on either one side of the
>>> fence or the other, and it's not always easy to understand how anyone
>>> can be comfortable sitting "on the fence". Trust me, it isn't the
>>> least bit comfortable, but it's definitely where I am on the issue of
>>> whether or not God exists.
>>
>> It's just because you are afraid.
>>
>> Fear isn't a bad thin, it's a good thing. We are afraid to
>> go against the values we were taught as children because
>> we know that bad things happen to us if we disobey our parents.
>>
>> But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
>
> Yes.

Then overcome your superstition and fear.
Renounce god and accept Satan as your master.

--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 10:49 am
From: "Androcles"

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:v8a2d75tl2rlpeg6v...@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:43:59 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
| >>
| >> As Androcles pointed out, even though there is a large body of
| >> mathematical evidence for the existence of time dilation and length
| >> contraction within the realm of the theory relativity, there is no
| >> actual "proof". Nobody has yet to prove these things beyond a shadow
| >> of doubt.
| >
| >Well, that's crap.
| >
| >Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
| >fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
| >or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
| >
| >That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
| >
| >So what foolishness were you saying about 'god' again?
|
| Time dilation was demonstrated in 1971.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

What a fucking moron.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 10:55 am
From: Christopher A. Lee

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:49:01 -0000, "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:

Project much, imbecile?

<plonk>

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:36 am
From: HVAC

On 11/26/2011 1:43 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> Then overcome your superstition and fear.
> Renounce god and accept Satan as your master.

OOPS! Did I say that out loud?

--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

==============================================================================
TOPIC: penthouse 60 feet down PIC will blow your mind
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/3866c6cca3f82af3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 10:37 am
From: Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)

f68c12a3-a828-4f60-808a-7258d74057db.jpg
Address:http://www.century21.ca/Images/43734/f68c12a3-a828-4f60-808a-7258d74057db.jpg
Changed:9:49 AM on Tuesday, August 4, 2009

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the beginning
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/fac94e7b9b1b9702?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:00 am
From: PD

On 11/26/2011 5:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
> On Nov 25, 3:54 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's ok. We have bridge cases. That is, we have near objects in the
>> range of a few tens of meters to several tens of millions of miles where
>> we can test the very same thing.
>>
>> If there were an established gap where we might say, "OK, but up in this
>> range something COMPLETELY different is going on," then you might have a
>> case.
>
>
> You are 100% correct.
>
> And as empirical fact would have it, there is a range of distances
> where something COMPLETELY different starts to happen: Hubble
> redshift.

No, see the problem is that WITHIN the Hubble range, we already have
independent confirmation that the SAME thing is going on as is going on
in desktop systems. That is, we can MEASURE the recessional velocity of
certain objects in the Hubble range with an *independent* means that has
nothing to do with their wavelength shift. You may want to do a small
Google search on astronomical methods for measuring velocities of
bodies. So for a good chunk of the Hubble data, we KNOW that it is
recessional velocity that is responsible for the wavelength shift, and
it corresponds EXACTLY to what is found in desktop systems.

>
>
> You explain it as actual recessional velocity of distant galaxies, and
> from there extrapolate the big bang.
>
> I explain it as light having a finite range.

== 2 of 2 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:00 am
From: PD

On 11/26/2011 3:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
> On Nov 25, 3:54 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2011 1:19 PM, Michael Helland wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 7:30 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/2011 3:33 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 24, 8:47 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/24/2011 4:49 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 23, 7:37 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/23/11 9:21 PM, Michael Helland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> And it is an observed fact that
>>>>>>>>> over cosmological distances, the frequency of light gives.
>>
>>>>>>>> As does the wavelength with the speed of light remaining
>>>>>>>> constant.
>>
>>>>>>> That's not true.
>>
>>>>>>> Wavelength is a property we deduce after measurement, after the photon
>>>>>>> has been absorbed and re-emmited, thus using my v = c - H_0 * d,
>>>>>>> results in v = c, which is what we observe.
>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but that's just not so, Michael. The wavelength of light is
>>>>>> easily and directly measurable.
>>
>>>>> First, a question: Doesn't only quantum energy matter in quantum
>>>>> theory?
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>>>> Second, when we measure it, it is after we've focused it in a lens,
>>>>> after we've reflected it off a mirror, after it's gone through the
>>>>> atmosphere and the IPM and the ISM.
>>
>>>> Not so. You can measure light from a desktop source
>>
>>> I was talking about light that has traveled millions of light years,
>>> such that H_0 * d (the distance it has traveled) is> 0.
>>
>>> You're talking about light that has traveled 10 feet, such that H_0 *
>>> d = 0.
>>
>> That's ok. We have bridge cases. That is, we have near objects in the
>> range of a few tens of meters to several tens of millions of miles where
>> we can test the very same thing.
>>
>> If there were an established gap where we might say, "OK, but up in this
>> range something COMPLETELY different is going on," then you might have a
>> case. But there is not observational gap.
>
>
> If you plug several tens of millions of miles into my hypothesis:
>
> v = c - H_0 * d
>
> H_0 * 99 million miles is still 0 .. and ..
>
> v = c
>
> My hypothesis is consistent with established theory at those
> distances.

That's fine, Michael. You have a hypothesis that is consistent with data
in a certain narrow data range.

The prevailing model, however, is validated by data over a range ranging
from a meter or so to billions and billions of meters.

There is not normally good reason to take seriously an alternative model
that only applies to a narrow range of data, when the prevailing model
works over a much wider range of data.

>
>
>>> When H_0 * d = 0, then according to v = c - H_0 * d, v = c.
>>
>>> There is no issue discrepancy between my hypothesis and established
>>> theories at these distances.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Relativity defies thermodynamics
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/fd9a66b12d6aa24f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:00 am
From: PD

On 11/26/2011 3:56 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
> Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.

And this doesn't defy thermodynamics in any way whatsoever.
Neither, by the way, does Newton's first law.

== 2 of 3 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:01 am
From: PD

On 11/26/2011 6:58 AM, john wrote:
> On Nov 26, 3:56 am, Michael Helland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.
>
> Egg-frickin-zacktly!!
>
> And electrons can zip around their nuclei indefinitely
> without using any energy either!

Yup. It's called Newton's first law. Been around for 400 years. You may
want to look that up.

"Objects in uniform motion will persist in that uniform motion without
any need for continued impetus."

>
> Isn't it wonderful?
>
> And that's why we have DE and DM.
>
> john

== 3 of 3 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:38 am
From: "G. L. Bradford"

"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jard19$lf2$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 11/26/2011 6:58 AM, john wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 3:56 am, Michael Helland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.
>>
>> Egg-frickin-zacktly!!
>>
>> And electrons can zip around their nuclei indefinitely
>> without using any energy either!
>
> Yup. It's called Newton's first law. Been around for 400 years. You may
> want to look that up.
>
> "Objects in uniform motion will persist in that uniform motion without any
> need for continued impetus."
>

==================

Perpetual motion machine? At rest, though, as to local-motion?

GLB

=================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:01 am
From: PD

On 11/25/2011 11:58 AM, PD wrote:

> On 11/25/2011 7:47 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."
>>>
>>> Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.
>>>
>>> Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
>>> see it for your self on my website."
>>>
>>> Seems like you're working in a medium with a delay caused by a very
>>> high index of refraction.
>>>
>>> --
>>> JF
>>
>> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>>
>> Mathew Orman

Notice that Mathew Orman has promised publication on YouTube and on his
website for some months now. There is nothing on YouTube posted by
Orman, and his advertised website says the release date of the site is
November 25, 2011. It still says that today, November 26, 2011.

A quick search for Mathew Orman reveals a rather lengthy history of
nondelivery of promised goods, including some excuses about Polish post
offices. I would guess, then, that Mathew's website has been held up in
the Polish post office.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What are the differences between SRT and LET
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/8614159781058b06?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:08 am
From: Bruce Richmond

On Nov 26, 12:01 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:29:31 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 10:56 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
> >> The answer to this question is: not much.
> >> SRT and LET have the same math and thus they give the same predictions
> >> for all observations and experiments.
> >> The differences is how they derive the math.
> >> A LET observer says that the aether exists and he just simply assumes
> >> that he is at rest in this aether
>
> >Wrong. He assumes he is moving with respect to it.
>
> >> and thus he predicts all the clocks
> >> moving wrt him are running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the
> >> meter sticks moving wrt him are contraacted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> >He predicts those measurements made using a coordinate system in which
> >he is at rest with clocks synchronized in that frame. He is aware
> >that as viewed from the ether frame those moving clocks could in fact
> >be running faster than his and the meter sticks longer.
>
> He also knows that due to the nature of things 'proper' length and
> 'proper' time are the length and tick rates of the aether frame.
> His local values just 'look' the same, but are, in fact, shorter
> and slower...

I would never use 'proper' in that way. It is just begging to confuse
things with the use of the word in SR.

> The Lorentzian practioner also knows 'now' that
> this background frame is where the CMBR has no significant
> dirtectional Doppler shift.
>

He doesn't *know* that. It is a reasonable assumption but it is still
an assumption.

>
> >> In SRT all inertial frames (including the preferred frame) are
> >> equivalent and thus every SRT observer can claim the exclusive
> >> properties of the preferred frame to derive the math.
>
> >By "preferred frame" most of us here mean a frame in which the laws of
> >physics would be different from the rest. In that sense there is no
> >"preferred frame" in SR.
>
> >> The result is
> >> that every SR observer predicts that all clocks moving wrt him are
> >> running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and all the meter sticks moving
> >> wrt him are contracted by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> >Close enough.
>
> >[snip]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: old ship at 1925 abandoned junkyard
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/7cdeac08f07ccc46?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:04 am
From: Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir)

IMGP1757.JPG
Address:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Rd3_kxeHm-k/TPZloNyrzaI/AAAAAAAACHA/8lXs1nTJHtw/s1600/IMGP1757.JPG

you should see the abandoned junkyard.
10 acres of perfect up to 1925.
1910s up the ass.
the smelter went bust and left the coal and ore.
ever see about $100 million in a pile free and no one around ???
the bow mast broke off and cought the rudder.
otherwise its just left there and no on ever saw it again ?
its in ausome shape for ita age ..1920 abandoned ..built in 1862

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

==============================================================================
TOPIC: COUNTDOWN TICKING FOR TODAY'S LAUNCH OF MARS ROVER
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/58e86caa054e330f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:25 am
From: Sam Wormley

On 11/26/11 9:48 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:

>
> Curiosity has left earth orbit and is on its way to
> Mars, landing on Mars on Aug. 6, 2012

NASA Science News for Nov. 26, 2011

NASA's biggest and most capable Mars rover ever left Earth this morning
in a picture perfect launch from Cape Canaveral. The new rover, named
"Curiosity", is due to reach the Red Planet in August 2012.

FULL STORY at
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/26nov_msllaunch/

To learn more about Curiosity's landing site on Mars, check out the
video "The Strange Attraction of Gale Crater":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNqeftciRFA

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More on a Method for objectively determining OWLS
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/57407b30d6e8c7a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:25 am
From: Tom Roberts

On 11/24/11 11/24/11 1:20 PM, Aetherist wrote:
> [...] (if c is isotropic) [...]

Even though you don't phrase it that way, you are ASSUMING that the speed of
light is isotropic, so you aren't "objectively determining OWLS". You have
simply described one of Einstein's synchronization procedures, using different
words and symbols.

Tom Roberts

==============================================================================
TOPIC: أحدث وأجدد انواع السيارات new car
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/e6ac75fefc3c0f23?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:24 am
From: 11alagmy

أحدث وأجدد انواع السيارات new car

link

http://newscarsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Neutrino FTL refuted www.faster-than-light.us
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/776a9157692387f0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:37 am
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

On 24/11/2011 21:36, admformeto wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDlWp0r6SY
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>

Using theories that FTL neutrinos would probably undermine.
Experiment rules.

--
Dirk

Full Spectrum Praxis : ZERO STATE : http://zerostate.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "pretty much everything ..."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/b2e9b0fe17956904?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:41 am
From: The Starmaker

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : In otherwords, E does not equal Mc2.
>
> The fly in starmaker's ointment, of course, is that when m, c, and E
> are actually measured, E does in fact equal mc^2. No fancy theory
> involved in that; just measurement and arithmetic.
>
> : Light/Energy that does not contain mass travels a million time faster
> : than the speed of light.
>
> Too bad that a) nobody's ever measured any such thing,

*I* measured it!

Before the big bang, energy had no mass, mass had no energy..they bumped
uglies and you got me.

> and b) it has nothing at all to do with whether E equals mc^2.
> Which, when measured, it does.

Einstien made the mistake of measuring one horse in a racetrack.

There are other horses that run at different speeds. But if you
put a fat jockey on the horse, it slows the horse down.

Any 3 year old can tell you, mathematically...you determine the
speed of the horse by adding or subtracting the weight of the jockey.

E= horse
m= weight of the jockey

If you remove the jockey , you have an undetermind speed of the horse..

You never clocked a mouse?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Russian TV Woman Gives Obama The Bird Live!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/b0223cae336d7e0e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 11:13 am
From: bodhi

>
> Republicans are NOT the baby in the bathwater! Over 50% of the budget
> goes towards a war Republicans started... Get real. War is a racket
> and they are all a bunch of gangsters.

Bush and the Republicans may have started these two wars but it was
the Democrats in Congress (in the majority at the time) that financed
them.

Why do you think Hillary isn't our president, now?

Because her, Pelosi and Reid have as much blood on their hands as do
Rumsfield and Cheney.

sci.physics group

unread,

Nov 26, 2011, 6:11:43 PM11/26/11

to sci.physics digest subscribers

sci.physics
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics?hl=en

sci.p...@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Hawking won't get his way in the world - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/927ab9ce3f6efc63?hl=en
* Relativity defies thermodynamics - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/fd9a66b12d6aa24f?hl=en
* E minimum = hf times n while 0 < n <<<1.000! - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/13110495a32c9b5f?hl=en
* A "WEAK DIAGONAL" - A WEAKER VERSION OF CANTOR'S PROOF - 3 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/603fe1d8fb8cc58d?hl=en

* Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't they

measure the one-way speed of light?? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/4831bb5163bc0986?hl=en
* One Picture of the Infinity and the Finite of Multiverse - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/308c8d20e1f36de0?hl=en
* Chapt26 precision defining function, continuity, topology in New Math #1181
Correcting Math 3rd ed - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/481bc2300121b4ef?hl=en
* A Non-Row Diagonal - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/2ab8dae1483fbbe5?hl=en
* What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'? - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/7e8aa7b10485bf35?hl=en
* Future directions with IFEs - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/973a2d6ecc05402a?hl=en
* What is time? Flow and moving parts - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/51604c068799824f?hl=en
* SUPERLUMINAL NEUTRINOS AND TIRED LIGHT - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/30bc3487147d2661?hl=en
* Curvature of Space. ????? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/3866c6cca3f82af3?hl=en
* 4100 Solution manuals to Mechanics, Mechanical Engineering and Aerospace
Engineering Books - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/555b4944bb4eb5d1?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hawking won't get his way in the world
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/927ab9ce3f6efc63?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 12:19 pm
From: "micro...@hotmail.com"

On Nov 26, 12:11 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Yap wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 1:57 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Smiler wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:43:02 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > > > > Conan the bacterium wrote:
>
> > > > >> On Nov 17, 11:14 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > james thomas wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > There is no way to win a war against the beliefs of others. Hawking
> > > > >> > > and his ilk will not get their way. Nobody does.
>
> > > > >> > Stephen Hawking is just a chemical scum on the surface of the earth.
>
> > > > >> Just like the rest of us, eh?
>
> > > > > I cannot argue with..."eh".
>
> > > > >> (only a lot brighter.
>
> > > > > "brighter"? The brightest light on the chandlier doesn't fit..it needs
> > > > > to be removed.
>
> > > > >> not to mention more
> > > > >> courageous)
>
> > > > > Couragerous? I'll throw him down the stairs anytime..
> > > > > people in wheel chairs take up four to six seats on the bus..
>
> > > > > Bright people are a cancer in this world.
>
> > > > Thanks for admitting that your IQ is less than room temperature...in
> > > > Centigrade.
>
> > > I just don't understand how the word 'high IQ' got associated with the word "bright"?
>
> > There must be a link, somehow.
>
> > > It's some kind of...conspiracy.
>
> > It is a kind of ...common sense.
>
> > > But you're not going to fool me...
>
> > Well, you can invent another system....but so far, there is none.
>
> > > It's a trick, a con game.
>
> > The trick and con game are all in the scripture, you should know if
> > you have the required IQ.
>
> > > There is nothing 'luminance' about high IQ..do you glow in the dark????
>
> > It doesn't, but brightest person can be spotted in the crowd.
>
> The one that is doing all the yapping..probably talking about God and religion...
>
> I find it strange...
> some might consider Richard Dawkinks to be an atheist...but he sure
> talks a lot about religion and God...
> I think Richard Dawkins is *obsessed* with God.
> He puts the word 'GOD' on the cover of his books in one form or another..
>
> The God Delusion --- He put it right in the middle
>
> The Greatest Show on Earth --- GOD is Great...?
>
> Why We Believe in God --- He just did the 'foreword' but he couldn't resist it! (He's obsessed with God)
>
> How about this title? The Blind Watchmaker
>
> That title has the word "GOD" all over it!!! Watcher maker is God, and Blind is Delusion.
>
> Don't tell me Richard Dawkins is an atheist, he's toooo religious!
>
> Godless: -- another 'foreword' inserted by him...man this guy is giving me the creeps!!!!
>
> River out of Eden?
>
> A Devil's Chaplain?
>
> I'm betting Richard Dawkins has a cross tatoo on his backside where girls usually put a tatoo...
>
> God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory ? another 'foreword insert!
>
> If I write a book and put GOD on the cover, I can get Richard Dawkins to do a foreword!!!!
>
> Richard Dawkins has the 'hotts' for God!
>
> ob·ses·sion
>
> noun /?b?seSH?n/
> obsessions, plural
>
> The state of being obsessed with someone or something
> - she cared for him with a devotion bordering on obsession
>
> An idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind
> - he was in the grip of an obsession he was powerless to resist
>
> an unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone
>
> Don't tell me Richard Dawkins is an athiest....he's a closet Christian.
>
> He talks more about God than all the TV evanglist put together!!!
>
> The Starmaker- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hawking is an ugly person.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:23 pm
From: PD

On 11/26/2011 1:38 PM, G. L. Bradford wrote:
>
> "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jard19$lf2$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 11/26/2011 6:58 AM, john wrote:
>>> On Nov 26, 3:56 am, Michael Helland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.
>>>
>>> Egg-frickin-zacktly!!
>>>
>>> And electrons can zip around their nuclei indefinitely
>>> without using any energy either!
>>
>> Yup. It's called Newton's first law. Been around for 400 years. You
>> may want to look that up.
>>
>> "Objects in uniform motion will persist in that uniform motion without
>> any need for continued impetus."
>>
>
> ==================
>
> Perpetual motion machine?

