Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What About Flying Saucers
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Kevin
Apr 9, 2012, 7:56:00 PM4/9/12
to
Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane... (It is
hardly the case that I would need a better argument to embrace math
and to shun physics...) Physics seems to need flying saucers... As
Math... I say Physics needs to do away with flying saucers...
Math 1
Physics 0
Math can be under 8 on a cueball... but what point is it for Math to
be 'caught up' if Physics can't accomodate Math. Momentum slope proves
flying saucers but... being caught up means 5 on a cube with a sphere
inscribed has premise.
sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane... (It is
hardly the case that I would need a better argument to embrace math
and to shun physics...) Physics seems to need flying saucers... As
Math... I say Physics needs to do away with flying saucers...
Math 1
Physics 0
Math can be under 8 on a cueball... but what point is it for Math to
be 'caught up' if Physics can't accomodate Math. Momentum slope proves
flying saucers but... being caught up means 5 on a cube with a sphere
inscribed has premise.
alie...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 8:26:05 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 4:56 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
> sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane... (It is
> hardly the case that I would need a better argument to embrace math
> and to shun physics...) Physics seems to need flying saucers... As
> Math... I say Physics needs to do away with flying saucers...
"Flying saucers" are actually spherical. Their artificial supporting/
> Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
> sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane... (It is
> hardly the case that I would need a better argument to embrace math
> and to shun physics...) Physics seems to need flying saucers... As
> Math... I say Physics needs to do away with flying saucers...
propulsive gravitational fields distort the path of light rays from
their surfaces to your eyes, making them only *look* saucer shaped.
> Math 1
> Physics 0
Wrong math. Recalculate.
> Math can be under 8 on a cueball... but what point is it for Math to
> be 'caught up' if Physics can't accomodate Math. Momentum slope proves
> flying saucers but... being caught up means 5 on a cube with a sphere
> inscribed has premise.
Greek geometers didn't even know about pseudocrystals.
Or ... did they? DUN DUN DUNNN!!!eleventy!!!
Dr. HotSalt
P. S. alt.sci.physics trimmed 'cause of Gloogegropes' stoopid limit.
P. P. S. Kibologists, it's a nuther Kevin altogether.
Kevin
Apr 10, 2012, 12:11:41 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 7:26 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:56 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
> > sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane... (It is
> > hardly the case that I would need a better argument to embrace math
> > and to shun physics...) Physics seems to need flying saucers... As
> > Math... I say Physics needs to do away with flying saucers...
>
> "Flying saucers" are actually spherical. Their artificial supporting/
> propulsive gravitational fields distort the path of light rays from
> their surfaces to your eyes, making them only *look* saucer shaped.
Oh no he didn't!!! (Oh yes HE DID!!!) So what you're saying is that...
> On Apr 9, 4:56 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
> > sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane... (It is
> > hardly the case that I would need a better argument to embrace math
> > and to shun physics...) Physics seems to need flying saucers... As
> > Math... I say Physics needs to do away with flying saucers...
>
> "Flying saucers" are actually spherical. Their artificial supporting/
> propulsive gravitational fields distort the path of light rays from
> their surfaces to your eyes, making them only *look* saucer shaped.
anti-completely-empty-space is a sphere? I do get flying saucers and
they are a non sequitor... A flying saucer is a split in the x-axis at
the origin and then rotated about the y-axis... x^4 is a crest on
splits in the x-axis, first of all... and second of all... I'm serious
about momentum in the left vs. right dimention... I just don't know
what to call momentum in the left vs. right dimention.
be...@iwaynet.net
Apr 10, 2012, 2:03:38 PM4/10/12
to
On 4/9/2012 7:56 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
> sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane...
Speaking of "not the sharpest knife in the drawer"...
> Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
> sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane...
Neon
Apr 10, 2012, 3:11:47 PM4/10/12
to
can get, the aerodynamics are particularly well designed for forward
thrust, it sounds really very rude, but it did make sense because the
shape stops the vehicle from falling backwards as it travels through
the oxygenated atmosphere.
alie...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 12:35:34 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 9:11 am, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 7:26 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 4:56 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
> > > sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane... (It is
> > > hardly the case that I would need a better argument to embrace math
> > > and to shun physics...) Physics seems to need flying saucers... As
> > > Math... I say Physics needs to do away with flying saucers...
