New theory: Space is not curved. It is logarithmic.
Henri Wilson
Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
really logarithmic?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Eric Gisse
> This is just a theory.
>
> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> really logarithmic?
No.
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:ij51g21f0hbb0mmn3...@4ax.com...
| This is just a theory.
Stupid cunt.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Please!
Children read this NG you know.
Space could easily be logarithmic. After all, all our other senses are log
sensitive, why not our concepts of space and time?.
...but this is too hard for an engineer....
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> This is just a theory.
>>
>> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> really logarithmic?
>
>No.
I thought they had locked you up Geesey.
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
You can burn all yer books!
Space is logarithmic.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:26 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:ij51g21f0hbb0mmn3...@4ax.com...
> >| This is just a theory.
> >
> >
> >Stupid cunt.
>
> Please!
> Children read this NG you know.
> Space could easily be logarithmic. After all, all our other senses are log
> sensitive, why not our concepts of space and time?.
>
> ...but this is too hard for an engineer....
Since you are not a physicist, engineer, or mathematician I don't see
how you can criticise him. At least Androcles was *once* educated - you
were never educated.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:26 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>> >news:ij51g21f0hbb0mmn3...@4ax.com...
>> >| This is just a theory.
>> >
>> >
>> >Stupid cunt.
>>
>> Please!
>> Children read this NG you know.
>> Space could easily be logarithmic. After all, all our other senses are log
>> sensitive, why not our concepts of space and time?.
>>
>> ...but this is too hard for an engineer....
>
>Since you are not a physicist, engineer, or mathematician I don't see
>how you can criticise him. At least Androcles was *once* educated - you
>were never educated.
You can't even get into a university...
>
>>
>>
>> HW.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Sue...
Indeed. It in not only possible, it is the heart and soul
of being at some distance from something you dislike or being
close to something you like.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
Sue...
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:26 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:ij51g21f0hbb0mmn3...@4ax.com...
| >| This is just a theory.
| >
| >
| >Stupid cunt.
|
| Please!
| Children read this NG you know.
I know you do, but its time you grew up, stooopid cunt.
NOBODY is interested in your FUCKING STUPID theories.
Mike
> This is just a theory.
>
> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> really logarithmic?
Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
for a long time would not work at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
You are an empirical fool.
Mike
Igor
Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> You can burn all yer books!
> Space is logarithmic.
How are logarithms related to commutators?
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> This is just a theory.
>>
>> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> really logarithmic?
>
>
>Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
>the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
>for a long time would not work at all.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
>
>You are an empirical fool.
>
>Mike
Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
Nice to see you are dabbling with some of the things we physicists take for
granted.
>
>Sue...
YBM
> Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
I'd guess you've just dicovered the Log function two days ago...
Anyway, you could have a look at Poincaré disk :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_disk_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 00:57:57 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >>
> >> HW.
> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> >>
> >> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
> >
> >Indeed. It in not only possible, it is the heart and soul
> >of being at some distance from something you dislike or being
> >close to something you like.
> >
> >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
>
> Nice to see you are dabbling with some of the things we physicists take for
> granted.
HA HA HA HA HA
In what way are *you* a physicist?
You do not have a degree in physics. Your employment, if you even are,
is unrelated to physics. You sit and dictate physics to physicists and
folks studying physics without actually taking the time to understand
why physics today is what it is.
>
> >
> >Sue...
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> You can burn all yer books!
> Space is logarithmic.
Just like time has three unseen dimensions, right Henri?
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 07:05:29 -0700, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >
> >
> >Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
> >the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
> >for a long time would not work at all.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
> >
> >You are an empirical fool.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
Oh this is going to be fun. Henri just read about the log function and
had this great epiphany. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Tell us Henri, tell us about the log function.
When you say "space is logarithmatic", do you mean the real valued log
or the complex valued log? How do you address branch points? Do you
even understand what I just said?
Eric Gisse
YBM wrote:
> Henri Wilson a écrit :
> > Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
>
> I'd guess you've just dicovered the Log function two days ago...
It certaintly is amazing how often the "applied mathematican" learns
about a brand new topic that I already know and then thinks he did the
impossible by learning it.
>
> Anyway, you could have a look at Poincaré disk :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_disk_model
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
If he said "space is hyperbolic" he would not be nearly as wrong. At
least one could make an argument for space being hyperbolic. Except one
of the arguments would be special relativity, which would probably make
his brain explode due to cognitive dissonance.
Greg Hansen
>
>>This is just a theory.
>>
>>Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>>really logarithmic?
What would it mean for distances to be logarithmic? Logarithmic in what
variable? We presume that a ruler here would also work over there. If
space were logarithmic, would that mean a ruler would measure one foot
here and 1.44 feet over there?
Sorcerer
"Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:450228C2...@tcq.net...
He's off his rocker, groping at straws to prop up his theory.
He wrote a program to model orbits, but his orbits are all
seen edge-on so he computes distances to stars as 0.3 light years.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Androcles.
Mike
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 07:05:29 -0700, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >
> >
> >Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
> >the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
> >for a long time would not work at all.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
> >
> >You are an empirical fool.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
A function has a domain and a range. In this particular case you are
talking about, what is the domain and what is the range?
Mike
Greg Hansen
That doesn't sound promising.
Sorcerer
It may be senile dementia, he wasn't this bad seven years ago. Not
much we can do for that, unfortunately.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles
Henri Wilson
wrote:
You keep out of this...you don't understand.
>
>Androcles.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
At my universities we always regarded engineers as failed physicists..
Henri Wilson
There, see!
I told you so!
Henri Wilson
...poor boy...... hasn't improved.....
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2006 07:05:29 -0700, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>>
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> This is just a theory.
>> >>
>> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> >> really logarithmic?
>> >
>> >
>> >Impossible and easily refuted by simple experimentation. If that was
>> >the case, for instance, the INS (Inertial navigation System) 747's used
>> >for a long time would not work at all.
>> >
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_guidance_system
>> >
>> >You are an empirical fool.
>> >
>> >Mike
>>
>> Ah! the log function is not as straightforward as you might think.
>
>
>A function has a domain and a range. In this particular case you are
>talking about, what is the domain and what is the range?
Are you aware that all human senses are logarithmic (regarding magnitudes)?
Why not our concept of space?
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 03:05:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
| >news:450228C2...@tcq.net...
| >|> Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| >
| >| >>This is just a theory.
| >| >>
| >| >>Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we
| >measure are
| >| >>really logarithmic?
| >|
| >| What would it mean for distances to be logarithmic? Logarithmic in
what
| >| variable? We presume that a ruler here would also work over there. If
| >| space were logarithmic, would that mean a ruler would measure one foot
| >| here and 1.44 feet over there?
| >
| >He's off his rocker, groping at straws to prop up his theory.
| >He wrote a program to model orbits, but his orbits are all
| >seen edge-on so he computes distances to stars as 0.3 light years.
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
|
| You keep out of this...you don't understand.
I WROTE the book.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
| Space is logarithmic.
Go back to golf, try to get a birdie on a par 1.6094379.
Androcles
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
We regard physicists as failed engineers, but then, you are all upside
down in Oz.
We let them write papers, we don't let them build anything.
Steven Hawking was found guilty of social injustice from Sussex U
when he refused a beer I offered, and now has stay in Cambridge.
Incredible, an Englishman refusing a free pint! How stupid is that?
Androcles.
Eric Gisse
You know what is funny, Henri?
When I first started towards my degree, you were in this newsgroup
posting dumb stuff.
You are still posting dumb stuff. Routinely, your latest 'inspiration'
is something I have already seen before (The Poincare disc is the
latest example) and understand much better than you do.
When I graduate, you will STILL be on this newsgroup...posting dumb
shit.
Unlike yourself I am actually dedicating serious time to learning
physics. Unlike yourself, I can actually do it! Isn't that funny?