Something that obeys Newton's first law isn't usually referred to as a
perpetual motion machine. Something that generates net work is.

Something that moves without impetus is something that obeys
conservation of momentum.

> At rest, though, as to local-motion?
>
> GLB
>
> =================

==============================================================================
TOPIC: E minimum = hf times n while 0 < n <<<1.000!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/13110495a32c9b5f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:26 pm
From: PD

On 11/26/2011 2:24 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:48 pm, "Y.Porat"<y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 3:05 pm, Timo Nieminen<t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> (If you're willing to coherently and politely present your
>>> experimental "evidence" for your "theory", I'll read it, and if I
>>> still think it's wrong, I'll tell you why. But your statement along
>>> the lines that if the energy is emitted for 1/10 of a second then E=hf/
>>> 10 very strongly suggests that you are starting with error, and
>>> finishing with garbage. At the very least, you're starting with error.)
>
> OK, so you're not willing to coherently and politely present your
> experimental "evidence". No surprise, since politeness seems to
> overstrain your psychosis, and you're simply not capable of coherent.
> You've never been willing to coherently and politely present and
> discuss it in the past, as far as I've seen. Why would change the
> habits of a lifetime? A loathesome and psychotic lifetime, but there
> you go.

Porat wouldn't know experimental evidence if it slapped him in the face.
He believes that if he interprets an equation that comes from a model
that describes experimental data, then his interpretation is supported
by experimental evidence. Porat is hopeless.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:36 pm
From: mpc755

On Nov 26, 4:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Porat wouldn't know experimental evidence if it slapped him in the face.
> He believes that if he interprets an equation that comes from a model
> that describes experimental data, then his interpretation is supported
> by experimental evidence. Porat is hopeless.
>

What about the physical evidence where the particle is always detected
entering and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment. Why is
it OK for you to deny this physical evidence in order to remain a
jabberwockist?

Why are you unable to understand the particle always enters and exits
a single slit in a double slit experiment?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:50 pm
From: mpc755

On Nov 26, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 1:47 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > BTW
> > i dont give a damn if a psychopth imbecile does not uinderstand it
>
> > I PROVED IT ***experimentally*** that
> > E=hf
> > IS NOT THE FORMULA OF A SINGLE PHOTON !!
> > AND NO ONE IN HISTORY CLAIMED IT AND FORMULATED IT AS I DID !!
>
> > AND NOW ANY RETARD CAN REALIZE BY ****EXPERIMENT ***THAT
> > THERE ARE MUCH SMALLER PHOTON ENERGIES !! SO
> > THE CRAP IS YOU YOURSELF ALONE !!
>
> > the experiment is shocking simple !!
>
> > you can take a led torch
> > operate it for 1/second
> > direct it to a photo - electric cell
> > and the cell will emit electrons
> > for 1/10 seconds NOT MORE THAN 1/10
> > SECONDS !!
> > ANDIN ADDITION TO THEABOVE
> > A RETARD LIKE YOU HAD TO UNJDESTAND
> > BASIC PHYSICS
> > THAT
> > E=hf
> > IS ONE SECOND DEFINED BECAUSE f is
> > one second defined !!
> > iow
> > E=hf is the eenrgy defined inone second
> > andifit is 2 seconds the energy emitted wilbne
> > 2 times hf
>
> > and if it is 1/10 second active
> > it w ill be hf times 1/10
> > got it imbecile retard crook !!
> > ANYWAY
>
> Good heavens, what a freakin' mess.
> My mouth is agape.
>
> The energy of light for one second is hf. The energy of light for 1/10
> of a second is hf*(1/10). The energy of light for 10 seconds is hf*10.
>
> Seriously? That's what you think is right?
>
> Then it's all over for you, Porat.

Good heavens, what a freakin' mess.

Having to deny the particle always enters and exits a single slit in a
double slit experiment in order to make up absolutely absurd
ridiculous nonsense which has nothing to do with what occurs
physically in nature.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:04 pm
From: "hanson"

Paul "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- Timo Nieminen wrote:
---- Isareli Yehiel "Y.Porat"<y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
------- Timo Nieminen<t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>
Timo wrote:
(Porat, If you're willing to coherently and politely present your
experimental "evidence" for your "theory", I'll read it, and if I
still think it's wrong, I'll tell you why. But your statement along
the lines that if the energy is emitted for 1/10 of a second then E=hf/
10 very strongly suggests that you are starting with error, and
finishing with garbage. At the very least, you're starting with error.)
>>
OK, Porat, so you're not willing to coherently and politely present your
experimental "evidence". No surprise, since politeness seems to
overstrain your psychosis, and you're simply not capable of coherent.
You've never been willing to coherently and politely present and
discuss it in the past, as far as I've seen. Why would change the
habits of a lifetime? A loathesome and psychotic lifetime, but there
you go.
>
Paul wrote:
Porat wouldn't know experimental evidence if it slapped him in the face.
He believes that if he interprets an equation that comes from a model
that describes experimental data, then his interpretation is supported
by experimental evidence. Porat is hopeless.
>
hanson wrote:
Yo, Yehi, my dear old haver, what for and why is that
Ami Paul, and that Aussi Timo beating up on you so
ferociously?
They sound like Goebbele & Mengele, don't they.
>
Did you try to teach them something they didn't want
to hear?...
Carry on Yehi, and show them the proper way of and
to your highly advanced & splendid future physics!...
>
But don't make them so jealous of you & your theory.
Just tell'em that in your world your theory works much
better then does theirs. Yehi, don't throw your own
pearls before the swine... which Timo called "garbage".
>
You might wanna tell them that your theory is far more
realistic and down to earth then are those that Prof.
Brian Greene is talking about in his many hour long
TV shows on the History & Discovery channels.
hanson

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A "WEAK DIAGONAL" - A WEAKER VERSION OF CANTOR'S PROOF
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/603fe1d8fb8cc58d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:27 pm
From: Graham Cooper

On Nov 27, 6:43 am, Robert James <ElBongHuf...@Diabetics.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:23:23 -0800; I imposed a declaration in opposition
> to Graham Cooper's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support
> of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the
> Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
> 5596333d-a6bf-4dec-b550-d4c54b49d...@z22g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE A DIAPER #numerology = DIAGONAL
>
> >> Herc
>
> > Next time you CHANGE A DIAGONAL
>
> > DON'T FORGET TO GET A FRESH NEW DIAGONAL! (of the same list)
>
> > Herc
>
> What does you diagonal changing have to do with A26, Herc?
>

I couldn't get Sunny Leone to pose for you so I thought you'd like
some free maths lessons!

Herc

== 2 of 3 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:38 pm
From: Robert James

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:27:42 -0800; I imposed a declaration in opposition
to Graham Cooper's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support
of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the
Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
d70d2d28-c21b-4449...@n22g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 27, 6:43 am, Robert James <ElBongHuf...@Diabetics.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:23:23 -0800; I imposed a declaration in
>> opposition to Graham Cooper's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY
>> INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY
>> INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding
>> preliminary declaration,
>> 5596333d-a6bf-4dec-b550-d4c54b49d...@z22g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE A DIAPER #numerology = DIAGONAL
>>
>> >> Herc
>>
>> > Next time you CHANGE A DIAGONAL
>>
>> > DON'T FORGET TO GET A FRESH NEW DIAGONAL! (of the same list)
>>
>> > Herc
>>
>> What does you diagonal changing have to do with A26, Herc?
>>
>>
>
> I couldn't get Sunny Leone to pose for you so I thought you'd like some
> free maths lessons!
>
>
> Herc

That's why my *nix OS comes with a free calculator, so I don't NEED
lessons. But I can't flap to a calculator that worked out what 7342 plus
666 is. I need real 8008ies! Anywayzzzzzz, the fact you failed my quest
just goes to prove you have no cam whores, and you never completed a D&D
adventure in your life. Plus it was *Sunny Lane* I demanded, not that
Indian half bread Sunny Leone!

--
Reverted Julliette "Elle" Hart's control of Kamloops 2600.
RL'ed Matthew Moulton (noted BabyFag) permanently off Usenet.
Revealed Lamey (noted BabySidekick) to be the cunt of Mike Hunt.
Ruined Bob Hoffman and his FamilyNet International echo-bot too.

== 3 of 3 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:04 pm
From: Graham Cooper

On Nov 27, 7:38 am, Robert James <ElBongHuf...@Diabetics.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:27:42 -0800; I imposed a declaration in opposition
> to Graham Cooper's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support
> of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the
> Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
> d70d2d28-c21b-4449-898b-5d24ab670...@n22g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 6:43 am, Robert James <ElBongHuf...@Diabetics.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:23:23 -0800; I imposed a declaration in
> >> opposition to Graham Cooper's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY
> >> INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY
> >> INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding
> >> preliminary declaration,
> >> 5596333d-a6bf-4dec-b550-d4c54b49d...@z22g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE A DIAPER #numerology = DIAGONAL
>
> >> >> Herc
>
> >> > Next time you CHANGE A DIAGONAL
>
> >> > DON'T FORGET TO GET A FRESH NEW DIAGONAL! (of the same list)
>
> >> > Herc
>
> >> What does you diagonal changing have to do with A26, Herc?
>
> > I couldn't get Sunny Leone to pose for you so I thought you'd like some
> > free maths lessons!
>
> > Herc
>
> That's why my *nix OS comes with a free calculator, so I don't NEED
> lessons. But I can't flap to a calculator that worked out what 7342 plus
> 666 is. I need real 8008ies! Anywayzzzzzz, the fact you failed my quest
> just goes to prove you have no cam whores, and you never completed a D&D
> adventure in your life. Plus it was *Sunny Lane* I demanded, not that
> Indian half bread Sunny Leone!
>

I thought she looked different!

Yeh Sunny Lane is amazing, make a great character actress very
expressive face. 8^)

I must have mixed them up, been negotiating $5 Million sale for
CamGirls.com with VIVID ENTERTAINMENT all week, the company behind
Leone.

Penthouse owns Cams.com
Manwin owns Webcams.com

Vivid are very interested in my CamGirls.com!

Herc
--
http://CAMGIRLS.com

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:31 pm
From: "micro...@hotmail.com"

On Nov 26, 12:15 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2:40 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In physics our reality is what we agree it must be to make accurate
> predictions of what will happen. We don't always know or care what is
> happening in the background so long as we can make those accurate
> predictions.

> > For taken in context with the above, that entire comment makes perfect sense...- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

> Looking forward to seeing the whole thing.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Measuring light speed is statistical.

Mitch Raemsch; the prize

== 2 of 3 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:31 pm
From: "Inertial"

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:tln0d79igr080t9ja...@4ax.com...
>Nature contains no arbitrarily defined frames.

But you are talking about frame-based measurements. When you get it wrong,
you can't just say they don't exist .. that's cheating

> I pointed out what
>physically happens,

And got it wrong

> B is an event. Perception is not physical
>reality.

Didn't say it was .. you are just trying to divert from your error

> I could play your silly definition games but choose not
>to.

If you don't use definitions, then you can't discuss physics.

== 3 of 3 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:37 pm
From: "Inertial"

wrote in message
news:f81d58e9-1f17-49f5...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>>
>>
>>
>> >Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
>> >they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
>> >same set of synchronized clocks)??
>>

>> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks. But once synchronised
>> you
>> can see if something else is faster or slower. Including testing OTHER
>> EMR
>> to see if they are also c.
>
>So why they don't they use the same two clocks to test for the one-way
>speed of light?

They can .. if they wanted to .. but TWLS is must more accurate. OWLS is
not all that interesting, except to crackpots

>> >The answer to this question:
>> >The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
>> >distance dependent.
>>

>> And so would then be the two-way speed .. and there is no evidence of
>> light
>> speed being distance dependent.
>
> There is....

No .. there isn't

> that's why they refused to test the one-way speed of light
> directly.

It would affect TWLS even more, yet they test that. Your logic fails
totally,

>> And even if it were, you just need to measure it over a known distance
>> and
>> find out.
>
>So why did they refuse to do so?

Its not worth the effort to do mostly .. but it does get done s I
understand.

>> > The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
>> > meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only
>> >the two-way speed of light can use this definition.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what definition you use for length .. as long as you
>> use
>> one consistently
>>
>
> Sure it does.....

Nope

>with the current definition for the meter you don't
>need to measure the distance at all.....all you need is to measure the
>return time and the speed of TWLS is: (return time/return time)
>(299,792,458)meter/second

Nonsense. Then you're not doing a measurement.

>> >Using this
>> >definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.
>>
>> As long as light is travelling at c all the time, yes.
>
>No....light can have any value.....TWLS is defined as 1 light-second/1
>second.

And if you set up your meter using light .. then measure some OTHER light,
you will only get c if it is travelling at the same speed as the light you
used to set up you metre standard.

>> >Experimentally the one-way and two-way speed of light is
>> >isotropic.....that's why physicists claim that the one-way speed of
>> >light is also constant c by definition.
>>
>> If you can show light is isotropic .. and show that it always has speed c
>> ..
>> then you have absolutely proved that OWLS is also c. Its logic.
>
>There is no proof that OWLS is c.

I just showed you how what you said above proves that it is, moron. You
proved it yourself.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: One Picture of the Infinity and the Finite of Multiverse
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/308c8d20e1f36de0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:41 pm
From: "G. L. Bradford"

Here I go with one picture, my picture, of the infinity and the finite of
Multiverse. One multi-dimensional pearl, my pearl as I see it, of
Multiverse.

In rendering it 3-dimensionally, I have a point, 0-dimensional, to
represent the infinity of Big Crunch.....the infinity of a *naked*
singularity (sic). I place it at the center of a great sphere; or
1-dimensionally illustratively on paper, a very large circular ring.

I have the 2-dimensional surface of the sphere, the 1-dimensional line of
the ring on paper, represent an infinitely flat, infinitely extensive,
infinitely broad and deep, event horizon of an infinite Universe.....the
infinity of a *naked* singularity (sic).

I encompass the 0-dimensional point with a few short spoke-arrows, the
arrows pointing into that point as illustrative of the infinite gravity, the
infinite depth, of the 0-dimensional point Big Crunch.

I sprinkle the outer and inner surfaces of the sphere with moderately
spaced short spoke-arrows all pointed at, pointing to, that common surface
of the sphere as illustrative of the infinite gravity of the 2-dimensional
surface of the sphere, the infinitely flat, infinitely extensive, infinitely
broad and deep (*infinitely* layered, flat), event horizon of an infinite
Universe (again, the infinity of a naked singularity (sic)).

Exactly half way between the infinity of the surface of the sphere (the
infinity of Universe) and the counterpoised infinity of the center point
(the infinity of the Big Crunch) I have a second, inner, sphere encompassing
the point. Over the outer surface of this inner sphere, I have short
spoke-arrows pointing away from that surface toward the inner surface of the
outer sphere. Over the inner surface of this inner sphere, I have short
spoke-arrows pointing down and in toward the center point of the spheres.
This sphere and its arrows pointing away from its surface outwardly and
inwardly is representative of a constant of Big Bang nova. The
multi-dimensional volume / surfacing (in more than one sense of 'surfacing')
of this inner sphere's surface being the Planck level scale and order
(orders) of Universe.

An expanding universe, accelerating in that expansion, is represented here
if you can see it.

A contracting universe, accelerating in that contraction is represented
here if you can see it.

An infinity of scaling up and out, and down and in, plus an implacably
sustaining finiteness within that scaling, is represented here if you can
see it.

An infinite singularity, the *single absolute* of 'naked singularity' is
represented here. Two facing and opposing (in counterpoise)
infinities....two faces of one and the same singularity of infinity, is
represented here. The Black Hole, a version of it (scaled, black holes,
plural; a version of them), is represented here if you can see it.