>
> > "Flying saucers" are actually spherical. Their artificial supporting/
> > propulsive gravitational fields distort the path of light rays from
> > their surfaces to your eyes, making them only *look* saucer shaped.
>
> Oh no he didn't!!! (Oh yes HE DID!!!) So what you're saying is that...
> anti-completely-empty-space is a sphere? I do get flying saucers and
> they are a non sequitor... A flying saucer is a split in the x-axis at
> the origin and then rotated about the y-axis...
Circles rather than lines. You're close. Displace that rotation
> On Apr 9, 7:26 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 4:56 pm, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Flying saucers definitively have the sharpest edge and having the
> > > sharpest edge, they traverse through the flattest plane... (It is
> > > hardly the case that I would need a better argument to embrace math
> > > and to shun physics...) Physics seems to need flying saucers... As
> > > Math... I say Physics needs to do away with flying saucers...
>
> > "Flying saucers" are actually spherical. Their artificial supporting/
> > propulsive gravitational fields distort the path of light rays from
> > their surfaces to your eyes, making them only *look* saucer shaped.
>
> Oh no he didn't!!! (Oh yes HE DID!!!) So what you're saying is that...
> anti-completely-empty-space is a sphere? I do get flying saucers and
> they are a non sequitor... A flying saucer is a split in the x-axis at
> the origin and then rotated about the y-axis...
along the x axis and you get the propeller on da Vinci's "helicopter":
http://www.da-vinci-inventions.com/aerial-screw.aspx
> x^4 is a crest on splits in the x-axis, first of all...
> and second of all... I'm serious
> about momentum in the left vs. right dimention... I just don't know
> what to call momentum in the left vs. right dimention.
The term you want is "half space".
We talk about compactified dimensions; each one making a sort of a
cylindrical subset of spacetime, a one-D space comprising a very tight
circle perpendicular to the time direction (think string theory but
the strings have Planck-scale curvature).
There should exist ten dimensions- four infinite in extent and not
curved (very much if at all as far as we can tell currently), 3 space
+ 1 time, and six compactified (curved) dimensions which can be
spatial *or temporal* in character.
How are the compactified dimenstions oriented WRT each other? Easy,
they have to be perpendicular to each other just like the main four,
and if two have different degrees of compactification (different
Planck scales), you get a torus, not a sphere (visualize taking a
finite piece of a tubular subspacetime and bending it into a circle
and fusing the ends; note that the piece of "time" imbedded within
becomes cyclical). Matter waves will be confined to the 2-D surface of
the torus, circulating endlessly around and around.
Except the ends don't fuse- instead they wind around and around
their larger component's axis meaning their time axis is the
projection of a rotation on a line perpendicular and central to the
rotation and displaced along that line, a helix.
Worse, we're talking a hypertorus (six extra dimensions), offering
many internal modes of wave propagation, meaning their time axis is
more of a 6-D hyperhelix, a "coiled-coiled-etc. coil" like the
filament of an old-fangled light bulb only more so. Each mode should
correspond to a known conserved quantum number. For such waves, the
direction of propagation along each circular dimension will have two
distinct orientations WRT the time axis, "left handed" and "right
handed" giving various combinations of left-left-right-left-right etc.
depending on how the various components of the wavefunction are
oriented WRT each other.
But remember that as far as the waves themselves are concerned there
is only "forward" and "backward" within the coiled-coil which
eventually projects out onto our observed time axis.
Hence, regardless of a particle's 3-D spatial momentum they are
always propagating into their future half-space *and ours*, and while
antiparticles are doing the same thing from their POV we see them as
going into our past half-space.
Not all particles occupy all six subdimensions. That's why some
particles feel one subset of the "four forces" and other particles
feel other subsets.
Yeah, a little handwaving. Sue me. It holds together though.
Mark L. Fergerson
0 new messages