Oh I'm sure you think highly of yourself regardless.
You say you have a degree in applied mathematics, yet my knowledge of
mathematics is superior to yours and I'm not even done with my BS yet -
why is that?
You were all proud of your 3 dimensions of time...what happened to
those, Henri?
In all the years you have been posting to this newsgroup, has one
person taken one of these 'big ideas' you love to believe you have and
made something out of them? An experiment, or at least an article
published in a peer reviewed journal crediting you?
Have you yet learned special relativity, or does the concept still
...elude... you? Does the idea of learning enough mathematics to have a
shot at learning general relativity still daunt you? Have you given up
completely on quantum mechanics?
Is Androcles still the only person on this newsgroup who even
approaches 'taking you seriously' ?
Hasn't improved, indeed. This is me laughing at you, Henri.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Not bad for a beginner.
You don't need 1 million points, 30000 is ample....and you don't need a filter
if you use double precision numbers and my method of generating ellipses. I use
500 divisions for printing because that's enough to display the curves quite
smoothly over two or three orbits..
If you could understand why only edge on orbits are required for all of this,
your task would be a lot easier.
If you accepted that multiple images are rarely if ever created and observed,
you might also realise that my unification theory is the only sound explanation
for this. (apart from log space)
>Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
I have shown how it can be produced in a number of ways...but there is not
enough info in the curve to permit a definite explanation.
>
>| Space is logarithmic.
>
>Go back to golf, try to get a birdie on a par 1.6094379.
I once had a square root on a par four...about 9 pm.
>Androcles
>
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
You can burn all yer books!
Space is logarithmic.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2006 18:12:51 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
>> >
>> >If he said "space is hyperbolic" he would not be nearly as wrong. At
>> >least one could make an argument for space being hyperbolic. Except one
>> >of the arguments would be special relativity, which would probably make
>> >his brain explode due to cognitive dissonance.
>>
>> ...poor boy...... hasn't improved.....
>
>You know what is funny, Henri?
>
>When I first started towards my degree, you were in this newsgroup
>posting dumb stuff.
>
>You are still posting dumb stuff.
..and you'r still starting towards your degree, Geesey....
>Routinely, your latest 'inspiration'
>is something I have already seen before (The Poincare disc is the
>latest example) and understand much better than you do.
>
>When I graduate, you will STILL be on this newsgroup...posting dumb
>shit.
When you graduate, Geesey, pigs and green elephants will be flying through the
sky...
>Unlike yourself I am actually dedicating serious time to learning
>physics. Unlike yourself, I can actually do it! Isn't that funny?
>
>Oh I'm sure you think highly of yourself regardless.
>
>You say you have a degree in applied mathematics, yet my knowledge of
>mathematics is superior to yours and I'm not even done with my BS yet -
>why is that?
You have never written an equation here Geesey.
It is obvious you don't have any natural maths ability.
>
>You were all proud of your 3 dimensions of time...what happened to
>those, Henri?
That's right. There are three time subdimensions.
You wont find that in a book..and they wont teach it at universities....yet!
>
>In all the years you have been posting to this newsgroup, has one
>person taken one of these 'big ideas' you love to believe you have and
>made something out of them? An experiment, or at least an article
>published in a peer reviewed journal crediting you?
>
>Have you yet learned special relativity, or does the concept still
>...elude... you? Does the idea of learning enough mathematics to have a
>shot at learning general relativity still daunt you? Have you given up
>completely on quantum mechanics?
>
>Is Androcles still the only person on this newsgroup who even
>approaches 'taking you seriously' ?
Geesey, haven't you noticed? There are more people on this NG opposing Einstein
than supporting him.
>
>Hasn't improved, indeed. This is me laughing at you, Henri.
geesey you would probably laugh if you stumbled on a nude woman in the dark....
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 07:12:57 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 8 Sep 2006 18:12:51 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
> >> >
> >> >If he said "space is hyperbolic" he would not be nearly as wrong. At
> >> >least one could make an argument for space being hyperbolic. Except one
> >> >of the arguments would be special relativity, which would probably make
> >> >his brain explode due to cognitive dissonance.
> >>
> >> ...poor boy...... hasn't improved.....
> >
> >You know what is funny, Henri?
> >
> >When I first started towards my degree, you were in this newsgroup
> >posting dumb stuff.
> >
> >You are still posting dumb stuff.
>
> ..and you'r still starting towards your degree, Geesey....
Incorrect, Henri. I'm well on my way.
>
> >Routinely, your latest 'inspiration'
> >is something I have already seen before (The Poincare disc is the
> >latest example) and understand much better than you do.
> >
> >When I graduate, you will STILL be on this newsgroup...posting dumb
> >shit.
>
> When you graduate, Geesey, pigs and green elephants will be flying through the
> sky...
Think so?
>
> >Unlike yourself I am actually dedicating serious time to learning
> >physics. Unlike yourself, I can actually do it! Isn't that funny?
> >
> >Oh I'm sure you think highly of yourself regardless.
> >
> >You say you have a degree in applied mathematics, yet my knowledge of
> >mathematics is superior to yours and I'm not even done with my BS yet -
> >why is that?
Well, Henri?
>
> You have never written an equation here Geesey.
> It is obvious you don't have any natural maths ability.
That a fact, Henri? Why is it my knowledge of mathematics is superior
to yours?
I have tried many times to get you to participate in that little
pissing contest and you always refuse.
When I ask you to reconcile your belief that Maxwell's equations are
valid and your belief that it is possible for EM waves to propogate
with a speed c+v, you sputter and fail. Why?
When I ask you to provide the working equations to your theory, you
refuse. Why?
When I ask you to substantiate your assertion that you have a degree in
applied mathematics you always change the subject. Why?
Why don't you tell us how you decided space is logarithmic. What
precipitated your latest 'discovery'?
>
> >
> >You were all proud of your 3 dimensions of time...what happened to
> >those, Henri?
>
> That's right. There are three time subdimensions.
> You wont find that in a book..and they wont teach it at universities....yet!
Since you hail yourself as captain amazing for being the discoverer of
the "3 dimensions of time", I would have thought you would talk about
it a little more often. You never talk about that theory
anymore....why?
Did you stop posting about it in the vain hope that nobody would
remember all the bluster?
>
> >
> >In all the years you have been posting to this newsgroup, has one
> >person taken one of these 'big ideas' you love to believe you have and
> >made something out of them? An experiment, or at least an article
> >published in a peer reviewed journal crediting you?
Well, Henri?
What efforts have you made to that end?
> >
> >Have you yet learned special relativity, or does the concept still
> >...elude... you? Does the idea of learning enough mathematics to have a
> >shot at learning general relativity still daunt you? Have you given up
> >completely on quantum mechanics?
Apparently relativity still eludes your understanding.
> >
> >Is Androcles still the only person on this newsgroup who even
> >approaches 'taking you seriously' ?
>
> Geesey, haven't you noticed? There are more people on this NG opposing Einstein
> than supporting him.
Yet the people opposing relativity have shown on many occasions they do
not understand relativity. You think relativity is wrong, yet you
ignore the experimental evidence for it and refuse to learn the theory.
You didn't answer my question, either. Is Androcles still the only one
on this newsgroup who supports you in any way? I think he is.
>
> >
> >Hasn't improved, indeed. This is me laughing at you, Henri.
>
> geesey you would probably laugh if you stumbled on a nude woman in the dark....
It is called "having a sense of humor".
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Jealous tirade snipped.
| >Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
|
| I have shown how
I don't give a fuck HOW you do it, YOU can't reproduce a row of
red dots in top of http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
with a flat line along the bottom, and I can.
| >| Space is logarithmic.
| >
| >Go back to golf, try to get a birdie on a par 1.6094379.
|
| I once had a square root on a par four...about 9 pm.
You mean you got a hole-in-0.69314718 at about 8,103.084 pm?