The Worm Hole, a version of it (scaled, wormholes; a version of them), is
represented here if you can see it.

GLB

** "He is the best sailor who can sail within fewest points of the wind, and
exact motive power from the greatest obstacles" **

==========================

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chapt26 precision defining function, continuity, topology in New Math #
1181 Correcting Math 3rd ed
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/481bc2300121b4ef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:32 pm
From: Archimedes Plutonium

On Nov 26, 2:41 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 1:34 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Chapter 26: precision definitions of Sequence, Series, Function,
> > Continuity, Topology, Algebra
>
> (snipped)
>
> What I am working towards is a definition of continuous for functions
> that eliminates
> all of Old Math discontinuities.
>
> We can call three types of discontinuity in Old Math.
>
> (1) point discontinuity such as f(0)=1 and f(x)=x
> (2) break discontinuity such as a step function U=1 and U=0
> (3) branch discontinuity such as f(x)=1/x^2
>
> Now I used Strang's CALCULUS,1991, page 86 for these above three
> examples.
>
> Now I get rid of those three discontinuities of Old Math by several
> methods.
>
> First we get rid of all functions that are compound functions and in
> the definition
> of function we allow only elemental-functions. The function y=x^-2 is
> a branch function
> and is compound. So that we cannot have any compound functions. We can
> consider one branch
> of that as a function.
>
> In Old Math, we eliminate all functions that have a F and G such as
> (1) and (2) of Strang's
> page 86, those are also compound-functions.
>
> Now I am not sure of this statement or claim, that I am about to make,
> but I think that every
> step function is a compound function and thus in New Math, no function
> is a step function.
>
> So that in New Math, every function is elemental-function.
>
> In New Math the function y=x^-2 cannot be both branches.
>
> So in the definition of function in New Math, all functions are
> continuous as per the definition of continuity is that the x-axis
> points have a y-axis component, the purpose of which is that
> continuity
> exists even though there are tiny holes of 10^-603 in between
> consecutive-points.
>
> Now as for the function shown as y=sin(1/x) in Strang's page 86, it is
> continuous in New Math because
> in New Math we define 1/0 as being equal to 0. Division by zero in New
> Math is defined as equalling 0.
>
> Hopefully, all the bugs are worked out by the above of elemental-
> function and compound-function, but
> if there are more bugs, I suspect it is easy to get rid of them.
>

Now there maybe a real nice easy method of reform. We simply say that
Calculus takes place only in the first quadrant of the Cartesian
Coordinate
System and that 0 is not included and so the Calculus is from the open
set
(0,10^603)

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Non-Row Diagonal
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/2ab8dae1483fbbe5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 1:52 pm
From: "christian.bau"

On Nov 26, 2:46 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:54 pm, "christian.bau"
>
> <christian....@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 6:24 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > THEOREM 1: A sort algorithm exists for any non-trivially-incomplete
> > > list of reals such that the diagonal of the sorted list is not equal
> > > to any row of the list.
>
> > And what is the significance of that?
>
> > And what would be a "non-trivially-incomplete list of reals", when it
> > has been known since Cantor that every list of reals is incomplete?
>
> +------------>
> ! 0 . [0]1 2...
> ! 0 . 0[1]1...
> ! 0 . 1 0[2]... -------012
> ! 0 . 1 2 0...
> ! 0 . 2 0 1...
> ! 0 . 2 1 0...
> ! 0 . 2 2[1]... -------021
> ! 0 . 1[2]1...
> ! 0 . [0]0 0...
> ! 0 . 1 1 0...
> ! 0 . 1 2 1...
> ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> ! 0 . [1] 1 2...
> ! 0 . 0[0]0...
> ! 0 . 2 1[2]... -------102
> ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> ! 0 . 1 1 1...
> ! 0 . 0 0 0...
> ! 0 . [1] 1 0...
> ! 0 . 1[2]1...
> ! 0 . 0 2[0]... -------120
> ! 0 . 1 1 2...
> ! 0 . 1 20...
> ! 0 . 2[0]1...
> ! 0 . [2]1 0...
> ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> ! 0 . 1 1[1]... -------201
> ! 0 . 0 0 0...
> ! 0 . 1 1 0...
> ! 0 . 1 2 1...
> ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> ! 0 . 1 1 2...
> ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> ! 0 . [2]1 0...
> ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> ! 0 . 1[1]1...
> ! 0 . 1 2[0]... -------210
> ! 0 . 2 0 1...
> ! 0 . 2 1 0...
> ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> ! 0 . 1 1 1...
> ! 0 . 0[0]0...
> ! 0 . 1 1[0]... -------000
> ! 0 . 1 2 1...
> ! 0 . [0]2 0...
> ! 0 . 1 1 2...
> ! 0 . [0]2 0...
> ! 0 . 2[1]0...
> ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> ! 0 . 1 1[1]... -------011
> ! 0 . 1 2 0...
> ! 0 . 2 0[1]... -------111
> ! 0 . 2[1]0...
> ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> ! 0 . [1]1 1...
> ! 0 . 0 0 0...
> ! 0 . 1 1 0...
> ! 0 . 1 2 1...
> ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> ! 0 . 1 1 2...
> ! 0 . 0 2[0]... -------110
> ! 0 . 2[1]0...
> ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> ! 0 . [1]1 1...
> ! 0 . 1 2 0...
> ! 0 . 2 0 1...
> ! 0 . 2 1 0...
> ! 0 . 2 2[2]... -------022
> ! 0 . 1 1 1...
> ! 0 . [0]0 0...
> ! 0 . 1 1 0...
> ! 0 . 1[2]1...
> ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> ! 0 . 1 1[2]... -------222
> ! 0 . 0[2]0...
> ! 0 . [2]1 0...
> ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> ! 0 . 1 1 1...
> ! 0 . 0 0 0...
> v
> ...
>
> Herc

And how would that answer my two questions?

== 2 of 2 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:07 pm
From: Graham Cooper

On Nov 27, 7:52 am, "christian.bau" <christian....@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2:46 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 11:54 pm, "christian.bau"
>
> > <christian....@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 6:24 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > THEOREM 1: A sort algorithm exists for any non-trivially-incomplete
> > > > list of reals such that the diagonal of the sorted list is not equal
> > > > to any row of the list.
>
> > > And what is the significance of that?
>
> > > And what would be a "non-trivially-incomplete list of reals", when it
> > > has been known since Cantor that every list of reals is incomplete?
>
> > +------------>
> > ! 0 . [0]1 2...
> > ! 0 . 0[1]1...
> > ! 0 . 1 0[2]... -------012
> > ! 0 . 1 2 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 0 1...
> > ! 0 . 2 1 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2[1]... -------021
> > ! 0 . 1[2]1...
> > ! 0 . [0]0 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 2 1...
> > ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> > ! 0 . [1] 1 2...
> > ! 0 . 0[0]0...
> > ! 0 . 2 1[2]... -------102
> > ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 1...
> > ! 0 . 0 0 0...
> > ! 0 . [1] 1 0...
> > ! 0 . 1[2]1...
> > ! 0 . 0 2[0]... -------120
> > ! 0 . 1 1 2...
> > ! 0 . 1 20...
> > ! 0 . 2[0]1...
> > ! 0 . [2]1 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> > ! 0 . 1 1[1]... -------201
> > ! 0 . 0 0 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 2 1...
> > ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 2...
> > ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> > ! 0 . [2]1 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> > ! 0 . 1[1]1...
> > ! 0 . 1 2[0]... -------210
> > ! 0 . 2 0 1...
> > ! 0 . 2 1 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 1...
> > ! 0 . 0[0]0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1[0]... -------000
> > ! 0 . 1 2 1...
> > ! 0 . [0]2 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 2...
> > ! 0 . [0]2 0...
> > ! 0 . 2[1]0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> > ! 0 . 1 1[1]... -------011
> > ! 0 . 1 2 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 0[1]... -------111
> > ! 0 . 2[1]0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> > ! 0 . [1]1 1...
> > ! 0 . 0 0 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 2 1...
> > ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 2...
> > ! 0 . 0 2[0]... -------110
> > ! 0 . 2[1]0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> > ! 0 . [1]1 1...
> > ! 0 . 1 2 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 0 1...
> > ! 0 . 2 1 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2[2]... -------022
> > ! 0 . 1 1 1...
> > ! 0 . [0]0 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 0...
> > ! 0 . 1[2]1...
> > ! 0 . 0 2 0...
> > ! 0 . 1 1[2]... -------222
> > ! 0 . 0[2]0...
> > ! 0 . [2]1 0...
> > ! 0 . 2 2 2...
> > ! 0 . 1 1 1...
> > ! 0 . 0 0 0...
> > v
> > ...
>
> > Herc
>
> And how would that answer my two questions?

It's not trivially incomplete because you cannot calculate an anti-
diagonal without realising your construction process is flawed.

1 & 2!

Herc

==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:12 pm
From: "Androcles"

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:b0k2d7tltvjvltc6r...@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:04:50 -0000, "Androcles"

| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

| >news:oq11d7hbj3ov4atoo...@4ax.com...
| >| On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 03:39:53 -0000, "Androcles"
| >| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
| >|
|
| >| >| I know all about Chaos. http://www.scisite.info/Henry.htm
| >| >| ,note the background fractal.
| >| >|
| >| >That's not the right chaos.
| >|
| >| I know all about the other aspects of chaos.
| >|
| >| >Don't you know any motion?
| >| >If you watch the video carefully you'll hear repeated references to
| >| >celestial mechanics -- and at 8:40 into the video he calls it
"non-linear
| >| >dynamics", the subject I'm trying to get across.
| >|
| >| I am aware of the chaotic nature of thre or more body systems.
| >|
| >| >The equation for the double pendulum is
| >| >y[t] = R.sin(wt) + L.sin(wt)
| >| >x[t] = R.cos(wt) + L.cos(wt)
| >| >but w isn't constant.
| >|
| >| That's not sufficient. The two sections have entirely different 'w's
and
| >| neither is constant, although one might be pretty close if it relates
to a
| >| relatively long arm.
| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| I've drawn the bloody difference curve. It has double the frequency.
| >| >| I have now drawn the difference curve between radial velocities of
two
| >| >| elliptical orbits and the frequency is again doubled.
| >| >
| >| >I don't care if you drew a cow jumping over the moon for the little
| >| >dog to laugh at, I didn't ask for two elliptical orbits! I asked for
ONE
| >| >red curve with R/L = 1, showing position of a piston, and ONE
| >| >difference curve for a piston with non-linear motion.
| >| >
| >| >| This provides a missing link in BaTh that you aren't even aware of.
| >| >|
| >| > | With your knack of fluking discoveries and my brains, we could go a
| >long
| >| >way
| >| >| together.
| >| >|
| >| >Only if you could stay on target instead of rolling around the deck
and
| >| >firing
| >| >off in all directions like the loose cannon you are.
| >|
| >| ME? a loose cannon????? YOU have been rolling aimlessly around the deck
| >for
| >| years.
| >
| >Yes, you.
| >
| >|
| >| You don't even realise the importance of your chance discovery...and if
I
| >| hadn't mentioned it it would have gone completely unnoticed.
| >|
| >Are you going to do what I asked or not?
|
| PLease state precisely what you are asking. I believe I have already
| answered it twice.

Draw a curve
red[t] = R.sin(wt) + L.sin(wt) for t=0 to pi, R = 1, L = 1, w = 1
red[t] = R.sin(wt) - L.sin(wt) for t=pi to 2pi

Draw a second curve
green[t] = red[t]-red[t-1]

Normalise both curves to the same amplitude to fit the screen.
Do not change the phase.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Future directions with IFEs
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/973a2d6ecc05402a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:15 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee

On Nov 27, 3:14 am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 4:43 PM, DMJoshi wrote:> On Nov 26, 12:11 pm, Arindam Banerjee<adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> ..
> ...
>
> >> would be an even greater fool than those fools if I so tried. I have
> >> found that you are incompetent to decide who is worthy or not in
> >> scientific matters, so your opinion on such subjects is irrelevant.
>
> > You have found anybody on SCI that has backed you up besides jBm?
>
> What is there to backup? As far as I know Arindam just claims
> that the rails of a railgun do not receive backward recoil
> force!

I have given the reference for that claim, based on work done in the
US under a DoD project.
They suspended a model rail gun as a pendulum, excited it, and found
that the reaction was 70 times less than the action.
The general ideas was to decide about the mounting of rail guns.
Would they need as much support from the deck/platform as normal
chemical guns?
As they do not, they can be placed in odd positions,like from where
you may fire rockets.

There must be people willing to admit that those rails
> only feel sideward force, don't you think?

Yes, those who worked on it must know about it. There is a reason why
rail guns have not been very successful in practice. They become too
hot, require a lot of power, etc. On the other hand, when these
issues are sorted out, they can be very powerful weapons, the last
line of defence against incoming missiles. Upon tanks they can be used
with great effect.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> --
> Jos

== 2 of 5 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:29 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee

On Nov 27, 9:15 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 3:14 am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > On 11/26/2011 4:43 PM, DMJoshi wrote:> On Nov 26, 12:11 pm, Arindam Banerjee<adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > ..
> > ...
>
> > >> would be an even greater fool than those fools if I so tried. I have
> > >> found that you are incompetent to decide who is worthy or not in
> > >> scientific matters, so your opinion on such subjects is irrelevant.
>
> > > You have found anybody on SCI that has backed you up besides jBm?
>
> > What is there to backup? As far as I know Arindam just claims
> > that the rails of a railgun do not receive backward recoil
> > force!
>
> I have given the reference for that claim, based on work done in the
> US under a DoD project.

To further add, this work was done for the Navy, by a Naval officer of
name Schroeder for his Masters' thesis.

> They suspended a model rail gun as a pendulum, excited it, and found
> that the reaction was 70 times less than the action.
> The general ideas was to decide about the mounting of rail guns.
> Would they need as much support from the deck/platform as normal
> chemical guns?
> As they do not, they can be placed in odd positions,like from where
> you may fire rockets.
>
> There must be people willing to admit that those rails
>
> > only feel sideward force, don't you think?
>
> Yes, those who worked on it must know about it. There is a reason why
> rail guns have not been very successful in practice. They become too
> hot, require a lot of power, etc. On the other hand, when these
> issues are sorted out, they can be very powerful weapons, the last
> line of defence against incoming missiles. Upon tanks they can be used
> with great effect.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Jos- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:28 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee

On Nov 27, 2:43 am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 12:11 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:48 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 25, 10:07 pm, Durba Banerjee <durbabanerjee.ri...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 25, 7:43 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 24, 9:08 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 25, 12:20 am, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 24, 12:42 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 24, 8:44 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 24, 9:09 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 24, 6:37 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 9:19 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 9:01 pm, DMJoshi <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Normally in India people who seek audience with people in position of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > your Didi camp outside the gates of their bungalows. Any such plan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > during your 3 months in India?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, but my father will do something on the lines you suggest. After
> > > > > > > > > > > > all, he is a social worker who thinks my idea will benefit the poor
> > > > > > > > > > > > people in rural areas. He will not be fighting for my interests, but
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the interests of the neglected masses of very poor people without
> > > > > > > > > > > > water, education, medical facilities, etc etc.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > How would your idea will benefit poor people in rural areas?
>
> > > > > > > > > > They will get pure water and electricity with hydrogen coming from the
> > > > > > > > > > hydrogen transmission network.
>
> > > > > > > > > How do Hydrogen Transmitting Pipes compare in cost?
>
> > > > > > > > It is a big exercise, to provide contrasts between planned power
> > > > > > > > generation and power using HTN.
> > > > > > > > Only a pilot project can give realistic cost estimates.
> > > > > > > > On the basis of research papers, one finds that sending same amount of
> > > > > > > > energy using HV trans lines and gas pipes, the costs are roughly the
> > > > > > > > same so far as installation goes.
>
> > > > > > > > I believe you
>
> > > > > > > > > have the patent for manufacturing such pipes.
>
> > > > > > > > No. I have the patent for a method to distribute power from variable
> > > > > > > > power generation sources with respect to time to multiple sinks using
> > > > > > > > the piping of hydrogen.
> > > > > > > > > In your state Jharkhand
> > > > > > > > > a 100 square kilometres of Rural and Semi Rural area (of your choice)
> > > > > > > > > if the State is to implement your scheme, what investment state has to
> > > > > > > > > make?
>
> > > > > > > In Jharkhand you do not have sea water to convert, so I suppose
> > > > > > > instead of Solar Power you would recommend coal power to produce
> > > > > > > Hydrogen and that having come from fresh water it may not be worth to
> > > > > > > spend on producing fresh water for rural population.
> > > > > > > Mamta Banerjee's state can use sea water and solar power to turn salty
> > > > > > > or brackish water into hydrogen. No Bengali Scientist in the state to
> > > > > > > back up you.
>
> > > > > > I don't know what to say, when their top goal is evidently to ignore
> > > > > > my existence upon the planet.
>
> > > > > > > I doubt if Modi would listen to me. But he should some of the
> > > > > > > champions of Hinduism in USA and Canada, after all they have kept the
> > > > > > > flag of सनातन धर्म flying there.
>
> > > > > > Who knows what may happen.
>
> > > > > What puzzles me about you is that you want to talk to someone who has
> > > > > run you down bringing your father in the frame, while refuse to talk
> > > > > to some one who at one point you declared that he backs you in binning
> > > > > Einstein.
>
> > > > I consider myself a polite person, and so, encourage politeness in
> > > > everyone.
> > > > When sometimes talks to me politely and helpfully, I reply in kind,
> > > > not bearing in mind past grudges or whatever. Let bygones be
> > > > bygones. "To err is human; to forgive, Divine." I aspire to
> > > > divinity, of course.
> > > > When people make unprovoked abusive attacks upon me, behave stupidly
> > > > deliberately or otherwise, I reserve the right of amused retaliation
> > > > or indifference as may suit the case.
>
> > > > > Mamta Banerjee can appoint you as Vice Chancellor of any West Bengal
> > > > > University
>
> > > > She can do anything. When she or her followers do not even bother to
> > > > reply to what I write to her and them, then I understand in what
> > > > esteem I am being held in WB/India. How on earth can I expect that I
> > > > of all people will be appointed to some high post, when my existence
> > > > is not even recognised?
>
> > > > and your father may not have to camp at the gate of her
>
> > > > > Bungalow, but it will be impossible for her to put aside any money for
> > > > > your pilot project either for Hydrogen and all that or for Internal
> > > > > Force Machine UNLESS some established Scientists of West Bengal are in
> > > > > agreement with you.
>
> > > > Since they won't be in agreement with me, for whatever reasons, as
> > > > they on the face of all evidence don't want to accept my existence on
> > > > the planet, I have asked my father not to bother, but he won't
> > > > listen. So when I go to India, it will be to enjoy myself with my
> > > > family, relatives and friends as much as possible. Visit nice places,
> > > > etc.
>
> > > > Established scientists do agree with me, or at least do not dare to
> > > > publicly disagree. If despite that, and my public defence of all my
> > > > work,
>
> > > You fell short defending your formula.
>
> > > 6 days back Zinnic asked you
>
> > > "Just send me some of the k factor you use in your formula
> > > e=0.5mvvN(N-k). That should raise anything. Even for use in the
> > > formula kN=V 1a gRa."
>
> > > and you replied to him
>
> > > "Spoken like a true moron, above. "
>
> > > I take that as a reply from someone who is incompetent and angry when
> > > that incompetence is exposed to every one, not of a polite person with
> > > any stretch of imagination
>
> > I cannot satisfy every fool or rascal who makes stupid comments.