You should publish that, time is exponential.
|
| >Androcles
Y.Porat
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > This is just a theory.
> >
> > Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> > really logarithmic?
>
-------------------------
Bravo bump parasite for your initiative to open a nre thread
anyway idiot
space is not curved and not shmerved
the curved motion only in cases it is
is a propwerty of some basic particles
bye idiotic parrot bump parasite
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:1769g2p397dfmabt6...@4ax.com...
>| On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:09:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
><Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
>| >| You keep out of this...you don't understand.
>| >| You can burn all yer books!
>| >
>| >I WROTE the book.
>| >
>http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
>
>
>Jealous tirade snipped.
So you're copying Andersen's tactics now, eh?
>
>| >Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
>|
>| I have shown how
>
>I don't give a fuck HOW you do it, YOU can't reproduce a row of
>red dots in top of http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
>with a flat line along the bottom, and I can.
I told you, there is nowhere near enough info in that graph to tell us
anything.
I can produce something similar in several ways.
>|
>| >Androcles
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
You can burn all yer books!
Space is logarithmic.
Henri Wilson
Don't drink so much Porat. You will become a liability....
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2006 07:12:57 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 8 Sep 2006 18:12:51 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_metric#The_punctured_disk_model
>> >> >
>> >> >If he said "space is hyperbolic" he would not be nearly as wrong. At
>> >> >least one could make an argument for space being hyperbolic. Except one
>> >> >of the arguments would be special relativity, which would probably make
>> >> >his brain explode due to cognitive dissonance.
>> >>
>> >> ...poor boy...... hasn't improved.....
>> >
>> >You know what is funny, Henri?
>> >
>> >When I first started towards my degree, you were in this newsgroup
>> >posting dumb stuff.
>> >
>> >You are still posting dumb stuff.
>>
>> ..and you'r still starting towards your degree, Geesey....
>
>Incorrect, Henri. I'm well on my way.
What, repeating physics 101 for the third time?
>> >Routinely, your latest 'inspiration'
>> >is something I have already seen before (The Poincare disc is the
>> >latest example) and understand much better than you do.
>> >
>> >When I graduate, you will STILL be on this newsgroup...posting dumb
>> >shit.
>>
>> When you graduate, Geesey, pigs and green elephants will be flying through the
>> sky...
>
>Think so?
Geesey, sorry but you simply don't have what it takes. There's plenty of work
for plumbers around here. Why don't you take that up?
>> >You say you have a degree in applied mathematics, yet my knowledge of
>> >mathematics is superior to yours and I'm not even done with my BS yet -
>> >why is that?
>
>Well, Henri?
>
>>
>> You have never written an equation here Geesey.
>> It is obvious you don't have any natural maths ability.
>
>That a fact, Henri? Why is it my knowledge of mathematics is superior
>to yours?
>
>I have tried many times to get you to participate in that little
>pissing contest and you always refuse.
>
>When I ask you to reconcile your belief that Maxwell's equations are
>valid and your belief that it is possible for EM waves to propogate
>with a speed c+v, you sputter and fail. Why?
Geesey, being able to copy what a mathematician created from a text book
doesn't make YOU a mathematician. Solving Maxwell's equations might be
difficult but understanding what they mean is a bloody cinch.
>When I ask you to provide the working equations to your theory, you
>refuse. Why?
Which theory? I have many...
>
>When I ask you to substantiate your assertion that you have a degree in
>applied mathematics you always change the subject. Why?
Because I don't give a stuff whether YOU believe me or not , Geesey.
>
>Why don't you tell us how you decided space is logarithmic. What
>precipitated your latest 'discovery'?
I wanted to shut Androcles up. Sometimes he's dumber than you...
>> >You were all proud of your 3 dimensions of time...what happened to
>> >those, Henri?
>>
>> That's right. There are three time subdimensions.
>> You wont find that in a book..and they wont teach it at universities....yet!
>
>Since you hail yourself as captain amazing for being the discoverer of
>the "3 dimensions of time", I would have thought you would talk about
>it a little more often. You never talk about that theory
>anymore....why?
I am not hte firsrt person to propose three time dimensions. Other geniuses
exist too, you know Geesey.
>
>Did you stop posting about it in the vain hope that nobody would
>remember all the bluster?
You prove there are NOT three time dimensions Geesey.
How fast does time 'move', Geesey?
How do YOU define time movement?
>> >In all the years you have been posting to this newsgroup, has one
>> >person taken one of these 'big ideas' you love to believe you have and
>> >made something out of them? An experiment, or at least an article
>> >published in a peer reviewed journal crediting you?
>
>Well, Henri?
I have more fun here...and more constructive.
There wont be any establishment rigged journals in ten years.
>
>What efforts have you made to that end?
>
>> >
>> >Have you yet learned special relativity, or does the concept still
>> >...elude... you? Does the idea of learning enough mathematics to have a
>> >shot at learning general relativity still daunt you? Have you given up
>> >completely on quantum mechanics?
>
>Apparently relativity still eludes your understanding.
I sincerely hope that bullshit will always elude me.
>> >Is Androcles still the only person on this newsgroup who even
>> >approaches 'taking you seriously' ?
>>
>> Geesey, haven't you noticed? There are more people on this NG opposing Einstein
>> than supporting him.
>
>Yet the people opposing relativity have shown on many occasions they do
>not understand relativity. You think relativity is wrong, yet you
>ignore the experimental evidence for it and refuse to learn the theory.
When have I ever ignored believable experimental evidence?
>You didn't answer my question, either. Is Androcles still the only one
>on this newsgroup who supports you in any way? I think he is.
He's a silly old pommie engineer. I don't need his support.
kunzmilan
> >> > Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> > really logarithmic?
The string 1,2,4,8,16,..is logarithmic.
Now make their graphs. Correlate the second value of both strings
against the first one of the same string, the third value against the
second value, etc. Both correlations are linear with different slopes.
One question. Can logarithms with base 1 exist?
kunzmilan
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:46:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:1769g2p397dfmabt6...@4ax.com...
| >| On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:09:33 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| ><Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
|
| >| >| You keep out of this...you don't understand.
| >| >| You can burn all yer books!
| >| >
| >| >I WROTE the book.
| >| >
|
>http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
| >
| >
| >Jealous tirade snipped.
|
| So you're copying Andersen's tactics now, eh?
|
| >
| >| >Your pathetic copy cannot reproduce V 1493 Aql, even edge-on.
| >|
| >| I have shown how
| >
| >I don't give a fuck HOW you do it, YOU can't reproduce a row of
| >red dots in top of http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| >with a flat line along the bottom, and I can.
|
| I told
I told you, you are a useless cunt.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>
>> >> > Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> >> > really logarithmic?
>The string 0,1,2,3,4,... is linear.
>The string 1,2,4,8,16,..is logarithmic.
>Now make their graphs. Correlate the second value of both strings
>against the first one of the same string, the third value against the
>second value, etc. Both correlations are linear with different slopes.
What are you talking about?
>One question. Can logarithms with base 1 exist?
No.
1^n=1
Log 1=0
>kunzmilan
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]
> >
> >I have tried many times to get you to participate in that little
> >pissing contest and you always refuse.
> >
> >When I ask you to reconcile your belief that Maxwell's equations are
> >valid and your belief that it is possible for EM waves to propogate
> >with a speed c+v, you sputter and fail. Why?
>
> Geesey, being able to copy what a mathematician created from a text book
> doesn't make YOU a mathematician. Solving Maxwell's equations might be
> difficult but understanding what they mean is a bloody cinch.
Since by your standards I am uneducated, why don't you show me how
Maxwell's equations allow a photon to travel at a speed c+v.
Or are you going to run away again after calling me some names, like
Androcles does?
[...]
Y.Porat
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > Since by your standards I am uneducated, why don't you show me how
> Maxwell's equations allow a photon to travel at a speed c+v.
>
> Or are you going to run away again after calling me some names, like
> Androcles does?
>
> [...]
to anyone who still dont know who is Eric Gisse
he is a 22 years old student
and going to winn the Nobel
Nobel for what ?? may be you can guess ???
Y.P
---------------------------------
Y.Porat
i dont onow about string theory
but i am quite sure
*it was adapted and adjusted** to fit some aoriori assumptions
may be he flopp theory of curved space time
that parrots like awilson are going to bang their heads in it
to therest of their life !!and at trhe same long time
tolive in a paradaiz of fools
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
Eric Gisse
Stop pouting. You aren't impressing anyone.
>
> Y.P
> ---------------------------------
Y.Porat
sorry sorry i forgot that youare the super commander here
actually a nice achievement for a 22 years old student !!! (:-)
but btw whay such a noble commander like you is diverting the
posts from the orriginal destination??
not nice for a noble man like you of 22 yreas old
it fits betetr a 60 years old crook !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
>
> >
> > Y.P
> > ---------------------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > > Henri Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Since by your standards I am uneducated, why don't you show me how
> > > > Maxwell's equations allow a photon to travel at a speed c+v.
> > > >
> > > > Or are you going to run away again after calling me some names, like
> > > > Androcles does?
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > ------------------------
> > > to anyone who still dont know who is Eric Gisse
> > >
> > > he is a 22 years old student
> > > and going to winn the Nobel
> > >
> > > Nobel for what ?? may be you can guess ???
> >
> > Stop pouting. You aren't impressing anyone.
> ------------------
> sorry sorry i forgot that youare the super commander here
> actually a nice achievement for a 22 years old student !!! (:-)
>
> but btw whay such a noble commander like you is diverting the
> posts from the orriginal destination??
...because you fall for it so fucking often.
Y.Porat
> > > > to anyone who still dont know who is Eric Gisse
> > > >
> > > > he is a 22 years old student
> > > > and going to winn the Nobel
> > > >
> > > > Nobel for what ?? may be you can guess ???
> > >
> > > Stop pouting. You aren't impressing anyone.
> > ------------------
> > sorry sorry i forgot that youare the super commander here
> > actually a nice achievement for a 22 years old student !!! (:-)
> >
> > but btw whay such a noble commander like you is diverting the
> > posts from the orriginal destination??
>
> ...because you fall for it so fucking often.
Hi the new commander of this ng
a 22 years old student
(and the little shit crook keeps diverting the posts to other
placesjust to prove that he is a 22 years disturbed crook shit
Y.P
--------------------
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:26 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
> wrote:
>
>> "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>> | This is just a theory.
>>
>>
>
> Please!
> Children read this NG you know.
> Space could easily be logarithmic. After all, all our other senses are log
> sensitive, why not our concepts of space and time?.
>
> ...but this is too hard for an engineer....
Henri, Henri, Henri! :-)
The statement "Space is logarithmic" has no meaning whatsoever.
And you call it a theory! :-)
The sensitivity of our eyes can loosely be said to be logarithmic.
But the statement "light is logarithmic" is meaningless.
Our ears sensitivity to frequency can loosely be said to be logarithmic.
But the statement "frequency is logarithmic" is meaningless.
Even a non-engineer should be able to understand that.
Paul
Sorcerer
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:ee6dfn$827$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
38 usec per day is meaningless too. Even a non-engineer should
be able to understand that, but not a fuckwit schoolmarm.
Androcles
|
| Paul
Henri Wilson
Naturally I haven't devulged too much about this new theory because I know
there are lots out there who want to seize on anything new and claim it as
their own.
...but I will give YOU more details because you are obviously quite
trustworthy.
As you know Androcles claims that my light speed unification theory is
completely wrong. ...and the real reason for my variable star 'distance
discrepancies' is that all orbits in the Androclean universe are face on,
whereas mine can be tilted at any angle.
To make him happy, I discovered another way to explain the fact that, for
brightness curve purposes, many star appear to be a lot closer than they are.
It is quite simple really.
The apparent length of anything diminishes as a function of the distance to the
observer.
So a star that lies 300LYs away might behave as though it lies 30 LYs away
whereas the same star at 600LY would behave as though it were 30 (1+log2) away.
At 3000LY it would appears to be 30 (1+log10) away.
The actual proportion depends on the star orbit period.
>Paul
Eric Gisse
Interesting. You cannot even justify how c+v is a possible wave
propogation speed by using Maxwell's equations, but you feel you are
intelligent enough to say ALL of cosmology is wrong?
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 00:09:13 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:26 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >news:ij51g21f0hbb0mmn3...@4ax.com...
> >> >| This is just a theory.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Stupid cunt.
> >>
> >> Children read this NG you know.
> >> Space could easily be logarithmic. After all, all our other senses are log
> >> sensitive, why not our concepts of space and time?.
> >>
> >> ...but this is too hard for an engineer....
> >
> >how you can criticise him. At least Androcles was *once* educated - you
> >were never educated.
>
> You can't even get into a university...
Fuckwit.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> HW.
> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> >>
> >> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Joe Jakarta
> This is just a theory.
>
> really logarithmic?
>
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2006 00:09:13 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:26 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>> >> >news:ij51g21f0hbb0mmn3...@4ax.com...
>> >> >| This is just a theory.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Stupid cunt.
>> >>
>> >> Please!
>> >> Children read this NG you know.
>> >> Space could easily be logarithmic. After all, all our other senses are log
>> >> sensitive, why not our concepts of space and time?.
>> >>
>> >> ...but this is too hard for an engineer....
>> >
>> >Since you are not a physicist, engineer, or mathematician I don't see
>> >how you can criticise him. At least Androcles was *once* educated - you
>> >were never educated.
>>
>> You can't even get into a university...
>
>fs...@uaf.edu
>
>Fuckwit.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
It's actually 37.84303970567
Ask Andersen.
Henri Wilson
Glad to see that another of my expertly constructed theories has been taken
seriously...
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 03:28:19 -0700, "Joe Jakarta" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >Ain't new. Check out Milne's "kinematic relativity" (1930s).
>
> Glad to see that another of my expertly constructed theories has been taken
> seriously...
Like hell you have a theory.
You saw the Poincare disk and simply thought "space is like this!"
You have not made any effort into formulating your new "theory" into
something capable of testing, much less worth learning.
So Henri, when are you going to use your applied mathematics degree to
actually formulate all your theories into a mathematical - and testable
- form? Or are you going to keep using the "but people will steal my
work!" line to avoid doing actual work?
Eric Gisse
Still a fuckwit.
I can't even get into a university according to you, yet I have a
student email account which you have sent nothing to.
Sure is fun to snipe when you don't even care if you are wrong, eh
Henri?
Henri Wilson
I'll let you into a secret Geesey.
You know all that stuff you are being taught at the university you imagine you
are attending, well 95% of it you will never use again in your whole career (if
you ever have one). Physics is about concepts and experimentation. If you want
a maths analysis you ask a mathematician to help you. You only need enough
maths to know what he's talking about.
A few physicists end up in theoretical fields but the majority go where the
money is, into applied research.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2006 18:23:38 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> You can't even get into a university...
>> >
>> >fs...@uaf.edu
>> >
>> >Fuckwit.
>>
>> fseg...@uaf.edu
>
>Still a fuckwit.
>
>I can't even get into a university according to you, yet I have a
>student email account which you have sent nothing to.
>
>Sure is fun to snipe when you don't even care if you are wrong, eh
>Henri?
I'm sorry if I offended the poor boy.
Y.Porat
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006 00:08:26 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 12 Sep 2006 18:23:38 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >> You can't even get into a university...
> >> >
> >> >fs...@uaf.edu
> >> >
> >> >Fuckwit.
> >>
> >> fseg...@uaf.edu
> >
> >Still a fuckwit.