Nor is reformation of any individual's character or intellect within
my scope...
I do my best to expose and destroy bad notions and tendencies, as
doing that will benefit everyone and everything in the long run.

Generally speaking:
It is not efficient to waste too much time upon trying to educate the
stupid, and absolutely worthless it is to try to improve the moral
character of the dishonest individual, who can only create a mockery
of facts and logic.

On the other hand, these sorts exist for some purpose no doubt. At
times, they do help brighter minds to see or at least express
themselves more clearly. On the other hand, they also tend to become
abusive and envious, and when that happens, they gotta be avoided.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

== 4 of 5 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:34 pm
From: Jos Bergervoet

On 11/26/2011 11:15 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Nov 27, 3:14 am, Jos Bergervoet<jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2011 4:43 PM, DMJoshi wrote:> On Nov 26, 12:11 pm, Arindam Banerjee<adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> ..
>> ...
>>>> would be an even greater fool than those fools if I so tried. I have
>>>> found that you are incompetent to decide who is worthy or not in
>>>> scientific matters, so your opinion on such subjects is irrelevant.
>>
>>> You have found anybody on SCI that has backed you up besides jBm?
>>
>> What is there to backup? As far as I know Arindam just claims
>> that the rails of a railgun do not receive backward recoil
>> force!
>
> I have given the reference for that claim, based on work done in the
> US under a DoD project.
> They suspended a model rail gun as a pendulum, excited it, and found
> that the reaction was 70 times less than the action.
> The general ideas was to decide about the mounting of rail guns.
> Would they need as much support from the deck/platform as normal
> chemical guns?
> As they do not, they can be placed in odd positions,like from where
> you may fire rockets.

But still they will be pushed sidewards quite strongly.
Much like the walls of an ordinary cannon, they will
have to resist this lateral force!

And of course the side walls of a cannon also do not
feel the backward recoil force. It is really the same.

--
Jos

== 5 of 5 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:52 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee

On Nov 27, 9:34 am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 11:15 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 3:14 am, Jos Bergervoet<jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> On 11/26/2011 4:43 PM, DMJoshi wrote:> On Nov 26, 12:11 pm, Arindam Banerjee<adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> ..
> >> ...
> >>>> would be an even greater fool than those fools if I so tried. I have
> >>>> found that you are incompetent to decide who is worthy or not in
> >>>> scientific matters, so your opinion on such subjects is irrelevant.
>
> >>> You have found anybody on SCI that has backed you up besides jBm?
>
> >> What is there to backup? As far as I know Arindam just claims
> >> that the rails of a railgun do not receive backward recoil
> >> force!
>
> > I have given the reference for that claim, based on work done in the
> > US under a DoD project.
> > They suspended a model rail gun as a pendulum, excited it, and found
> > that the reaction was 70 times less than the action.
> > The general ideas was to decide about the mounting of rail guns.
> > Would they need as much support from the deck/platform as normal
> > chemical guns?
> > As they do not, they can be placed in odd positions,like from where
> > you may fire rockets.
>
> But still they will be pushed sidewards quite strongly.
> Much like the walls of an ordinary cannon, they will
> have to resist this lateral force!
>
> And of course the side walls of a cannon also do not
> feel the backward recoil force. It is really the same.

So why not mount a electromagnetic rail machine gun on the stern of a
small untethered boat is still water, and blow up the bows. If the
boat accelerates, we prove the validity of the formula

e=0.5mVVN(N-k)

once and for all.

Why this evasiveness on the part of supposedly free and brave people,
in the US or elsewhere?

Are you all chicken now?

Well, they do say that you become what you eat!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> --
> Jos- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is time? Flow and moving parts
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/51604c068799824f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 2:24 pm
From: "micro...@hotmail.com"

A clock requires cyclic moving parts but time is part of them.
Time flows over these moving parts in space. That is how time is in a
clock.
If time were not in a clock a clock could not measure the time
flow property.

Mitch Raemsch

==============================================================================
TOPIC: SUPERLUMINAL NEUTRINOS AND TIRED LIGHT
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/30bc3487147d2661?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 3:06 pm
From: Pentcho Valev

Justification of the "tired light" (or "slowed light") hypothesis:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
"In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are
continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist
for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is
so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-researchers-create-light-from-almost.html
"The thinking goes that in any vacuum, virtual particles come into
existence and then disappear on a constant ongoing basis; and they do
so in waves. The Casimir effect proposes that if two very tiny mirrors
were to be placed very close together; close enough that the distance
between them would be smaller than the length of some of the virtual
waves, a force would be created as the number of particles outside of
the space between the mirrors grows higher than the number that exists
between them, causing a pull on the mirrors, dragging them closer
together."

If virtual particles can exert a force on mirrors, it is reasonable to
assume that they can exert a force on travelling photons thereby
decreasing their energy (speed):

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html
"Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the
smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to
calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays
travel through space."

For the moment the final conclusion:

"Hubble redshift due to decreased speed of light; static, not
expanding, universe"

is prevented by crimestop:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Curvature of Space. ?????

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/3866c6cca3f82af3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 3:13 pm
From: Wally W.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:59:47 -0500, HVAC wrote:

>On 11/25/2011 11:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And it doesn't explain why a creator is needed at all.
>>

>> That wasn't the issue addressed in my post.
>>
>> It was stated as a fact that a "creator would have had to come from
>> somewhere."
>>
>> I don't believe we know it to be a true statement.
>
>
>I agree. Since the 'creator' doesn't exist, he came from 'nowhere'.

Following one assertion of certain knowledge with another:
1. A creator would have had to come from somewhere.
2. The 'creator' doesn't exist.

How do you know "the 'creator' doesn't exist?"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 4100 Solution manuals to Mechanics, Mechanical Engineering and
Aerospace Engineering Books
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/555b4944bb4eb5d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Sat, Nov 26 2011 3:09 pm
From: Rod Wesler

List of Solutions Manuals and Test Banks
________________________________________

contact me to : matt...@gmail.com
mattosbw1(at)gmail.com

NOTE : "THIS SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR : CHINA, INDIA, RUSSIA,
PAKISTAN, IRAQ, IRAN, PHILIPPINES, NORTH KOREA, NEPAL, BANGLADESH, SRI
LANKA, MALDIVES, BHUTAN & COLOMBIA".

If your wanted solutions manual is not in this list, also can ask me
if is available (it is a partial list). Then if you need solutions
manual only contact me by email.

"ARE NOT AVAILABLES BOOKS IN DIGITAL FORMAT", ONLY SOLUTIONS MANUALS
AND TEST BANKS.

This same "list of titles" of texts with availables solutions manual
and/or test banks is for download from :

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CHR35EA1

I do not review the forums, just send me an email. Please do not use
emails from servers "LIVE" , all they are take as spam emails in my
inbox.

- Mechanics, Mechanical Engineering & Aerospace Engineering:
____________________________________________________________