> >
> >I can't even get into a university according to you, yet I have a
> >student email account which you have sent nothing to.
> >
> >Sure is fun to snipe when you don't even care if you are wrong, eh
> >Henri?
>
> I'm sorry if I offended the poor boy.
he is not a poor boy
he is a 22 years old student
Y.P
-----------------------------------
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006 00:08:26 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 12 Sep 2006 18:23:38 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >> You can't even get into a university...
> >> >
> >> >fs...@uaf.edu
> >> >
> >> >Fuckwit.
> >>
> >> fseg...@uaf.edu
> >
> >Still a fuckwit.
> >
> >I can't even get into a university according to you, yet I have a
> >student email account which you have sent nothing to.
> >
> >Sure is fun to snipe when you don't even care if you are wrong, eh
> >Henri?
>
> I'm sorry if I offended the poor boy.
You can't even carry on a conversation without going off in a huff
because I asked something you are incapable of answering.
Are you going to show me how c+v is a valid wave propogation speed for
a wave obtained via Maxwell's equatiosn, or are you going to sit there
with your thumb up your ass while talking about how great you are?
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 14 Sep 2006 00:08:26 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 12 Sep 2006 18:23:38 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You can't even get into a university...
>> >> >
>> >> >fs...@uaf.edu
>> >> >
>> >> >Fuckwit.
>> >>
>> >> fseg...@uaf.edu
>> >
>> >Still a fuckwit.
>> >
>> >I can't even get into a university according to you, yet I have a
>> >student email account which you have sent nothing to.
>> >
>> >Sure is fun to snipe when you don't even care if you are wrong, eh
>> >Henri?
>>
>> I'm sorry if I offended the poor boy.
>
>You can't even carry on a conversation without going off in a huff
>because I asked something you are incapable of answering.
>
>Are you going to show me how c+v is a valid wave propogation speed for
>a wave obtained via Maxwell's equatiosn, or are you going to sit there
>with your thumb up your ass while talking about how great you are?
Maxwell's equations apply to EM waves in a dielectric medium, dummy.
In a perfect vacuum the values of both permittivity and permeability is zero.
If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
to measure it, dummy.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006 12:56:30 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 14 Sep 2006 00:08:26 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> >> On 12 Sep 2006 18:23:38 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> You can't even get into a university...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >fs...@uaf.edu
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fuckwit.
> >> >>
> >> >> fseg...@uaf.edu
> >> >
> >> >Still a fuckwit.
> >> >
> >> >I can't even get into a university according to you, yet I have a
> >> >student email account which you have sent nothing to.
> >> >
> >> >Sure is fun to snipe when you don't even care if you are wrong, eh
> >> >Henri?
> >>
> >> I'm sorry if I offended the poor boy.
> >
> >You can't even carry on a conversation without going off in a huff
> >because I asked something you are incapable of answering.
> >
> >Are you going to show me how c+v is a valid wave propogation speed for
> >a wave obtained via Maxwell's equatiosn, or are you going to sit there
> >with your thumb up your ass while talking about how great you are?
>
> Maxwell's equations apply to EM waves in a dielectric medium, dummy.
Except EM waves are a solution to Maxwell's equations in vacuum, which
is what I was talking about. It doesn't matter though, I asked you to
show me how c+v is a valid wave propogation speed. Pick your medium - I
don't care. Define it and we can work through a detailed solution to
Maxwell's equations.
>
> In a perfect vacuum the values of both permittivity and permeability is zero.
Then according to the way Maxwell's equations are formulated, the speed
of light is infinite. Spot the problem?
How are you going to evade this, Henri? Claim vacuum isn't vacuum?
Claim Maxwell's equations don't apply in vacuum? Or mabey just hand
wave some more because you don't have any goddamn clue about what you
are talking about?
>
> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
> to measure it, dummy.
Not even wrong, Henri.
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Right on, H. That boy is so stupid I'm pretty sure his mother threw
out the baby and kept the bathwater.
Magnetic wave between bar magnet and compass needle,
no permeability needed:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 14 Sep 2006 12:56:30 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You can't even carry on a conversation without going off in a huff
>> >because I asked something you are incapable of answering.
>> >
>> >Are you going to show me how c+v is a valid wave propogation speed for
>> >a wave obtained via Maxwell's equatiosn, or are you going to sit there
>> >with your thumb up your ass while talking about how great you are?
>>
>> Maxwell's equations apply to EM waves in a dielectric medium, dummy.
>
>Except EM waves are a solution to Maxwell's equations in vacuum, which
>is what I was talking about. It doesn't matter though, I asked you to
>show me how c+v is a valid wave propogation speed. Pick your medium - I
>don't care. Define it and we can work through a detailed solution to
>Maxwell's equations.
>
>>
>> In a perfect vacuum the values of both permittivity and permeability is zero.
>
>Then according to the way Maxwell's equations are formulated, the speed
>of light is infinite. Spot the problem?
>
>How are you going to evade this, Henri? Claim vacuum isn't vacuum?
>Claim Maxwell's equations don't apply in vacuum? Or mabey just hand
>wave some more because you don't have any goddamn clue about what you
>are talking about?
Geesey, the reason you will never make a physicist is exemplified by the fact
that you cannot get it into your head that speeds are always relative.
There is no such animal as 'the speed of light in a vacuum'. It is a nonsense
statement.
>
>>
>> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
>> to measure it, dummy.
>
>Not even wrong, Henri.
That's right. I am not wrong.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006 16:47:38 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 14 Sep 2006 12:56:30 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >You can't even carry on a conversation without going off in a huff
> >> >because I asked something you are incapable of answering.
> >> >
> >> >Are you going to show me how c+v is a valid wave propogation speed for
> >> >a wave obtained via Maxwell's equatiosn, or are you going to sit there
> >> >with your thumb up your ass while talking about how great you are?
> >>
> >> Maxwell's equations apply to EM waves in a dielectric medium, dummy.
> >
> >Except EM waves are a solution to Maxwell's equations in vacuum, which
> >is what I was talking about. It doesn't matter though, I asked you to
> >show me how c+v is a valid wave propogation speed. Pick your medium - I
> >don't care. Define it and we can work through a detailed solution to
> >Maxwell's equations.
> >
> >>
> >> In a perfect vacuum the values of both permittivity and permeability is zero.
> >
> >Then according to the way Maxwell's equations are formulated, the speed
> >of light is infinite. Spot the problem?
> >
> >How are you going to evade this, Henri? Claim vacuum isn't vacuum?
> >Claim Maxwell's equations don't apply in vacuum? Or mabey just hand
> >wave some more because you don't have any goddamn clue about what you
> >are talking about?
>
> Geesey, the reason you will never make a physicist is exemplified by the fact
> that you cannot get it into your head that speeds are always relative.
Welcome to 19th century physics where the thought that Galilean
dynamics reigns supreme comes to a head when the observation that
Maxwell's equations demand the speed of light to be constant appeared.
Aren't you excited to hear how the debate was resolved?
>
> There is no such animal as 'the speed of light in a vacuum'. It is a nonsense
> statement.
How do you keep so many mutually contradictory statements in your head
without having it explode due to raw coginitive dissonance?
How many times did you talk about the speed of light in vacuum when you
were ignoring observational astronomy? How many times have you said you
accept Maxwell's equations?
It looks like you are running away from yet another debate you cannot
win. Good job Henri, you never fail to surprise.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
> >> to measure it, dummy.
> >
> >Not even wrong, Henri.
>
> That's right. I am not wrong.
I should have realised you wouldn't get the reference. Not because you
are an aussie, but because you are an idiot.
Henri Wilson
Geesey, I don't have to run away from anything. I have enough variable star
data to fully prove that their brightness changes are a straightforward
consequence of c+v.
>> >> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
>> >> to measure it, dummy.
>> >
>> >Not even wrong, Henri.
>>
>> That's right. I am not wrong.
>
>I should have realised you wouldn't get the reference. Not because you
>are an aussie, but because you are an idiot.
Poor boy, ....absolutely no hope....
Eric Gisse
I don't give a shit, I was asking about something else.
You say Maxwell's equations allow for photons to have a wave speed c+v.
>From my own studies of the partial differential equations which come
directly from Maxwell's equations I see that is not possible.
It is either true or it isn't. So I'm asking you to show me the work
you have done which shows a wave speed of c+v to be a valid in
Maxwell's equations. If you have no work to show, you have no
justification for saying a wave speed of c+v is possible.
>
>
> >> >> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
> >> >> to measure it, dummy.
> >> >
> >> >Not even wrong, Henri.
> >>
> >> That's right. I am not wrong.
> >
> >I should have realised you wouldn't get the reference. Not because you
> >are an aussie, but because you are an idiot.
>
> Poor boy, ....absolutely no hope....
Then it is going to be really, really funny when I get my degree.
Paul B. Andersen
Henri, I think you _should_ run away from your statement:
"In a perfect vacuum the values of both permittivity
and permeability is zero."
And that's what you are doing, isn't it?
Always fun to see you run like hell. :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:42:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:26 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Please!
>>> Children read this NG you know.
>>> Space could easily be logarithmic. After all, all our other senses are log
>>> sensitive, why not our concepts of space and time?.
>>>
>>> ...but this is too hard for an engineer....
>> Henri, Henri, Henri! :-)
>>
>> The statement "Space is logarithmic" has no meaning whatsoever.
>> And you call it a theory! :-)
>>
>> The sensitivity of our eyes can loosely be said to be logarithmic.
>> But the statement "light is logarithmic" is meaningless.
>> Our ears sensitivity to frequency can loosely be said to be logarithmic.
>> But the statement "frequency is logarithmic" is meaningless.
>>
>> Even a non-engineer should be able to understand that.
>
> Naturally I haven't devulged too much about this new theory because I know
> there are lots out there who want to seize on anything new and claim it as
> their own.
A meaningless statement is no theory.
>
> ...but I will give YOU more details because you are obviously quite
> trustworthy.
>
> As you know Androcles claims that my light speed unification theory is
> completely wrong. ...and the real reason for my variable star 'distance
> discrepancies' is that all orbits in the Androclean universe are face on,
> whereas mine can be tilted at any angle.
>
> To make him happy, I discovered another way to explain the fact that, for
> brightness curve purposes, many star appear to be a lot closer than they are.
>
> It is quite simple really.
>
> The apparent length of anything diminishes as a function of the distance to the
> observer.
Quite.
It's called perspective, and is the reason why we can use parallax
to measure the distance to a star.
> So a star that lies 300LYs away might behave as though it lies 30 LYs away
> whereas the same star at 600LY would behave as though it were 30 (1+log2) away.
> At 3000LY it would appears to be 30 (1+log10) away.
I won't even try to figure out what kind of idiotic reasoning
led you to that conclusion.
> The actual proportion depends on the star orbit period.
Henri, you are babbling.
Paul
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 17 Sep 2006 15:45:40 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> Geesey, I don't have to run away from anything. I have enough variable star
>> data to fully prove that their brightness changes are a straightforward
>> consequence of c+v.
>
>I don't give a shit, I was asking about something else.
>
>You say Maxwell's equations allow for photons to have a wave speed c+v.
>>From my own studies of the partial differential equations which come
>directly from Maxwell's equations I see that is not possible.
>
>It is either true or it isn't. So I'm asking you to show me the work
>you have done which shows a wave speed of c+v to be a valid in
>Maxwell's equations. If you have no work to show, you have no
>justification for saying a wave speed of c+v is possible.
How transparent is that pea sized brain of yours Geesey?
The 'medium' used by Maxwell represents a rest frame.
According to Maxwell, light moves at c wrt that frame. It can have another
speed wrt something else.
>> >> >> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
>> >> >> to measure it, dummy.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not even wrong, Henri.
>> >>
>> >> That's right. I am not wrong.
>> >
>> >I should have realised you wouldn't get the reference. Not because you
>> >are an aussie, but because you are an idiot.
>>
>> Poor boy, ....absolutely no hope....
>
>Then it is going to be really, really funny when I get my degree.
Anyone can get a degree these days. Not like when I was a boy.... we really had
to work...and THINK.
Henri Wilson
As soon as you try to measure these zero values, you destroy the 'vacuum'.
>
>Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:42:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:36:26 GMT, "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> Please!
>>>> Children read this NG you know.
>>>> Space could easily be logarithmic. After all, all our other senses are log
>>>> sensitive, why not our concepts of space and time?.
>>>>
>>>> ...but this is too hard for an engineer....
>>> Henri, Henri, Henri! :-)
>>>
>>> The statement "Space is logarithmic" has no meaning whatsoever.
>>> And you call it a theory! :-)
>>>
>>> The sensitivity of our eyes can loosely be said to be logarithmic.
>>> But the statement "light is logarithmic" is meaningless.
>>> Our ears sensitivity to frequency can loosely be said to be logarithmic.
>>> But the statement "frequency is logarithmic" is meaningless.
>>>
>>> Even a non-engineer should be able to understand that.
>>
>> Naturally I haven't devulged too much about this new theory because I know
>> there are lots out there who want to seize on anything new and claim it as
>> their own.
>
>A meaningless statement is no theory.
If you really want to see what a meaningless statement looks like, how about
this, "the speed of light is c".
Speeds are relative.
>> ...but I will give YOU more details because you are obviously quite
>> trustworthy.
>>
>> As you know Androcles claims that my light speed unification theory is
>> completely wrong. ...and the real reason for my variable star 'distance
>> discrepancies' is that all orbits in the Androclean universe are face on,
>> whereas mine can be tilted at any angle.
>>
>> To make him happy, I discovered another way to explain the fact that, for
>> brightness curve purposes, many star appear to be a lot closer than they are.
>>
>> It is quite simple really.
>>
>> The apparent length of anything diminishes as a function of the distance to the
>> observer.
>
>Quite.
>It's called perspective, and is the reason why we can use parallax
>to measure the distance to a star.
No, that's different again.
>
>> So a star that lies 300LYs away might behave as though it lies 30 LYs away
>> whereas the same star at 600LY would behave as though it were 30 (1+log2) away.
>> At 3000LY it would appears to be 30 (1+log10) away.
>
>I won't even try to figure out what kind of idiotic reasoning
>led you to that conclusion.
>
>> The actual proportion depends on the star orbit period.
>
>Henri, you are babbling.
This is probably too hard for any dedicated relativist..
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2006 16:24:14 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 17 Sep 2006 15:45:40 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >>
> >> Geesey, I don't have to run away from anything. I have enough variable star
> >> data to fully prove that their brightness changes are a straightforward
> >> consequence of c+v.
> >
> >I don't give a shit, I was asking about something else.
> >
> >You say Maxwell's equations allow for photons to have a wave speed c+v.
> >>From my own studies of the partial differential equations which come
> >directly from Maxwell's equations I see that is not possible.
> >
> >It is either true or it isn't. So I'm asking you to show me the work
> >you have done which shows a wave speed of c+v to be a valid in
> >Maxwell's equations. If you have no work to show, you have no
> >justification for saying a wave speed of c+v is possible.
>
> How transparent is that pea sized brain of yours Geesey?
Depends which frequency.
>
> The 'medium' used by Maxwell represents a rest frame.
Since Maxwell's equations do not need a medium, I can't imagine why you
are using this argument because you are wrong either way.
Since - according to you - Maxwell's equations use a medium, the
permittivity and permissivity constants are nonzero, which invalidates
your entire argument.
You say you understand Maxwell's equations.....right?