Solution Manual Classical Mechanics (Douglas Gregory)
Solution Manual Classical Mechanics : From Newton to Einstein : A
Modern Introduction (2nd Ed., Martin McCall)
Solution Manual Advanced Dynamics (Donald T. Greenwood)
Solution Manual Principles of Dynamics (2nd Ed., Donald T. Greenwood)
Solution Manual Advanced Engineering Dynamics (2nd Ed., Jerry
Ginsberg)
Solution Manual Classical Dynamics (Jorge V. José)
Solution Manual Impact Mechanics (W.J. Stronge)
Solution Manual Statistical Mechanics (2nd Ed., R.K. Pathria)
Solution Manual Statistical Mechanics (3rd Ed., R.K. Pathria & Paul D.
Beale)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics of Solids (2nd Ed., Egor P.
Popov)
Solution Manual Introduction to Continuum Mechanics (4th Ed., W.
Michael Lai, David Rubin & Erhard Krempl)
Solution Manual Analytical Mechanics (7th Ed., Grant R. Fowles, George
Cassiday)
Solution Manual Introduction to Mechanical Engineering (Rizza)
Solution Manual Engineering Fundamentals and Problem Solving (4th Ed.,
Eide, Jenison, Mashaw & Northup)
Solution Manual Engineering Fundamentals and Problem Solving (5th Ed.,
Eide, Jenison, Northup & Mickelson)
Solution Manual Engineering Fundamentals and Problem Solving (6th Ed.,
Eide, Jenison, Northup & Mickelson)
Solution Manual Mechanical Engineering Principles (Bird & Ross)
Solution Manual Dynamics of Mechanical Systems (C.T.F. Ross)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Solids (C.T.F. Ross)
Solution Manual Introduction to Engineering Analysis (1st Ed., Hagen)
Solution Manual Introduction to Engineering Analysis (2nd Ed., Hagen)
Solution Manual Introduction to Engineering Analysis (3rd Ed., Hagen)
Solution Manual Engineering Design (Rudolph J. Eggert)
Solution Manual Creative Design of Products and Systems (Saeed Niku)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Engineering Design (2nd Ed., Barry
Hyman)
Solution Manual Engineering Design (4th Ed., George Dieter & Linda
Schmidt)
Solution Manual Engineering Design and Graphics with Autodesk Inventor
2009 (James Bethune)
Solution Manual Engineering Design : A Project-Based Introduction (2nd
Ed., Clive Dym & Patrick Little)
Solution Manual Engineering Design : A Project-Based Introduction (3rd
Ed., Clive Dym & Patrick Little)
Solution Manual Tools and Tactics of Design (Dominick, Demel,
Lawbaugh, Freuler, Kinzel & Fromm)
Solution Manual Advanced Fluid Mechanics (William Graebel)
Solution manual Modern Fluid Dynamics (Clement Kleinstreuer)
Solution manual Essential Computational Fluid Dynamics (Oleg Zikanov)
Solution Manual Computational Fluid Dynamics : A Practical Approach
(Jiyuan Tu, Guan Heng Yeoh & Chaoqun Liu)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Fluids (8th Ed., Massey)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (5th Ed., Frank White)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (6th Ed., Frank White)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (7th Ed., Frank White)
Solution Manual Viscous Fluid Flow (3rd Ed., Frank White)
Solution Manual Thermodynamics and Heat Power (6th Ed., Kurt C. Rolle)
Solution Manual Modern Engineering Thermodynamics (Robert Balmer)
Solution Manual Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Materials (4th
Ed. David Gaskell)
Solution Manual Engineering Thermodynamics : Work and Heat Transfer
(4th Ed., G.F.C. Rogers & Yon Mayhew)
Solution Manual Introduction to Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer (2nd
Ed., Yunus Cengel)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Thermal-Fluid Sciences (1st Ed., Yunus
Cengel)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Thermal-Fluid Sciences (2nd Ed., Yunus
Cengel)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Thermal-Fluid Sciences (3rd Ed., Yunus
Cengel & Robert Turner)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Thermal-Fluid Sciences (4th Ed., Yunus
Cengel , Robert Turner & John Cimbala)
Solution Manual Thermodynamics : An Engineering Approach (5th Ed.,
Yunus Cengel)
Solution Manual Thermodynamics : An Engineering Approach (6th Ed.,
Yunus Cengel & Michael Boles)
Solution Manual Thermodynamics : An Engineering Approach (7th Ed.,
Yunus Cengel & Michael Boles)
Solution Manual Essentials of Fluid Mechanics : Fundamentals and
Applications (1st Ed., Yunus Cengel, John Cimbala)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (1st Ed., Yunus Cengel & John
Cimbala)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (2nd Ed., Yunus Cengel & John
Cimbala)
Solution Manual Heat Tranfer (2nd Ed., Yunus Cengel)
Solution Manual Heat and Mass Transfer : A Practical Approach (3rd
Ed., Yunus Cengel)
Solution Manual Heat and Mass Transfer : Fundamentals and Applications
(4th Ed., Yunus Cengel & Afshin Ghajar)
Solution Manual Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (6th Ed., Robert Fox,
Alan McDonald & Philip Pritchard)
Solution Manual Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (7th Ed., Robert Fox,
Philip Pritchard & Alan McDonald)
Solution Manual Fox and McDonald's Introduction to Fluid Mechanics
(8th Ed., Philip Pritchard)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (5th Ed., Douglas)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (3rd Ed., Kundu & Cohen)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (4th Ed., Kundu & Cohen)
Solution Manual Elementary Fluid Mechanics (7th Ed., Street, Watters &
Vennard)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications (10th
Ed., Finnemore & Franzini)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics (4th Ed., Bruce
Munson, Donald Young, Theodore Okiishi)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics (5th Ed., Bruce
Munson, Donald Young, Theodore Okiishi)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics (6th Ed., Bruce
Munson, Donald Young, Theodore Okiishi, Wade Huebsch)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics - SI Units (6th Ed.,
Bruce Munson, Donald Young, Theodore Okiishi, Wade Huebsch)
Solution Manual A Brief Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (3rd Ed.,
Donald Young, Bruce Munson, Theodore Okiishi)
Solution Manual A Brief Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (4th Ed.,
Donald Young, Bruce Munson, Theodore Okiishi, Wade Huebsch)
Solution Manual A Brief Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (5th Ed.,
Donald Young, Bruce Munson, Theodore Okiishi, Wade Huebsch)
Solution Manual Engineering Fluid Mechanics (7th Ed., Clayton Crowe,
Donald Elger, John Roberson)
Solution Manual Engineering Fluid Mechanics (8th Ed., Clayton Crowe,
Donald Elger, John Roberson)
Solution Manual Engineering Fluid Mechanics (9th Ed., Clayton Crowe,
Donald Elger, John Roberson, Barbara Williams)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics (Potter & Foss)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Fluids (3rd Ed., Potter)
Solution Manual Fluid Power with Applications (7th Ed., Esposito)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Fluids (4th Ed., Shames)
Solution Manual Applied Fluid Mechanics (6th Ed., Mott)
Solution Manual Applied Fluid Mechanics - SI Units (6th Ed., Mott)
Solution Manual Hydraulic Control Systems (Noah Manring)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery
(5th Ed., S.L. Dixon)
Solution Manual Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery
(6th Ed., S.L. Dixon & Cesare Hall)
Solution Manual The Design of High-Efficiency Turbomachinery and Gas
Turbines (2nd Ed., David Gordon Wilson & Theododios Korakianitis)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Turbomachinery (William Peng)
Solution Manual Principles of Turbomachinery in Air-Breathing Engines
(Baskharone)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Jet Propulsion with Applications
(Ronald D. Flack)
Solution Manual Extended Irreversible Thermodynamics (3rd Ed., D. Jou,
J. Casas-Vazquez & G. Lebon)
Solution Manual Thermodynamics : An Integrated Learning System
(Schmidt, Ezekoye, Howell & Baker)
Solution Manual Design of Fluid Thermal Systems (2nd Ed., William
Janna)
Solution Manual Design and Simulation of Thermal Systems (N.V.
Suryanarayana & Oner Arici)
Solution Manual Introduction to Thermal and Fluids Engineering
(Kaminski & Jensen)
Solution Manual Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Analysis and
Design (6th Ed., McQuiston)
Solution Manual Electricity, Electronics, and Control Systems for HVAC
(4th Ed., Thomas Kissell)
Solution Manual Heat and Mass Transfer (Anthony Mills)
Solution Manual Heat Transfer (2nd Ed., A.F. Mills)
Solution Manual Basic Heat and Mass Transfer (2nd Ed., A.F. Mills)
Solution Manual Convective Heat and Mass Transfer (4th Ed., Kays &
Crawford)
Solution Manual Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics (3rd Ed., Bejan)
Solution Manual Convection Heat Transfer (3rd Ed., Bejan)
Solution Manual Design with Constructal Theory (Adrian Bejan & Sylvie
Lorente)
Solution Manual Shape and Structure, from Engineering to Nature
(Adrian Bejan)
Solution Manual Thermodynamics : Concepts and Applications (Stephen
Turns)
Solution Manual Experimental Methods for Engineers (8th Ed., Jack P.
Holman)
Solution Manual Heat Transfer (10th Ed., Jack Holman)
Solution Manual Principles of Heat Transfer (Kaviany)
Solution Manual Heat Convection (Latif M. Jiji)
Solution Manual Heat Conduction (3rd Ed., Latif M. Jiji)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer (5th
Ed., Welty)
Solution Manual Analytical Methods for Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow
Problems (Bernhard Weigand)
Solution Manual Two-Phase Flow : Theory and Applications (Clement
Kleinstreuer)
Solution Manual An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics : Principles of
Analysis and Design (Stanley Middleman)
Solution Manual An Introduction to Mass and Heat Transfer : Principles
of Analysis and Design (Stanley Middleman)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (5th Ed., Richard
Sonntag, Claus Borgnakke & Gordon Van Wylen)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (6th Ed., Richard
Sonntag, Claus Borgnakke & Gordon Van Wylen)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (7th Ed., Claus
Borgnakke & Richard Sonntag)
Solution Manual Introduction to Engineering Thermodynamics (1st Ed.,
Richard Sonntag & Claus Borgnakke)
Solution Manual Introduction to Engineering Thermodynamics (2nd Ed.,
Richard Sonntag & Claus Borgnakke)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (5th Ed.,
Michael Moran, Howard Shapiro)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (6th Ed.,
Michael Moran, Howard Shapiro)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics - SI Units
(6th Ed., Michael Moran, Howard Shapiro)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (7th Ed.,
Michael Moran, Howard Shapiro, Daisie Boettner, Margaret Bailey)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (5th Ed.,
Incropera, DeWitt, Bergman, Lavine)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (6th Ed.,
Incropera, DeWitt, Bergman, Lavine)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (7th Ed.,
Incropera, DeWitt, Bergman, Lavine)
Solution Manual Introduction to Heat Transfer (4th Ed., Incropera,
DeWitt)
Solution Manual Introduction to Heat Transfer (5th Ed., Incropera,
DeWitt, Bergman, Lavine)
Solution Manual Introduction to Heat Transfer (6th Ed., Incropera,
DeWitt, Bergman, Lavine)
Solution Manual Radiation Detection and Measurement (3rd Ed., Glenn
Knoll)
Solution Manual Radiation Detection and Measurement (4th Ed., Glenn
Knoll)
Solution Manual Radiative Heat Transfer (2nd Ed., Michael Modest)
Solution Manual Principles of Combustion (2nd Ed., Kenneth Kuan-yun
Kuo)
Solution Manual An Introduction to Combustion : Concepts and
Applications (3rd Ed., Stephen R. Turns)
Solution Manual Combustion (2nd Ed., Irvin Glassman)
Solution Manual Combustion (3rd Ed., Irvin Glassman)
Solution Manual Incompressible Flow (3rd Ed., Panton)
Solution Manual Modern Compressible Flow : With Historical Perspective
(3rd Ed., John Anderson)
Solution Manual Non-Newtonian Flow : Fundamentals and Engineering
Applications (R.P. Chhabra & J F Richardson)
Solution Manual Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics (Srinivas,
K., Fletcher, C.A.J.)
Solution Manual Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics (A.W.
Date)
Solution Manual Robot Modeling and Control (Spong, Hutchinson &
Vidyasagar)
Solution Manual Introduction to Robotics : Mechanics and Control (3rd
Ed., John J. Craig)
Solution Manual Introduction to Robotics: Analysis, Control,
Applications (2nd Ed., Saeed B. Niku)
Solution Manual Theory of Applied Robotics : Kinematics, Dynamics and
Control (Reza N. Jazar)
Solution Manual Control of Robot Manipulators in Joint Space (R.
Kelly, V. Santibáñez, A. Loría)
Solution Manual Modelling and Control of Robot Manipulators (2nd Ed.,
Lorenzo Sciavicco, Bruno Siciliano)
Solution Manual Robotics : Modelling, Planning and Control (Bruno
Siciliano, Lorenzo Sciavicco, Luigi Villani & Giuseppe Oriolo)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems : Theory,
Methods, and Algorithms (3rd Ed., Jorge Angeles)
Solution Manual Kinematic Chains and Machine Components Design (Dan B.
Marghitu)
Solution Manual Kinematics, Dynamics, and Design of Machinery (2nd
Ed., Waldron & Kinzel)
Solution Manual Kinematics and Dynamics of Machinery (3rd Ed., Charles
E. Wilson & J. Peter Sadler)
Solution Manual Kinematics and Dynamics of Machinery - SI Units (3rd
Ed., Charles E. Wilson & J. Peter Sadler)
Solution Manual Machines and Mechanisms : Applied Kinematic Analysis
(3rd Ed., David H. Myszka)
Solution Manual Machines and Mechanisms : Applied Kinematic Analysis
(4th Ed., David H. Myszka)
Solution Manual Mechanism Design : Analysis and Synthesis (4th Ed.,
Erdman, Sandor & Kota)
Solution Manual Mechanical Design : A Components Approach (2nd Ed.,
Peter Childs)
Solution Manual Mechanical Design of Machine Elements and Machines : A
Failure Prevention Perspective (1st Ed., Collins)
Solution Manual Mechanical Design of Machine Elements and Machines : A
Failure Prevention Perspective (2nd Ed., Collins, Busby & Staab)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Machine Component Design (3rd Ed.,
Juvinall)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Machine Component Design (4th Ed.,
Juvinall & Marshek)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Machine Component Design (5th Ed.,
Juvinall & Marshek)
Solution Manual Design of Machine Elements (8th Ed., Spotts)
Solution Manual Machine Elements in Mechanical Design (4th Ed., Mott)
Solution Manual Machine Elements in Mechanical Design - SI Units (4th
Ed., Mott)
Solution Manual Mechanical Design : An Integrated Approach (1st Ed.,
Ansel Ugural)
Solution Manual Design of Machinery (3rd Ed., Norton)
Solution Manual Design of Machinery (4th Ed., Norton)
Solution Manual Design of Machinery (5th Ed., Norton)
Solution Manual Machine Design : An Integrated Approach (3rd Ed.,
Norton)
Solution Manual Machine Design : An Integrated Approach (4th Ed.,
Norton)
Solution Manual Mechanical Engineering Design (6th Ed., Shigley)
Solution Manual Mechanical Engineering Design (7th Ed., Shigley,
Mischke & Budynas)
Solution Manual Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design (8th Ed.,
Budynas & Nisbett)
Solution Manual Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design (9th Ed.,
Budynas & Nisbett)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Machine Elements (1st Ed., Hamrock)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Machine Elements (2nd Ed., Hamrock)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials : A Modern Integration of
Mechanics and Materials in Structural Design (Christopher Jenkins &
Sanjeev Khanna)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (3th Ed., Beer)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (5th Ed., Gere & Timoshenko)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (6th Ed., Gere & Timoshenko)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (7th Ed., Gere & Goodno)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (Ansel Ugural)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials : An Integrated Learning System
(1st Ed., Timothy Philpot)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials : An Integrated Learning System
(2nd Ed., Timothy Philpot)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (2nd Ed., Roy R. Craig)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (3rd Ed., Roy R. Craig)
Solution Manual Simplified Mechanics and Strength of Materials (6th
Ed., James Ambrose)
Solution Manual Engineering Applications of Dynamics (Dean Karnopp &
Donald Margolis)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (Arthur Boresi,
Richard Schmidt)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics (Arthur Boresi,
Richard Schmidt)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (5th Ed., J. L.
Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics - SI Version (5th Ed.,
J. L. Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (6th Ed., J. L.
Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics - SI Version (6th Ed.,
J. L. Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (7th Ed., J. L.
Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics (5th Ed., J. L.
Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics - SI Version (5th
Ed., J. L. Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics (6th Ed., J. L.
Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics - SI Version (6th
Ed., J. L. Meriam, L. G. Kraige)
Solution Manual Vector Mechanics for Engineers : Statics (7th Ed.,
Ferdinand Beer)
Solution Manual Vector Mechanics for Engineers : Statics (8th Ed.,
Ferdinand Beer)
Solution Manual Vector Mechanics for Engineers : Dynamics (7th Ed.,
Ferdinand Beer)
Solution Manual Vector Mechanics for Engineers : Dynamics (8th Ed.,
Ferdinand Beer)
Solution Manual Statics : Analysis and Design of Systems in
Equilibrium (Sheppard & Tongue)
Solution Manual Statics : Analysis and Design of Systems in
Equilibrium - Update Edition (Sheppard & Tongue)
Solution Manual Dynamics : Analysis and Design of Systems in Motion
(Sheppard & Tongue)
Solution Manual Dynamics : Analysis and Design of Systems in Motion
(2nd Ed., Sheppard & Tongue)
Solution Manual Statics and Mechanics of Materials : An Integrated
Approach (2nd Ed., Riley, Sturges & Morris)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (6th Ed., Riley, Sturges &
Morris)
Solution Manual Computational Methods in Elasticity and Plasticity :
Solids and Porous Media (A. Anandarajah)
Solution Manual Basic Engineering Plasticity : An Introduction with
Engineering and Manufacturing Applications (David Rees)
Solution Manual Theory of Plasticity (3rd Ed. Jagabanduhu Chakrabarty)
Solution Manual Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering
Materials (4th Ed., Richard Hertzberg)
Solution Manual Deformable Bodies and Their Material Behavior (Haslach
& Armstrong)
Solution Manual Intermediate Mechanics of Materials (1st Ed., Barber)
Solution Manual Elasticity (2nd Ed., J.R. Barber)
Solution Manual Elasticity : Theory, Applications, and Numerics (1st
Ed., Martin Sadd)
Solution Manual Elasticity : Theory, Applications, and Numerics (2nd
Ed., Martin Sadd)
Solution Manual Elasticity in Engineering Mechanics (2nd Ed., Boresi)
Solution Manual Elasticity in Engineering Mechanics (3rd Ed., Boresi,
Chong, Lee)
Solution Manual Advanced Mechanics of Materials and Applied Elasticity
(5th Ed., Ansel C. Ugural & Saul K. Fenster)
Solution Manual Advanced Mechanics of Materials (6th Ed., Boresi)
Solution Manual Advanced Mechanics of Materials (2nd Ed., Cook &
Young)
Solution Manual Metal Fatigue in Engineering (2nd Ed., Stephens,
Fatemi & Fuchs)
Solution Manual Applied Mechanics for Engineering Technology (8th Ed.,
Keith M. Walker)
Solution Manual Applied Statics and Strength of Materials (5th Ed.
Limbrunner & Spiegel)
Solution Manual Statics and Strength of Materials (Robert Mott)
Solution Manual Applied Strength of Materials (4th Ed., Mott)
Solution Manual Applied Strength of Materials (5th Ed., Mott)
Solution Manual Intermediate Dynamics for Engineers (Marcelo R.M &
Crespo da Silva)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (Michael Plesha, Gary
Gray & Francesco Costanzo)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics (Michael Plesha, Gary
Gray & Francesco Costanzo)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (4th Ed., Anthony
Bedford & Wallace Fowler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (5th Ed., Anthony
Bedford & Wallace Fowler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics - SI Units (5th Ed.,
Anthony Bedford, Wallace Fowler & Yusof Ahmad)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics (4th Ed., Anthony
Bedford & Wallace Fowler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics (5th Ed., Anthony
Bedford & Wallace Fowler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics - SI Units (5th Ed.,
Anthony Bedford, Wallace Fowler & Yusof Ahmad)
Solution Manual Elastic And Inelastic Stress Analysis (Irving Shames)
Solution Manual Thermal Stresses (2nd Ed., Noda, Hetnarski & Tanigawa)
Solution Manual Strength of Materials - A New Unified Theory for the
21st Century (Surya Patnaik & Dale Hopkins)
Solution Manual Statics and Strengths of Materials (6th Ed., Morrow &
Kokernak)
Solution Manual Statics and Strengths of Materials (7th Ed., Morrow &
Kokernak)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (11th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics (12th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Statics - SI Units (12th Ed.,
Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics (11th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics (12th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Engineering Mechanics : Dynamics - SI Units (12th Ed.,
Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (4th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (6th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (7th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials - SI Units (7th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials (8th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Materials - SI Units (8th Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Statics and Mechanics of Materials (Beer, Johnston,
DeWolf & Mazurek)
Solution Manual Statics and Mechanics of Materials (Bedford, Liechti &
Fowler)
Solution Manual Statics and Mechanics of Materials (2nd Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Statics and Mechanics of Materials - SI Units (2nd
Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Statics and Mechanics of Materials (3rd Ed., Hibbeler)
Solution Manual Statics and Mechanics of Materials - SI Units (3rd
Ed., Hibbeler, Fan Sau Cheong)
Solution Manual Energy Principles and Variational Methods in Applied
Mechanics (2nd Ed., Reddy)
Solution Manual The Physics of Vibrations and Waves (6th Ed., Pain)
Solution Manual Engineering Vibrations (3rd Ed., Inman)
Solution Manual Theory of Vibrations with Applications (5th Ed.,
William T. Thomson, Marie Dillon Dahleh)
Solution Manual Mechanical Vibrations - SI Units (4th Ed., Singiresu
S. Rao)
Solution Manual Mechanical Vibrations (5th Ed., Singiresu S. Rao)
Solution Manual Theory of Vibration : An Introduction (2nd Ed., A.A.
Shabana)
Solution Manual Vibration of Discrete and Continuous Systems (2nd Ed.,
Ahmed Shabana)
Solution Manual Introduction to Finite Element Vibration Analysis
(Maurice Petyt)
Solution Manual Vibrations and Stability : Advanced Theory, Analysis,
and Tools (2nd Ed., Jon J. Thomsen)
Solution Manual Dynamics and Vibration : An Introduction (Magd Abdel
Wahab)
Solution Manual Mechanical Vibration (William J. Palm, III)
Solution Manual Random Vibrations : Analysis of Structural and
Mechanical Systems (Loren Lutes & Shahram Sarkani)
Solution Manual Mechanical and Structural Vibrations : Theory and
Applications (by Jerry H. Ginsberg)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Structural Integrity : Damage Tolerant
Design and Nondestructive Evaluation (Alten F. Grandt)
Solution Manual A First Course in the Finite Element Method (4th Ed.,
Daryl L. Logan)
Solution Manual Introduction to Finite Elements in Engineering (3rd
Ed.,Tirupathi R. Chandrupatla, Ashok D. Belegundu)
Solution Manual Introduction to Finite Elements in Engineering (4th
Ed.,Tirupathi R. Chandrupatla, Ashok D. Belegundu)
Solution Manual Finite Element Analysis Theory and Application with
ANSYS (3rd Ed., Moaveni)
Solution Manual An Introduction to the Finite Element Method (3rd Ed.,
J. N. Reddy)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Finite Element Analysis (1st Ed.,
David V. Hutton)
Solution Manual The Finite Element Method in Engineering (4th Ed.,
Rao)
Solution Manual The Finite Element Method in Engineering (5th Ed.,
Rao)
Solution Manual The Finite Element Method and Applications in
Engineering Using ANSYS (Madenci & Guven)
Solution Manual Introduction to Finite Element Analysis and Design
(Nam-Ho Kim, Bhavani V. Sankar)
Solution Manual Introduction to the Finite Element Method : Theory,
Programming and Applications (Erik G. Thompson)
Solution Manual The Finite Element Method : Its Basis and Fundamentals
(6th Ed., Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor & J.Z. Zhu)
Solution Manual Fundamental Finite Element Analysis and Applications :
with Mathematica and Matlab Computations (Asghar Bhatti)
Solution Manual Advanced Topics in Finite Element Analysis of
Structures : With Mathematica and MATLAB Computations (Asghar Bhatti)
Solution Manual Modeling and Analysis of Dynamic Systems (3rd Ed.,
Close)
Solution Manual Modeling and Simulation of Dynamic Systems (Robert
Woods, Jr. & Kent Lawrence)
Solution Manual System Dynamics (1st Ed., William J Palm III)
Solution Manual System Dynamics (2nd Ed., William J Palm III)
Solution Manual System Dynamics and Response (S. Graham Kelly)
Solution Manual System Dynamics for Engineering Students : Concepts
and Applications (Nicolae Lobontiu)
Solution Manual Dynamic Modeling and Control of Engineering Systems
(2nd Ed., J. Lowen Shearer, Bohdan Kulakowski, John Gardner)
Solution Manual System Dynamics : Modeling and Simulation of
Mechatronic Systems (4th Ed., Karnopp, Margolis & Rosenberg)
Solution Manual Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis
(4th Ed., Cook, Malkus, Plesha & Witt)
Solution Manual Finite Element Modeling for Stress Analysis (Robert
Cook)
Solution Manual Principles of Fracture Mechanics (R. J. Sanford)
Solution Manual Fracture Mechanics : Fundamentals and Applications
(2nd Ed., T.L. Anderson)
Solution Manual Mechanical Behavior of Materials (3rd Ed., Dowling)
Solution Manual Mechanical Behavior of Materials (W.F. Hosford)
Solution Manual Mechanical Behavior of Materials (Keith Bowman)
Solution Manual Theory and Design for Mechanical Measurements (4th
Ed., Figliola & Beasley)
Solution Manual Theory and Design for Mechanical Measurements (5th
Ed., Figliola & Beasley)
Solution Manual Mechanical Measurements (6th Ed., Beckwith, Marangoni
& Lienhard)
Solution Manual Measurement and Data Analysis for Engineering and
Science (Patrick Dunn)
Solution Manual Design and Analysis of Lean Production Systems (Askin
& Goldberg)
Solution Manual Computer-Aided Manufacturing (3rd Ed., Tien-Chien
Chang, Richard A. Wysk, Hsu-Pin Wang)
Solution Manual Work Systems : The Methods, Measurement & Management
of Work (Mikell P. Groover)
Solution Manual Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing (2nd Ed., Groover)
Solution Manual Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing (3rd Ed., Groover)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing : Materials,
Processes, and Systems (3rd Ed., Mikell Groover)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing : Materials,
Processes, and Systems (4th Ed., Mikell Groover)
Solution Manual Materials and Processes in Manufacturing (9th Ed., E.
Paul DeGarmo, J. T. Black, Ronald A. Kohser)
Solution Manual DeGarmo's Materials and Processes in Manufacturing
(10th Ed., E. Paul DeGarmo, J. T. Black, Ronald A. Kohser)
Solution Manual Principles of Metal Manufacturing Processes (Beddoes &
Bibby)
Solution Manual Design for Manufacturing : A Structured Approach
(Corrado Poli)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Manufacturing (2nd Ed., Philip D.
Rufe)
Solution Manual Engineering Materials Science (Milton Ohring)
Solution Manual Engineering Materials : Properties and Selection (8th
Ed., Budinski)
Solution Manual Engineering Materials : Properties and Selection (9th
Ed., Budinski)
Solution Manual Materials Science for Engineering Students (Traugott
Fischer)
Solution Manual Essentials of Modern Materials Science and Engineering
(James Newell)
Solution Manual Science and Design of Engineering Materials (2nd Ed.,
Schaffer, Saxena, et al)
Solution Manual Structure and Properties of Engineering Materiales
(5th Ed., Daniel Henkel & Alan Pense)
Solution Manual Materials Selection in Mechanical Design (3rd Ed.,
Michael Ashby)
Solution Manual Materials Selection in Mechanical Design (4th Ed.,
Michael Ashby)
Solution Manual Materials : Engineering, Science, Processing and
Design (1st Ed., Michael Ashby, Hugh Shercliff & David Cebon)
Solution Manual Materials : Engineering, Science, Processing and
Design (2nd Ed., Michael Ashby, Hugh Shercliff & David Cebon)
Solution Manual Engineering Materials Vol. 1 : An Introduction to
Properties, Applications and Design (3rd Ed., Michael Ashby & David
Jones)
Solution Manual Engineering Materials Vol. 2 : An Introduction to
Microstructures, Processing and Design (3rd Ed., Michael Ashby & David
Jones)
Solution Manual Materials Science and Engineering : An Introduction
(6th Ed., William Callister)
Solution Manual Materials Science and Engineering : An Introduction
(7th Ed., William Callister)
Solution Manual Materials Science and Engineering : An Introduction
(8th Ed., William Callister)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering :
Integrated Approach (2nd Ed., William Callister)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering :
Integrated Approach (3rd Ed., William Callister)
Solution Manual Foundations of Materials Science and Engineering (3rd
Ed, Smith)
Solution Manual Foundations of Materials Science and Engineering (4th
Ed, Smith & Hashemi)
Solution Manual Foundations of Materials Science and Engineering (5th
Ed, Smith & Hashemi)
Solution Manual Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers (6th
Ed., Shackelford)
Solution Manual Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers (7th
Ed., Shackelford)
Solution Manual Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers -
International Edition (7th Ed., Shackelford)
Solution Manual Manufacturing Facilities Design and Material Handling
(3rd Ed., Meyers & Stephens)
Solution Manual Manufacturing Facilities Design and Material Handling
(4th Ed., Stephens & Meyers)
Solution Manual Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials (5th
Ed. Kalpakjian & Smith)
Solution Manual Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials - SI
Units (5th Ed. Kalpakjian, Smith & Chih-Wah Kok)
Solution Manual Manufacturing, Engineering & Technology (5th Ed.
Kalpakjian & Smith)
Solution Manual Manufacturing, Engineering & Technology (6th Ed.
Kalpakjian & Smith)
Solution Manual Manufacturing, Engineering & Technology - SI Units
(6th Ed. Kalpakjian & Smith)
Solution Manual Principles of Corrosion Engineering and Corrosion
Control (Zaki Ahmad)
Solution Manual Steels : Microstructure and Properties (3rd Ed.
Bhadeshia & Honeycombe)
Solution Manual Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites (3rd Ed.,
Bhagwan Agarwal, Lawrence Broutman & K. Chandrashekhara)
Solution Manual Nanoengineering of Structural, Functional and Smart
Materials (Mark Schulz, Ajit Kelkar, Mannur Sundaresan)
Solution Manual Applied Manufacturing Process Planning : With Emphasis
on Metal Forming and Machining (Nelson, Schneider)
Solution Manual Mastering CAD/CAM (1st Ed., Ibrahim Zeid)
Solution Manual Principles of CAD/CAM/CAE (Kunwoo Lee)
Solution Manual Computer Numerical Control : Operation and Programming
(3rd Ed., Stenerson & Curran)
Solution Manual Introduction to Computer Numerical Control (4th Ed.,
Valentino & Goldenberg)
Solution Manual Linear State-Space Control Systems (Robert L.
Williams, II & Douglas A. Lawrence)
Solution Manual Gas Turbine Theory (6th Ed., H.I.H. Saravanamuttoo,
G.F.C. Rogers, H. Cohen & Paul Straznicky)
Solution Manual Rocket Propulsion Elements (7th Ed., George P. Sutton
& Oscar Biblarz)
Solution Manual Rocket Propulsion Elements (8th Ed., George P. Sutton
& Oscar Biblarz)
Solution Manual Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (1st Ed.,
Howard Curtis)
Solution Manual Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (2nd Ed.,
Howard Curtis)
Solution Manual Atmospheric and Space Flight Dynamics : Modeling and
Simulation with MATLAB and Simulink (Ashish Tewari)
Solution Manual Flight Dynamics Principles (2nd Ed., by Cook)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Flight (1st Ed., Warren F. Phillips)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Flight (2nd Ed., Warren F. Phillips)
Solution Manual Modern Flight Dynamics (David K. Schmidt)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Airplane Flight Mechanics (David G.
Hull)
Solution Manual Dynamics of Flight : Stability and Control (3rd Ed.,
Bernard Etkin & Lloyd Duff Reid)
Solution Manual Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (5th Ed., IFSTA)
Solution Manual Aircraft Propulsion (Saeed Farokhi)
Solution Manual Aircraft Performance (Maido Saarlas)
Solution Manual Design of Aircraft (Thomas C. Corke)
Solution Manual Flight Performance of Fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft
(Antonio Filippone)
Solution Manual Fundamentals Of Aircraft Structural Analysis (Howard
Curtis)
Solution Manual Aircraft Control and Simulation (2nd Ed., Brian
Stevens & Frank Lewis)
Solution Manual Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students (3rd Ed.,
T.H.G. Megson)
Solution Manual Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students (4th Ed.,
T.H.G. Megson)
Solution Manual Introduction to Aircraft Structural Analysis (T.H.G.
Megson)
Solution Manual Mechanics of Aircraft Structures (2nd Ed, C. T. Sun)
Solution Manual Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics (1st Ed.,
Leishman)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (2nd Ed., Anderson)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (3th Ed., Anderson)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (4th Ed., Anderson)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (5th Ed., Anderson)
Solution Manual Aerodynamics for Engineers (5th Ed., John Bertin &
Russell Cummings)
Solution Manual Introduction to Flight (5th Ed., Anderson)
Solution Manual Introduction to Flight (6th Ed., Anderson)
Solution Manual Mechatronics : Principles and Applications (Godfrey
Onwubolu)
Solution Manual Mechatronics (Sabri Cetinkunt)
Solution Manual Introduction to Mechatronic Design (J. Edward Carryer,
Matthew Ohline & Thomas Kenny)
Solution Manual Introduction to Mechatronics and Measurement Systems
(2nd Ed., David Alciatore & Michael Histand)
Solution Manual Introduction to Mechatronics and Measurement Systems
(3rd Ed., David Alciatore & Michael Histand)
Solution Manual Introduction to Mechatronics and Measurement Systems
(4th Ed., David Alciatore & Michael Histand)
Solution Manual Introduction to Engineering Experimentation (2nd Ed.,
Wheeler & Ganji)
Solution Manual Introduction to Engineering Experimentation (3rd Ed.,
Wheeler & Ganji)
Solution Manual Gas Dynamics (3rd Ed., John & Keith)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics (2nd Ed, Robert D.
Zucker)
Solution Manual Theory of Ground Vehicles (3rd Ed., J. Y. Wong)
Solution Manual Theory of Ground Vehicles (4th Ed., J. Y. Wong)
Solution Manual Vehicle Dynamics : Theory and Application (Reza Jazar)
Solution Manual Engineering Fundamentals of the Internal Combustion
Engine (2nd Ed., Willard W. Pulkrabek)
Solution Manual Internal Combustion Engines : Applied Thermosciences
(2nd Ed., Ferguson & Kirkpatrick)
Solution Manual Advanced Engine Performance Diagnosis (4th Ed., James
Halderman)
Solution Manual Automotive Engines (8th Ed., Crouse)
Solution Manual Automotive Heating & Air Conditioning (5th Ed., Tom
Birch)
Solution Manual Diagnosis and Troubleshooting of Automotive
Electrical, Electronic, and Computer Systems (5th Ed., James
Halderman)
Solution Manual Automotive Brake Systems Package (4th Ed., Rehkopf)
Solution Manual Automotive Brake Systems (4th Ed., Halderman)
Solution Manual Automotive Engine Performance (2nd Ed., Halderman)
Solution Manual Automotive Engines : Theory and Servicing (6th Ed.,
James Halderman)
Solution Manual Automotive Fuel and Emissions Control Systems (2nd
Ed., James Halderman & James Linder)
Solution Manual Automotive Science and Mathematics (Allan Bonnick)
Solution Manual Automotive Mathematics (Jason Rouvel)
Solution Manual Automotive Service Management (Andrew Rezin)
Solution Manual Automotive Technology : Principles, Diagnosis, and
Service (3rd Ed., Halderman)
Solution Manual Automotive Steering, Suspension, and Alignment (4th
Ed., Halderman)
Solution Manual Automatic Transmissions & Transaxles (4th Ed., Tom
Birch & Chuck Rockwood)
Solution Manual Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles (Halderman &
Martin)
Solution Manual Manual Drivetrains and Axles (5th Ed., Birch &
Rockwood)
Solution Manual Blueprint Reading for the Machine Trades (6th Ed.,
Schultz & Smith)
Solution Manual Modern Welding Technology (6th Ed., Cary & Helzer)
Solution Manual Tissue Engineering (Bernhard O. Palsson & Sangeeta N.
Bhatia)
Solution Manual Tissue Engineering (Clemens van Blitterswijk, et al.)
Solution Manual Tissue Mechanics (Cowin, Doty)
Solution Manual Technology and Society (3rd Ed., Hjorth, Eichler, Khan
& Morello)
Solution Manual BTEC First Engineering Curriculum Support Pack (Mike
Tooley)
Solution Manual BTEC First Engineering (Mike Tooley)
Solution Manual Exploring Engineering : An Introduction to Engineering
and Design (1st Ed., Philip Kosky, George Wise, Robert Balmer &
William Keat)
Solution Manual Exploring Engineering : An Introduction to Engineering
and Design (2nd Ed., Philip Kosky, Robert Balmer, William Keat &
George Wise)
Solution Manual Engineering Science (5th Ed., W. Bolton)
Solution Manual Principles of Energy Conversion (2nd Ed., Archie W.
Culp)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Renewable Energy Processes (1st Ed.,
Aldo da Rosa)
Solution Manual Fundamentals of Renewable Energy Processes (2nd Ed.,
Aldo da Rosa)
Solution Manual Alternative Energy Systems (B. K. Hodge)
Solution Manual Solar Energy Engineering : Processes and Systems
(Soteris Kalogirou)
Solution Manual Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes (2nd Ed., John
Duffie & William Beckman)
Solution Manual Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes (3rd Ed., John
Duffie & William Beckman)
Solution Manual Energy Technology and Directions for the Future
(Fanchi)
Solution Manual Power Generation Technologies (Paul Breeze)
Solution Manual Foundations of Engineering (2nd Ed, Holtzapple & Dan
Reece)
Solution Manual Industrial Mechanics and Maintenance (3rd Ed., Larry
Chastain)
Solution Manual Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings
(10th Ed., Stein, Reynolds, Grondzik, Kwok)
Solution Manual Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings
(11th Ed., Grondzik, Kwok, Stein & Reynolds)
Solution Manual Mechanical & Electrical Systems in Buildings (4th Ed.,
Richard Janis & William Tao)
Solution Manual Engineering Drawing And Design (7th Ed., Jensen,
Helsel & Short)
Solution Manual Autodesk Inventor (James M. Leake)
Solution Manual Engineering Design Graphics : Sketching, Modeling, and
Visualization (1st Ed., James Leake & Jacob Borgerson)
Solution Manual Orthopaedic Biomechanics : Mechanics and Design in
Musculoskeletal Systems (Donald Bartel, Dwight Davy & Tony Keaveny)
Solution Manual Science for Engineering (3rd Ed., John Bird)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