> According to Maxwell, light moves at c wrt that frame. It can have another
> speed wrt something else.
Ok.
Prove it.
>
> >> >> >> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
> >> >> >> to measure it, dummy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not even wrong, Henri.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's right. I am not wrong.
> >> >
> >> >I should have realised you wouldn't get the reference. Not because you
> >> >are an aussie, but because you are an idiot.
> >>
> >> Poor boy, ....absolutely no hope....
> >
> >Then it is going to be really, really funny when I get my degree.
>
> Anyone can get a degree these days. Not like when I was a boy.... we really had
> to work...and THINK.
Except you do not have a degree.
You have neither proved you have a degree nor shown an understanding of
the material expected of someone who supposedly has the degree you have
claimed to have.
Sorcerer
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:eemrmb$7pr$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Always fun to see you run like hell. :-)
Androcles
Sorcerer
Run away from statement:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl842194965d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=c278m1%24oo9%241%40dolly.uninett.no&rnum=49
Irony:
| And that's what you are doing, isn't it?
| Always fun to see you run like hell. :-)
| Paul
Computers make sign errors, don't they, fuckhead?
Always fun to see you run like hell. :-)
Androcles
Paul B. Andersen
> Babbling:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl842194965d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=c278m1%24oo9%241%40dolly.uninett.no&rnum=49
>
Babbling?
No, you were not babbling very much in this particular posting.
You got it almost right, you only made the very tiny blunder of
believing that time runs backwards when you move in the negative
x-direction. So I only had to help you a little bit to get it right.
But we did get it right in the end, didn't we? :-)
Paul
Sorcerer
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > Babbling:
| >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl842194965d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=c278m1%24oo9%241%40dolly.uninett.no&rnum=49
| >
|
| Babbling?
| No,
Yes.
| you were not babbling very much in this particular posting.
But you were.
| You got it almost right, you only made the very tiny blunder of
| believing that time runs backwards when you move in the negative
| x-direction.
c = 2AB/(t'A-tA)
One half of 2AB is AB, light travels from B to A backwards.
Time runs backwards or we'd have -c = -x/t.
c = -x/-t is correct.
| So I only had to help you a little bit to get it right.
|
| But we did get it right in the end, didn't we? :-)
Yes, of course we did. Einstein said time runs backwards.
The famous Andersen Transforms rely on it, fuckin' troll.
Androcles
PD
> This is just a theory.
>
> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> really logarithmic?
>
>
A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
that "what"?
PD
Paul B. Andersen
> c = 2AB/(t'A-tA)
>
> One half of 2AB is AB, light travels from B to A backwards.
> Time runs backwards or we'd have -c = -x/t.
> c = -x/-t is correct.
The electrical engineer with a degree in mathematics has spoken. :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson
I haven't worked it all out yet.
>
>PD
Sorcerer
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > c = 2AB/(t'A-tA)
No no, Einstein wrote 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
I can take no credit.
| >
| > One half of 2AB is AB, light travels from B to A backwards.
| > Time runs backwards or we'd have -c = -x/t.
| > c = -x/-t is correct.
|
| The electrical engineer with a degree in mathematics has spoken. :-)
The ineducable assistant of Agder College has spoken. :-)
Einstein never gained a British math degree.
His accomplishments:
a.. a) Attended the Luitpold Gymnasium in Munich
b.. b) Entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School to be trained as a
teacher
c.. c) Received his doctoral degree in 1905 (in fuckwittery).
Maybe he got a Norwegian math degree from Agder...I will not be sending my
grandson there.
Do you have a quarrel with time running backwards?
You don't seem to mind it decelerating.
Always hilarious to see you snip like hell when on the run :-)
Have a go at this, fuckhead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
Then run away from:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl842194965d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=c278m1%24oo9%241%40dolly.uninett.no&rnum=49
Androcles
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >Henri Wilson wrote:
| >> This is just a theory.
| >>
| >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we
measure are
| >> really logarithmic?
| >>
| >>
| >
| >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
| >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
| >that "what"?
|
| I haven't worked it all out yet.
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
> >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
> >that "what"?
>
> I haven't worked it all out yet.
Well if you haven't worked it out even that far, then you haven't got a
theory. You've got a buzzword rattling around in your head.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
> >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
> >that "what"?
>
> I haven't worked it all out yet.
Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> This is just a theory.
>> >>
>> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
>> >> really logarithmic?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
>> >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
>> >that "what"?
>>
>> I haven't worked it all out yet.
>
>Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
>
>Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 15:47:31 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 19 Sep 2006 08:43:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> >> This is just a theory.
> >> >>
> >> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> >> really logarithmic?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >A logarithm is a function. Distance is a logarithmic function of what?
> >> >And if that "what" is zero between two events, what is the logarithm of
> >> >that "what"?
> >>
> >> I haven't worked it all out yet.
> >
> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
> >
> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
>
> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
Ok.
How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
It doesn't matter which branch of log you pick, log(0) is a problem.
While you are tackling this amazing problem, why don't you go back to
the other discussion about Maxwell's equations? Or are you going to run
away again?
Paul B. Andersen
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
> news:eepioi$t2t$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > c = 2AB/(t'A-tA)
> | >
> | > Time runs backwards or we'd have -c = -x/t.
> | > c = -x/-t is correct.
> |
> | The electrical engineer with a degree in mathematics has spoken. :-)
>
> The ineducable assistant of Agder College has spoken. :-)
>
Quite the contrary, it is a blessing.
Since I today have wasted far too much time in this forum,
I will now go back home to the morning and start the day
all over again.
Paul
Sorcerer
http://www.hia.no/english/
Hilarious, yes?
Androcles.
Joe Jakarta
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 03:28:19 -0700, "Joe Jakarta" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> This is just a theory.
> >>
> >> Our concept of space is linear. Is it possible that distances we measure are
> >> really logarithmic?
> >>
>
> Glad to see that another of my expertly constructed theories has been taken
> seriously...
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See you've been reading the exe files.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 17 Sep 2006 16:24:14 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It is either true or it isn't. So I'm asking you to show me the work
>> >you have done which shows a wave speed of c+v to be a valid in
>> >Maxwell's equations. If you have no work to show, you have no
>> >justification for saying a wave speed of c+v is possible.
>>
>> How transparent is that pea sized brain of yours Geesey?
>
>Depends which frequency.
>
>>
>> The 'medium' used by Maxwell represents a rest frame.
>
>Since Maxwell's equations do not need a medium, I can't imagine why you
>are using this argument because you are wrong either way.
They do.
>Since - according to you - Maxwell's equations use a medium, the
>permittivity and permissivity constants are nonzero, which invalidates
>your entire argument.
Their values are zero in a perfect vacuum...That means devoid of fields, too.
>You say you understand Maxwell's equations.....right?
They are fucking easy to understand.
>> According to Maxwell, light moves at c wrt that frame. It can have another
>> speed wrt something else.
>
>Ok.
>
>Prove it.
I have. For a start, see:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>> >> >> >> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
>> >> >> >> to measure it, dummy.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Not even wrong, Henri.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's right. I am not wrong.
>> >> >
>> >> >I should have realised you wouldn't get the reference. Not because you
>> >> >are an aussie, but because you are an idiot.
>> >>
>> >> Poor boy, ....absolutely no hope....
>> >
>> >Then it is going to be really, really funny when I get my degree.
>>
>> Anyone can get a degree these days. Not like when I was a boy.... we really had
>> to work...and THINK.
>
>Except you do not have a degree.
>
>You have neither proved you have a degree nor shown an understanding of
>the material expected of someone who supposedly has the degree you have
>claimed to have.
Poor boy.
Absolutely no talent at all.....
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> You can burn all yer books!
> Space is logarithmic.
You seem so sure about that, especially since you haven't worked out
all the details yet.