contact me to : matt...@gmail.com mattosbw1(at)gmail.com

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

sci.physics group

unread,

Nov 28, 2011, 2:14:06 PM11/28/11

to sci.physics digest subscribers

sci.physics
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics?hl=en

sci.p...@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'? - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/7e8aa7b10485bf35?hl=en

* The true nature of motion - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/25317c6fd3cf50d8?hl=en
* Why do physicists believe that everything needs to have a reason? - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/1b82f64a826e867c?hl=en
* What is the inertia of EM wave or field - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/e561c9665665e551?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Virgil Waldo Tunnel Raemsch IRATE at Exposure
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/3f180e5d01ad5751?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 9:54 am
From: Tonico

On Nov 28, 1:37 pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> JohnLocke/WaldoTunnel / VIRGIL screams,
> Liarbaj is compulsive liar keeps posting that I am
>
> John Baker who runs hundreds of fake Nyms says
> My latest spamming Nyms which I run as 'disrupts'
> at alt atheism are:
>
> Waldo Tunnel
> John Locke
> Zachariah Mulletstein
> yfk
> yfkooo
> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> It is I Christopher John Baker Lee VIRGIL
> who OWN alt atheism. Look for my latest
> dozens of Waldo Tunnel posts now!
>
> BroilJAB shakes head,
> And don't forget VIRGIL is also
> SPQR, Mike Lovell, Voice of Reason and
> hundreds more Nyms. Get a LIFE, John Baker!

It's an old, wery well-known, well established and low tactic to try
to belittle, humiliate, to spurn, to mock and/or to degrade others by
accusing them of being someone else, for example a well known crank
like Raemsch.

Tonio

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Paul Draper is a possible criminal against Mankind !!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/7d711df16727b770?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 8:57 am
From: "Y.Porat"

On Nov 28, 5:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/27/2011 10:06 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 9:03 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2011 4:34 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >>> Paul Draper is a possible criminal against Mankind !!
>
> >>> in order to test and prove it
> >>> i will start with a simple question to PD
>
> >>> (and my verdict depends on his answer !!)
>
> >>> Mr PD
> >>> what is your definition for the :-
>
> >>> Energy of the**single*** photon ??
>
> >> It's not a definition. It is a relationship between two *measured*
> >> properties of photons. This observational relationship is E=hf. Not a
> >> definition.
>
> > ----------------------
> > so how could you talk
> > about a huge number of photons in hf
>
> I didn't.
> You may have, but I never have.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > as you justly talked about a huge number of photons
> > because it was** me** who told you that first (:-)
> > that H=hf is dealing with a huge number of photon entities !!
> > about a** huge** number of
> > photons
> > no one ever before me said that
> > or defined its range!!)
> > AND LATER I EVEN SUGGESTED TO TAKE THAT n as the scalar part of
> > Planck time

--------------
i will remind you:
you was talking about a stream of photons !! in context of hf

Y.P
------------------

== 2 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:47 am
From: PD

On 11/28/2011 10:57 AM, Y.Porat wrote:

> --------------
> i will remind you:
> you was talking about a stream of photons !! in context of hf

hf does not describe a stream of photons.

The mass of a drop of water does not have much to do with the amount of
water delivered by a hose, either.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/1e716127eae390e9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:06 am
From: "trigonom...@gmail.com |"

On Nov 28, 7:42 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
> the entire planet as they go round and round.
>
> lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
> power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
>
> just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)

Won't that be massively wasteful. If they are geostationary or
even high orbit getting the power down would be much easier
to use far fewer power sats.

Don't get me wrong I'd love to replace the use of most oil on earth
and
most nuclear as well except in deep space and were processing
on earth is needed to get it into space. I'd love fusion as well but
that is always 30 years in the future. How far in the future is
a space solar power system? 50 years?

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:13 am
From: Arindam Banerjee

On Nov 29, 3:21 am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 11/27/2011 10:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 7:42 am, Jos Bergervoet<jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2011 11:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> ..
> >> ..
> >>> I am not interested in ordinary cannon
>
> >>>> They are in that
> >>>> respect completely similar to the rails of a railgun.
>
> >>> Only a railgun will do.
>
> >> OK, but if you do your experiment with an ordinary
> >> gun I will be satisfied with that as well!
>
> > It has already been stated by Mr Trebert that a machine
> > gun fired from a boat accelerates it rapidly.
>
> OK, so then it is already proven? In that case you
> do not have to do any more work, I think.

It is also proven by every single rocket.
>
> >>> I want action, not assurances.
>
> >> That is very wise of you, Arindam! How many railguns
> >> did you construct already? And did you put them on
> >> boats?!
>
> > None. I do not have rail guns. I propose that those who have them
> > please do as I suggest. If they have a true scientific spirit of
> > research, or else they are lazy parasitic cowards.
>
> Very aptly put! So others may not do as you suggest.

Indeed

> Then the best thing for you to do might be to create
> a small railgun. And you then put it on a miniature
> boat. You would then also save energy consumption!
> Will it take a lot of time for you to do this?

What do you think? Rail guns are like muskets to those with bows and
arrows. Even making a model rail gun takes a lot of effort, as
Schroeder et al show. I am just a retired person.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> --
> Jos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:29 am
From: use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)

In article <de6db543-301d-40be...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> On Nov 29, 3:21=A0am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > On 11/27/2011 10:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 28, 7:42 am, Jos Bergervoet<jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> =A0wrote:
> > >> On 11/27/2011 11:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > =A0 =A0..
> > >> =A0 =A0 =A0..
> > >>> I am not interested in ordinary cannon
> >
> > >>>> They are in that
> > >>>> respect completely similar to the rails of a railgun.
> >
> > >>> Only a railgun will do.
> >
> > >> OK, but if you do your experiment with an ordinary
> > >> gun I will be satisfied with that as well!
> >
> > > It has already been stated by Mr Trebert that a machine
> > > gun fired from a boat accelerates it rapidly.
> >
> > OK, so then it is already proven? In that case you
> > do not have to do any more work, I think.
>
> It is also proven by every single rocket.
> >
> > >>> I want action, not assurances.
> >
> > >> That is very wise of you, Arindam! How many railguns
> > >> did you construct already? And did you put them on
> > >> boats?!
> >
> > > None. =A0I do not have rail guns. I propose that those who have them
> > > please do as I suggest. =A0If they have a true scientific spirit of
> > > research, or else they are lazy parasitic cowards.
> >
> > Very aptly put! So others may not do as you suggest.
>
> Indeed
>
> > Then the best thing for you to do might be to create
> > a small railgun. And you then put it on a miniature
> > boat. You would then also save energy consumption!
> > Will it take a lot of time for you to do this?
> >
> > --
> > Jos
>
> What do you think? Rail guns are like muskets to those with bows and
> arrows. Even making a model rail gun takes a lot of effort, as
> Schroeder et al show. I am just a retired person.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Didn't you once write about an experiment in which one sits on a
chair and shakes his body, sliding the chair around on the floor, to
demonstrate "internal force"? I think that this is on your web site.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

== 3 of 3 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:55 am
From: Arindam Banerjee

On Nov 29, 5:29 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <de6db543-301d-40be-87c5-230080464...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 3:21=A0am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > > On 11/27/2011 10:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 7:42 am, Jos Bergervoet<jos.bergerv...@xs4all.nl> =A0wrote:
> > > >> On 11/27/2011 11:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > =A0 =A0..
> > > >> =A0 =A0 =A0..
> > > >>> I am not interested in ordinary cannon
>
> > > >>>> They are in that
> > > >>>> respect completely similar to the rails of a railgun.
>
> > > >>> Only a railgun will do.
>
> > > >> OK, but if you do your experiment with an ordinary
> > > >> gun I will be satisfied with that as well!
>
> > > > It has already been stated by Mr Trebert that a machine
> > > > gun fired from a boat accelerates it rapidly.
>
> > > OK, so then it is already proven? In that case you
> > > do not have to do any more work, I think.
>
> > It is also proven by every single rocket.
>
> > > >>> I want action, not assurances.
>
> > > >> That is very wise of you, Arindam! How many railguns
> > > >> did you construct already? And did you put them on
> > > >> boats?!
>
> > > > None. =A0I do not have rail guns. I propose that those who have them
> > > > please do as I suggest. =A0If they have a true scientific spirit of
> > > > research, or else they are lazy parasitic cowards.
>
> > > Very aptly put! So others may not do as you suggest.
>
> > Indeed
>
> > > Then the best thing for you to do might be to create
> > > a small railgun. And you then put it on a miniature
> > > boat. You would then also save energy consumption!
> > > Will it take a lot of time for you to do this?
>
> > > --
> > > Jos
>
> > What do you think? Rail guns are like muskets to those with bows and
> > arrows. Even making a model rail gun takes a lot of effort, as
> > Schroeder et al show. I am just a retired person.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> Didn't you once write about an experiment in which one sits on a
> chair and shakes his body, sliding the chair around on the floor, to
> demonstrate "internal force"? I think that this is on your web site.

yes, that was the sort of thing which started me on this subject...
Indeed this is an example how life has natural internal force. It was
mentioned in my book To the Stars! which was there for years in my
earlier website (now pulled down).
However, I tried with many mechanical contrivances to get velocity
addition and it did not work.
Mainly because there is that third law of Newton. No matter what you
do there is an equal reaction that is opposite to mechanical systems.
So, the chair moves forward or backward with the momentum, simply
because friction restrained the opposite motion. It is subtle, this.
Post-Newton work, relating to electromagnetics, overcomes the third
law as shown by the lack of reaction to the firing of the
electromagnetic rail gun.
I expect that the first law will also be broken if the bows of a ship
are blown up the em rail machine gun fire, as the ship will then
accelerate from rest.

Thanks for your interest,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/efb82d6732c46721?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:15 am
From: "G. L. Bradford"

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:79MAq.8773$g35....@newsfe09.iad...
> On 11/28/2011 3:41 AM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>> Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

>>
>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti
>

> Hey, Jai,
> Obviously you need a little "education" and haven't been going to warmist
> blog sites, reading Scientific American, or Physics Today, or listening to
> the BBC enough. Happily "Sam Wormley" can provide you with the links to
> learn that AGW is "incontrovertible".

==================

It's a long way from being "incontrovertible", your trying to slap down
the last two million years of history telling that the Earth is vast
majority 'Ice Age' now (averaging a hundred thousand years and more) with
much shorter interludes, shorter summer interludes one might say, of global
warming (a few short tens of thousands of years of warmth -- varying from
around fifteen to about thirty-five thousand years; and even those
interludes now being liberally laced with mini-ice ages).

Yes climate has changed for the Earth over billions and millions of years.
The trend over the last few million years is toward fewer interludes
lessening in warmth with longer periods (into hundreds of thousands of
years) of global deep freeze. Not only is Earth's immediate environment in
constant change, but so is the environment external to Earth in constant
change (particularly the Sun's immediate environment. And probably even the
local interstellar environment, which our Sun and our Solar System, and thus
our Earth, may be more sensitive to than we would like to think).

GLB

==================

== 2 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:40 am
From: use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)

Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

-----

Forwarded post:

Let's not forget how the Democrats' enviro-friendly "green" foam
caused the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia on re-entry,
killing seven astronauts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959251/posts

Congratulations, Democrats.

Posted by Lancey Howard

End of forwarded post from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2812982/posts

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

=====================================================================
The Keral KalluMallu (V. Bhattathiri) tries his best to be a bully --
telling others what and where to post, where to post and where not to
post, deliberately publishing lies about others and stalking them --
but fails miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog
Prem Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah"), he is priming
himself for conditions such as stroke and heart disease.
=====================================================================

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What Empirical Evidence Supports the Ballistic Emission of Light (I.e.
C*=C+or-v)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/143bda99a897c52e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:25 am
From: PD

On 11/28/2011 12:29 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>
> He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
> with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
> Galilean transform. Of course, the null results of the MMX require a
> modification to the Galilean transform that best not to satisfy the
> principle of relativity as well, just like the classical
> electromagnetism, that is if electromagnetism is to be salvaged. The
> other approach is to accept the Galilean transform, ignore all
> experimental data describing light as waves, and model light as
> classical particle as described by Newton and Michell.<shrug>

LOL! KW at his best. Whups, sorry.... His Best.

== 2 of 5 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:19 am
From: mpc755

On Nov 28, 12:33 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 9:03 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 4:36 am, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 12:33 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
> > > > > source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
> > > > > ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
> > > > > (demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
> > > > > contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
> > > > > dependent on the
> > > > > speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?
>
> > > > In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
> > > > the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
> > > > light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
> > > > described below.
>
> > > > ** [c’] = [c] – [v]
>
> > > > Where
>
> > > > ** [c’] = observed velocity of light
> > > > ** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
> > > > ** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity
>
> > > > > Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction and interference
> > > > > patterns and also Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
> > > > > propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
> > > > > (apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
> > > > > behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
> > > > > muzzle speed of V from a gun moving at a speed of v.
>
> > > > Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
> > > > <shrug>
>
> > > > > As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
> > > > > the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
> > > > > compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
> > > > > IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
> > > > > relativity or
> > > > > Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.
>
> > > > The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
> > > > be explained through the ballistic theory of light. <shrug> All the
> > > > Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
> > > > null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. <shrug>
>
> > > > > What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
> > > > > light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.
>
> > > > No, they are not silent at all. In fact, they are cashing in on the
> > > > exact null results of the MMX. However, in doing so, they must disown
> > > > electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
> > > > reconcile with electromagnetism. <shrug>
>
> > > > > My understanding is that the null result of the MIchelson Morley
> > > > > experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
> > > > > (C) on speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
> > > > > result consistently advanced as a proof of the ballistic emission
> > > > > of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
> > > > > theories?
>
> > > > You are so misinformed. <shrug>
>
> > > > > Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
> > > > > water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
> > > > > medium for light?
>
> > > > 100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
> > > > went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
> > > > Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
> > > > since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
> > > > discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
> > > > speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
> > > > that light propagates through. <shrug>
>
> > > > > Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
> > > > > water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
> > > > > accepted that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
> > > > > radiation?
>
> > > > The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
> > > > Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. <shrug>
>
> > > > > Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"
>
> > > > Yes, indeed. <shrug>
>
> > > What is doing the waving? What is the structure of this wave? Do not
> > > relate these waves with water waves. TreBert
>
> > Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
> > wen disturbed. It's also polarized, and multiple EMFs can harmonize
> > in order to produce secondary photons. Go figure.
>
> > http://translate.google.com/#
> > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> Why do you need to invent an aether for which there is zero evidence?
> As i suggested previously, (Quantum)electromagnetic waving could be
> what electromagnetism does when disturbed.
> Zinnic

Do you want to understand what occurs physically in nature to cause
gravity or don't you?

Do you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double
slit experiment or don't you?

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm

"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that
superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a
liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow
without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids
cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to
conduct sound waves."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfliud with
properties of a solid. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies
three dimensional space unoccupied by matter. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts pressure toward
the matter.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether of
relativity. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of
the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters
and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave
which enters and exits both slits. The aether displacement wave
creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle
exits a single slit, it is the wave interference which alters the
direction the particle travels. This is the wave piloting the particle
of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle turns the associated
aether displacement wave into chop, there is no wave interference, and
the direction the particle travels is not altered.

== 3 of 5 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:39 am
From: Koobee Wublee

On Nov 28, 4:34 am, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:33 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> > > The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
> > > source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
> > > ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
> > > (demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
> > > contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
> > > dependent on the
> > > speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?
>
> > In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
> > the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
> > light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
> > described below.
>
> > ** [c’] = [c] – [v]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [c’] = observed velocity of light
> > ** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
> > ** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity
>
> > > Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction and interference
> > > patterns and also Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
> > > propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
> > > (apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
> > > behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
> > > muzzle speed of V from a gun moving at a speed of v.
>
> > Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
> > <shrug>
>
> > > As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
> > > the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
> > > compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
> > > IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
> > > relativity or
> > > Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.
>
> > The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
> > be explained through the ballistic theory of light. <shrug> All the
> > Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
> > null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. <shrug>
>
> > > What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
> > > light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.
>
> > No, they are not silent at all. In fact, they are cashing in on the
> > exact null results of the MMX. However, in doing so, they must disown
> > electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
> > reconcile with electromagnetism. <shrug>
>
> > > My understanding is that the null result of the MIchelson Morley
> > > experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
> > > (C) on speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
> > > result consistently advanced as a proof of the ballistic emission
> > > of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
> > > theories?
>
> > You are so misinformed. <shrug>
>
> > > Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
> > > water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
> > > medium for light?
>
> > 100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
> > went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
> > Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
> > since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
> > discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
> > speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
> > that light propagates through. <shrug>
>
> > > Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
> > > water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
> > > accepted that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
> > > radiation?
>
> > The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
> > Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. <shrug>
>
> > > Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"
>
> > Yes, indeed. <shrug>
>
> Most of what you write repeats what I wrote in my post. Cf the MMX.

You made a mistake of claiming the observed light speed is dependent
of the source, and that is just wrong. Do you even understand the
speed of light is always c relative to the stationary background of
the Aether under classical electromagnetism? <shrug>

You don’t even understand the significance of (E = m c^2). Without (m
= m0 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)), (E = m c^2) is useless. Understand
that? It was not derived by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar. If claimed so, show so. In fact, no one has derived that
equation. It was just stated or fudged with convoluted mathemaGics.
This allows the pagans (ballistic theory guys) to model (E = m c^2 /
2) as in the classical kinetic energy which also satisfies (E = h f).
<shrug>

> Try thinking instead of shrugging.

Why? Can’t shrug? No shoulder? <shrug>

Hey, in order to point out the shit the pagans and the Einstein
Dingleberries worship, you have to understand their point of views.
As an Einstein Dingleberry, you apparently do not even attempt to
understand the pagans, and you are not fit to criticize the pagans.
What a bigot! <shrug>

Who knows? Classical electromagnetism was also built on top of many
assumptions not fully characterized. Maybe after someone modifies
classical electromagnetism, the pagans’ belief would stand to be
valid. The pagans actually have a slight chance that their belief
would turn out to be valid, but there is just no hope that the
Einstein Dingleberries would stand a fvcking chance. <shrug>

== 4 of 5 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:45 am
From: eric gisse

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jb0jne$do1$3
@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 11/28/2011 12:29 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>
>> He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
>> with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
>> Galilean transform. Of course, the null results of the MMX require a
>> modification to the Galilean transform that best not to satisfy the
>> principle of relativity as well, just like the classical
>> electromagnetism, that is if electromagnetism is to be salvaged. The
>> other approach is to accept the Galilean transform, ignore all
>> experimental data describing light as waves, and model light as
>> classical particle as described by Newton and Michell.<shrug>
>
> LOL! KW at his best. Whups, sorry.... His Best.
>

Why is KW not talking in first person anymore?

== 5 of 5 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:49 am
From: mpc755

On Nov 28, 1:39 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You made a mistake of claiming the observed light speed is dependent
> of the source, and that is just wrong. Do you even understand the
> speed of light is always c relative to the stationary background of
> the Aether under classical electromagnetism? <shrug>
>

The aether is not stationary. MMX disproved a stationary aether.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as
determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the
aether in neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of
the aether, watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is
referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of
the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of
displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What are the differences between SRT and LET
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/8614159781058b06?hl=en

==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:31 am
From: Aetherist

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:06:12 +0000, Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote:

>On 27/11/11 22:20, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 2:21 pm, Aetherist<TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Snip...]

>>> I don't think he meant psuedo aether, he meant psuedo rest frame
>>> OF the aether.
>>
>> He wrote "It is legitimate to chose the observer's FoR as the pseudo
>> aether FoR but not essential." The "pseudo aether FoR" he is
>> refering to would be the intermedate step in going from one moving
>> frame, to the aether, to a second moving frame. That isn't done in
>> LET.
>
>LET assumes the existence of an aether Frame of reference. That was
>Einstein's only objection to Lorentz's theory,
>
>" Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K'
>systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by
>assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the
>theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no
>corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable." AE
>1920
>
>Essentially according to Lorentz the real speed of light is only c in
>the Aether FoR although the measured speed of light appears to be c in
>all FoR. In streamlining the maths one must not lose track of the theory
>underpinning it.

While I totally agree you will not convince diehards like Roberts et al
since they simply do not care about any physical underpinnings. They
worship symmetry, isotropy, and homogenuity above AL ELSE. I think Bruce
is rational enough to at least understand your argument, others not so
much.

>The nature of the Lorentz transforms is such that you can use any FoR as
>your reference frame as what you are interested in is what would be
>measured.

Yes, and we know now that this comes from simple medium behavior.
Therefore the MMX proved aether existence since the medium behaved
just as it should regardless of the ignorance of experimenters of
the time. It simply proved that their belief that 'ponderable
matter' wan't rigid and inpervious to aether's affect of movement.

>What the reference frame represents is a FoR which has an unknown but
>fixed relationship with the Aether FoR. That being the case one is
>justified in using it for performing the transforms instead of the
>aether Frame.
>
> If you have say 3 observers A B & C you could choose A as your
>reference frame for all 3 observers and in keeping with the underlying
>theory it would be logical to do so. In practice it makes things simpler
>if you do it the way SR does it, which is to do the maths using A's FoR
>as the reference frame for A and B's FoR to do the maths for B and C's
>reference frame to do the maths for C. That being the case it is
>probably the way the maths came to be done and you may well be right in
>saying LET maths is done exactly the same was as SR maths.
>
>If one was teaching LET one would show ones students the first way of
>doing it, selecting one FoR as the reference frame and sticking to it
>because that fits with the underlying theory, you would then show them
>that the second way gives the same results and is the standard approach
>because it is simpler. In a similar way a maths teacher would (should)
>show the students how to solve a quadratic equation by the completion of
>squares before telling them to learn the formula.
>
>The point about Doppler shift is this. According to LET the real speed
>of light is only c in the aether FoR. If you change your speed then
>according to LET you change your real speed relative to incoming light.
>While the change in your ruler and your clock disguises the fact that
>the speed has changed the fact that there is an immediate change in
>frequency is a dead give away that you have actually changed your speed
>w.r.t the light.

Absolutely correct! If the net velocity of light did not 'actually' change
with speed Doppler would not exist...

>In one sense relativity is simply maths in which case the difference
>between it and LET is nill. It is simply Lorentz aether theory without
>the theory. If on the other hand you believe that it is something
>different. That there is no Aether FoR. That there is no 'real' speed of
>light but that it is always actually c then SR presents no explanation
>of why if I change my speed there is an immediate change in frequency.
>
>What the maths says is that before I changes speed (me stationary w.r.t
>the source)
>
> Me S
>
>Light separates from the source at c w.r.t me (also c w.r.t the source)
>and produces a given wavelength. After I change my speed
>
> Me->v S
>
>Light separates from the source at what is c w.r.t me which is a
>separation speed of c-v from the source. The wavelength is shorter. The
>wavecrest hasn't moved as far as it did before the next is generated as
>it is now separating from the source at c-v rather than c. One can be
>politically correct and describe the source moving in the FoR of Me and
>between generating one wave crest and the next it is closer to Me so the
>wavelength is shorter but it makes no odds.
>
>These are two steady state solutions. The question is what happens just
>after I have changed my speed? If S is 1 light year away there is a
>years worth of light in transit generated when I was stationary w.r.t
>the source which must have its original wavelength. There will be a
>years delay before the new wavelength reaches me.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>> In fact the second postulate simply describes what an observer
>>>>> stationary w.r.t the aether would experience.
>>>
>>>> It also describes what an observer moving w.r.t the aether would
>>>> experience.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does. But the real physics question again should be "how
>>> come"?
>>
>> I think both SR and LET answer that question if you think about it.
>> It is all in how we measure things and what assumptions we make in
>> the process.
>>
>>>>> Unlike the LET way of doing it, in SR when you change observer
>>>>> the aether FoR changes also.
>>>
>>>> There is no eather FoR in SR.
>>>
>>> There actual is, Einstein's 'empty space' postulate...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't enter into any of the calculations.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Where SR Breaks down is when the observer changes his speed. SR
>>>>> only works as a steady state description. In LET, even if you
>>>>> chose the observer's initial FoR as the pseudo aether frame
>>>>> then if the observer changes his speed he is now moving w.r.t
>>>>> pseudo aether FoR and there is then an explanation for Doppler
>>>>> shift. In SR when the observer changes his speed the pseudo
>>>>> aether changes its speed to match his. The frequency change of
>>>>> light already in transit cannot be explained. Its wavelength is
>>>>> determined when it left the source so if it is already in
>>>>> transit that cannot change and if the speed w.r.t the observer
>>>>> hasn't changed then no change in wavelength + no change in
>>>>> speed = no change in frequency at least until the new
>>>>> wavelengths generated propagate to the observer i.e. there
>>>>> should be a delay before the change in frequency arrives
>>>>> depending on the distance between source and observer.
>>>
>>>>> Put another way. Because SR changes the Frame of reference for
>>>>> transformation purposes so as to always be stationary w.r.t the
>>>>> observer it is in fact a series of steady state calculations
>>>>> which cannot cope with change from one to the other.
>>>
>>>> SR and LET use the same math so what works for one works exactly
>>>> the same way with the other. If you chose to do something
>>>> differently with one theory or the other and come up with a wrong
>>>> answer I suggest you look for *your* mistake.
>>>
>>> SR and LET are the same but SR has a more limited domain. The
>>> Lorentzian model, by definition inherits all the physical
>>> properties of a physical medium, SR only deals with measurements of
>>> time and distance.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> There are some that would claim the opposit because LET only deals
>> with electrodynamic forces. Whatever.
>>

== 2 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:53 am
From: "Dono."

On Nov 28, 12:31 pm, Aetherist (Diehard Ibecile paul Stowe)
>
> Therefore the MMX proved aether existence since the medium behaved
> just as it should regardless of the ignorance of experimenters of
> the time.

Uou realize the enormity of your imbecilic ego, pau, don't you?

> It simply proved that their belief that 'ponderable
> matter' wan't rigid and inpervious to aether's affect of movement.
>

No, imbecile, it proved that one cannot detect motion wrt the
"aether". At leas, after all these years, try to learn the basics.

>
> Absolutely correct! If the net velocity of light did not 'actually' change
> with speed Doppler would not exist...
>

You are growing a much bigger imbecile by the day, Paul. By the time
you reach 70 you will be a full blown idiot. You have been shown
repeatedly that what change are frequency and wavelength, not speed.It
is refreshing watching you suck up to extreme crank Alfonso.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the beginning
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/fac94e7b9b1b9702?hl=en

==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:38 am
From: PD

On 11/27/2011 4:35 PM, Michael Helland wrote:

> On Nov 26, 11:00 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2011 5:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 3:54 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's ok. We have bridge cases. That is, we have near objects in the
>>>> range of a few tens of meters to several tens of millions of miles where
>>>> we can test the very same thing.
>>
>>>> If there were an established gap where we might say, "OK, but up in this
>>>> range something COMPLETELY different is going on," then you might have a
>>>> case.
>>
>>> You are 100% correct.
>>
>>> And as empirical fact would have it, there is a range of distances
>>> where something COMPLETELY different starts to happen: Hubble
>>> redshift.
>>
>> No, see the problem is that WITHIN the Hubble range, we already have
>> independent confirmation that the SAME thing is going on as is going on
>> in desktop systems. That is, we can MEASURE the recessional velocity of

>> certain objects in the Hubble range with an *independent* means that has

>> nothing to do with their wavelength shift. You may want to do a small
>> Google search on astronomical methods for measuring velocities of
>> bodies. So for a good chunk of the Hubble data, we KNOW that it is
>> recessional velocity that is responsible for the wavelength shift, and
>> it corresponds EXACTLY to what is found in desktop systems.
>
>

> Sure.
>
> I'm not saying the Doppler shift isn't real.
>
> I'm saying the cosmological redshift, the redshift we observe after
> H_0 * d begins to be noticeable, which is predicted by the hypothesis
> v = c - H_0 * d, I'm saying that specific redshift is not caused by
> the Doppler effect.

But it is. This is the part you don't seem to recognize.
We can put a source on a desktop and move it with a *measurable* speed
v. We can then measure the wavelength. The amount of wavelength shift is
in *precise* accord with the predictions of Doppler shift for that
velocity v.

This is validated *again* with sources hundreds of meters away, again by
direct and independent measurement of both v and wavelength.

This is validated *again* with sources tens of thousands of meters away,
with the same result.

This is validated *again* with sources of a few million meter away, with
the same result.

>
>
> It's caused by light's behavior in the large intergalactic voids, as
> stated by v = c - H_0 * d
>
> Where H_0 * d is zero, then v = c - 0
>
> v = c

>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> You explain it as actual recessional velocity of distant galaxies, and
>>> from there extrapolate the big bang.
>>
>>> I explain it as light having a finite range.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: EM drive
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/2e17cb45b6afda39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:42 am
From: PD

On 11/27/2011 7:23 AM, admformeto wrote:
> http://emdrive.com/
>
> How does it work?
>
> Mathew Orman

Why are you fussing over this when your promised deliverable is now
weeks late?

== 2 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:14 am
From: Les Cargill

Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Nov 28, 12:18 pm, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Bill Sloman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The people funding the denialist propaganda - Exxon-Mobil amongst
>>> others - enjoy a variety of tax loop holes that rip off a lot more
>>> money from the US taxpayer than has even been spent on academic
>>> research.
>>
>> False. Quite false.
>
> Care to find some numbers?
>

It is not a "numbers" thing. It is a narrative and facts thing.

>> There are no loopholes unique to oil
>> operations.
>
> Are you sure?

yes. I got hammered saying the exact same thing you are, and
found I was wrong.

> In any event my argument didn't depend on oil companies
> getting their own specific tax loop holes

Yes, yes it does. It is logically equivalent to what you said.

> - the US has one of the
> highest maximum rates of corporation tax in the world, and one of the
> lower collection rates of corporation taxes, entirely because of the
> "rich set of tax options", more accurately described as tax loop-holes
> and the oil- and coal-mining- industries are just some of the
> industries riding the gravy train.
>

I honestly don't know what to make of this mess. I can't really
read it, goalpost shifting to the side.

SFAIK, corporations pay exactly what they are legally obligated to
pay. I can't think of an improvement on that as a standard.

Corporations can certainly be big and dumb, but I get weary
of them being the perfect whipping boy for all our evils.

>> They just happen to be both a mining and industrial
>> operation, so there's a richer set of available tax options.
>
> The famous depletion allowances, which most objective commentators see
> as ripping off the US taxpayer.

I will never, ever buy that, because the probability that a taxpayer is
not also a customer is very close to zero. You'd be moving money around
in a useless cycle.

> Since 1979, the richest 1% of the US population has seen its income
> rise by 275% while the poorest 80% has seen their income decline.

Yes - although it's quite difficult to say these changes are as you
seem to think they are. We literally have families who struggle to make
ends meet on $250k, and it is not as ridiculous as it might seem.
Meanwhile, the poor have relatively comfortable lives. So it's messy.

> Tax
> loopholes for the rich have contributed generously to this skewing of
> the income distribution.
>

No, I do not believe that this is true. The richest 1% does not
include corporations. it includes people who are paid by corporations.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
>
>> Oil companies run leaner and create more consumer surplus per unit
>> profit than just about any other kind of corporation.
>
> Until you start counting the defence department expenditures to
> protect their oil wells and supply routes.
>

That is a particularly ahistoric view of things. Who founded,
for example, ARAMCO?

>> And academic research never was particularly spent-on.
>>
>>> If you want a truly spectacular rip-off, look at the difference
>>> between what you spend on "defence" - some $698 billion - and what you
>>> ought to be spending on defence, which is the sum of what ypour two
>>> closest competitors - China and France - are spending ($114.3 and
>>> $61.3 billion respectively). The difference - some $500 billion -
>>> seems to be corporate welfare for the military industrial complex,
>>
>> No, it is mainly local boondoggles. Pork. It also has a pretty high rate
>> of return to the general economy.
>>
>> Some years back? Yes. Now? No.
>
> Those are 2010 numbers.

Right. That is what I mean. Ironically, $500B isn't all that much in
the larger scheme of things.

> The fact that pork benefits the fat cats in
> the local economies doesn't make it any less of a rip-off for the tax-
> payers funding the 1% of the population that includes those fat cats.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
>

I just don't know where to start with this mess.

1) The US was staunchly isolationist in 1940. By 1945 that had been
overcome by a *MASSIVE* propaganda effort ( the OSS repopulated Madison
Avenue with executives after they demobbed post-War ).

2) Herbert Hoover thought we should stay out of the War and let
germany and the Soviets go to Hades in their own way.

If we mobbed up the military, it is because Europe was on fire.
Once established, as Eisenhower said in his final speech, it's
very difficult to unload all that. One can clearly see that
Vietnam and Iraq were at least partly the public choice
inevitability of this.

There is a Pax Americana, that followed the failed Pax Bismarck,
and you're soaking in it. Sure, there's a Public Choice bonanza in
defense, but I can tell you from direct observation
that it's not exactly a scam.

> <snip>
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Les Cargill

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Escape velocity
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/5b2f85a975ee886f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:44 am
From: PD

On 11/26/2011 7:42 PM, hab...@anony.net wrote:
> This is a concept I find difficult to understand , why should
> something need to be at 30,000mph or more to escape from earth.

Habshi, first look at what it means. It means the velocity required to
escape WITHOUT continuous firing of an engine. It means the speed it
would require to *coast* and still escape the the Earth.

> What if the rocket was powered by a nuclear reactor. Could it
> not climb at a sedate 20mph to reach the shuttle in a day and then
> keep going at this rate to the moon and mars. Of course too slow for
> humans but ok for satellites at few millions rather than the tens of
> millions now?

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:51 am
From: eric gisse

"Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somewhere.no> wrote in
news:javvd8$i1e$1...@news.albasani.net:
[...]

>> Not many tyres are steel belted.
>
> It's the normal in Europa.
>

I'm unaware of any normal cases where you wouldn't use them in the US.

Why is Ralph arguing about this?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The true nature of motion
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/25317c6fd3cf50d8?hl=en

==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:51 am
From: PD

On 11/28/2011 9:59 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> Try and try as you might, to divert attention from the fact that I
> solved the "Quantum Gravity", "Origin of Rest Mass" problem, with my
> "Unorthidoxed" methods, while you could not with your so called
> Correct" methods, by cutiing a pasting all those so called physics
> facts, which you do not really understand, and which you did not
> figure out yourself "Sam".
>
> You, "PD", know that I am correct, but cannot admit it. I can tell.

You can only tell what your delusions constrain you to see, Conrad. No
one will ever be able to convince you that they are wrong. That's why
you are called delusional.

You live in a fantasy world constructed to keep reality out.

At this point, Conrad, the only thing left to you is a simple choice:
a) You can decide that you are happier with your illness, and that you
do not want to be treated.
b) You can decide that your illness has caused you more heartache than
enjoyment, and that you must make the first steps to getting treated.

I do hope you dig deep for the proper choice.

== 2 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:57 am
From: mpc755

On Nov 28, 1:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 9:59 AM, cjcountess wrote:
>
> > Try and try as you might, to divert attention from the fact that I
> > solved the "Quantum Gravity", "Origin of Rest Mass" problem, with my
> > "Unorthidoxed" methods, while you could not with your so called
> > Correct" methods, by cutiing a pasting all those so called physics
> > facts, which you do not really understand, and which you did not
> > figure out yourself "Sam".
>
> > You, "PD", know that I am correct, but cannot admit it. I can tell.
>
> You can only tell what your delusions constrain you to see, Conrad. No
> one will ever be able to convince you that they are wrong. That's why
> you are called delusional.
>
> You live in a fantasy world constructed to keep reality out.
>
> At this point, Conrad, the only thing left to you is a simple choice:
> a) You can decide that you are happier with your illness, and that you
> do not want to be treated.
> b) You can decide that your illness has caused you more heartache than
> enjoyment, and that you must make the first steps to getting treated.
>
> I do hope you dig deep for the proper choice.

You can only tell what your delusions constrain you to see, PD. No
one will ever be able to convince you that they are wrong. That's why
you are called delusional.

You live in a fantasy world constructed to keep reality of the
particle always entering and exiting a single slit in a double slit
experiment out.

At this point, PD, the only thing left to you is a simple choice:
a) You can decide that you are happier with your illness, and that you
do not want to be treated.
b) You can decide that your illness has caused you more heartache than
enjoyment, and that you must make the first steps to getting treated.

Prof. Steinberg is able to understand what is really happening in a
double slit experiment.

I do hope you dig deep for the proper choice.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do physicists believe that everything needs to have a reason?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/1b82f64a826e867c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:55 am
From: PD

On 11/27/2011 8:44 PM, disabled guy wrote:
> On Nov 28, 4:37 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>
>> Why do you say paradoxical?
>
> Paradoxical was perhaps the wrong choice of a word. What I mean to say
> is that it is illogical or that it goes against common sense or
> intuition.
>

Common sense and intuition are notoriously poor guides for understanding
the way the universe works, disabled guy.

As for why we always dig for a deeper explanation, I would say that it
is human nature to do so, though obviously some people are more
motivated than others.

If you are the type that says, "If science tells me to abandon my common
sense, then I want no part of it," or, "Why can't we just stop all this
investigation and be happy with the state of our present knowledge?"
then I'm afraid science just isn't going to be a very fun hobby for you,
let alone a career. But you should recognize that not everyone would (or
should) share that sensibility.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is the inertia of EM wave or field
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/e561c9665665e551?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:03 am
From: "admformeto"

Mathew Orman

http://www.faster-than-light.us/

== 2 of 2 ==

Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:12 am
From: "papa...@gmail.com"

On 28 nov, 16:03, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/