Or is it more important to get a foothold on fame with a slogan first,
then work out the details later?
PD
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2006 17:00:01 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 17 Sep 2006 16:24:14 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >It is either true or it isn't. So I'm asking you to show me the work
> >> >you have done which shows a wave speed of c+v to be a valid in
> >> >Maxwell's equations. If you have no work to show, you have no
> >> >justification for saying a wave speed of c+v is possible.
> >>
> >> How transparent is that pea sized brain of yours Geesey?
> >
> >Depends which frequency.
> >
> >>
> >> The 'medium' used by Maxwell represents a rest frame.
> >
> >Since Maxwell's equations do not need a medium, I can't imagine why you
> >are using this argument because you are wrong either way.
>
> They do.
Then explain to me why Maxwell's equations have nontrivial solutions
when current density and charge density are zero. Or are you saying the
"medium" that Maxwell's equations suddenly need have a current and
charge density?
Why are you using the "Maxwell's equations need a medium" copout
anyway? You have specifically stated MULTIPLE times that you not only
think Maxwell's equations are correct. Do you now believe Maxwell's
equations are incorrect? Did your arrogance finally force you to create
Wilson's equations? Or have you refrained from doing that because you
have no idea what you would write down?
>
> >Since - according to you - Maxwell's equations use a medium, the
> >permittivity and permissivity constants are nonzero, which invalidates
> >your entire argument.
>
> Their values are zero in a perfect vacuum...That means devoid of fields, too.
WRONG.
Take an introductory physics course, Henri. Specifically, study the
section about the electrostatic force. There does not need to be
anything between two point charges for a field to exist and exert
force.
Why do you keep using such sad copouts? Since you believe yourself to
be such an awesome physicist, why is it you are suddenly incapable of
dealing with the concept of "vacuum"? You were *so* sure of yourself
when you were talking about photons slowing down and speeding up in
space.
Is it because I am forcing you to take the debate to a level you have
not thought out at all? Are you incapable of supporting your assertions
on a mathematically rigorious level?
>
> >You say you understand Maxwell's equations.....right?
>
> They are fucking easy to understand.
Then why do you have such difficulty understanding basic concepts or
trivial conclusions?
>
> >> According to Maxwell, light moves at c wrt that frame. It can have another
> >> speed wrt something else.
> >
> >Ok.
> >
> >Prove it.
>
> I have. For a start, see:
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
That is *not* a proof.
I am asking for a MATHEMATICAL proof that a wave can have a velocity of
c+v. Since you supposedly have a degree in applied mathematics and
completely understand Maxwell's equations, this is an easy task.
I have asked this simple task of you at least a half dozen times over
the last year. Each and every time you either insult me and run away,
or change the subject and run away. Why might that be, Henri?
>
> >> >> >> >> If you try to measure these values, all you get are those of the apparatus used
> >> >> >> >> to measure it, dummy.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Not even wrong, Henri.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's right. I am not wrong.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I should have realised you wouldn't get the reference. Not because you
> >> >> >are an aussie, but because you are an idiot.
> >> >>
> >> >> Poor boy, ....absolutely no hope....
> >> >
> >> >Then it is going to be really, really funny when I get my degree.
> >>
> >> Anyone can get a degree these days. Not like when I was a boy.... we really had
> >> to work...and THINK.
> >
> >Except you do not have a degree.
> >
> >You have neither proved you have a degree nor shown an understanding of
> >the material expected of someone who supposedly has the degree you have
> >claimed to have.
>
> Poor boy.
> Absolutely no talent at all.....
Go ahead, dismiss what I am saying by insulting me. It just makes it
easier to believe you have no degree in anything, much less one in
applied mathematics.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2006 15:47:31 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
>> >
>> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
>>
>> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
>> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
>
>Ok.
>
>How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
According to hte log space theory, there is no such thing as zero distance.
>It doesn't matter which branch of log you pick, log(0) is a problem.
It isn't
Distances can approach 1/infinity. Remember 'distance' or 'absolute length' is
the space between two objects. How can it be zero?
>While you are tackling this amazing problem, why don't you go back to
>the other discussion about Maxwell's equations? Or are you going to run
>away again?
Geesey, why can't you tackle the simple qestions yourself instead of asking me
to educate you all the time?
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 18 Sep 2006 17:00:01 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> The 'medium' used by Maxwell represents a rest frame.
>> >
>> >Since Maxwell's equations do not need a medium, I can't imagine why you
>> >are using this argument because you are wrong either way.
>>
>> They do.
>
>Then explain to me why Maxwell's equations have nontrivial solutions
>when current density and charge density are zero.
Oh dear! That's a big sentence for a little boy...
>Or are you saying the
>"medium" that Maxwell's equations suddenly need have a current and
>charge density?
Maxwell's equations have ALWAYS required a medium. Maxwell assumed an aether
exists. Didn't you know that geesey?
>Why are you using the "Maxwell's equations need a medium" copout
>anyway? You have specifically stated MULTIPLE times that you not only
>think Maxwell's equations are correct. Do you now believe Maxwell's
>equations are incorrect?
Geesey, ahev never said Maxwell's equations are incorrect. Of course they are
correct...for EM waves in a dielectric medium.
force you to create Wilson's equations? Or have you refrained from doing that
because you have no idea what you would write down?
Geesey, If I measure the two constants and apply Maxwell, I will get the answer
c. That will be the speed of light produced by me, relative to myself and the
apparatus I used for the measurements.
>> >Since - according to you - Maxwell's equations use a medium, the
>> >permittivity and permissivity constants are nonzero, which invalidates
>> >your entire argument.
>>
>> Their values are zero in a perfect vacuum...That means devoid of fields, too.
>
>WRONG.
Prove it Geesey...
>Take an introductory physics course, Henri. Specifically, study the
>section about the electrostatic force. There does not need to be
>anything between two point charges for a field to exist and exert
>force.
You are really funny Geesey. Firstly you say there doesn't have to be
'anything' then you say 'a field' exists between them.
Geesey, a 'field' is SOMETHING..
>Why do you keep using such sad copouts? Since you believe yourself to
>be such an awesome physicist, why is it you are suddenly incapable of
>dealing with the concept of "vacuum"? You were *so* sure of yourself
>when you were talking about photons slowing down and speeding up in
>space.
Why shouldn't they? Space is not completely homogeneous. How could it be?
>Is it because I am forcing you to take the debate to a level you have
>not thought out at all? Are you incapable of supporting your assertions
>on a mathematically rigorious level?
Geesey, one day you will realise how naive you are.
I would give you a plus for enthusiam though. You never give up.
>> >You say you understand Maxwell's equations.....right?
>>
>> They are fucking easy to understand.
>
>Then why do you have such difficulty understanding basic concepts or
>trivial conclusions?
Geesey, speeds are not absolute, they are relative.
>> >> According to Maxwell, light moves at c wrt that frame. It can have another
>> >> speed wrt something else.
>> >
>> >Ok.
>> >
>> >Prove it.
>>
>> I have. For a start, see:
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>
>That is *not* a proof.
>
>I am asking for a MATHEMATICAL proof that a wave can have a velocity of
>c+v.
There you do again....showing your complete ignorance of physics.
Relative to what is this velocity you are talking about geesey?
>Since you supposedly have a degree in applied mathematics and
>completely understand Maxwell's equations, this is an easy task.
I have Geesey, It's up on my wall in front of me. I am looking at it now. Are
you envious?
>I have asked this simple task of you at least a half dozen times over
>the last year. Each and every time you either insult me and run away,
>or change the subject and run away. Why might that be, Henri?
I really don't know why I waste time answering this garbage Geesey.
>> >> >> Poor boy, ....absolutely no hope....
>> >> >
>> >> >Then it is going to be really, really funny when I get my degree.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone can get a degree these days. Not like when I was a boy.... we really had
>> >> to work...and THINK.
>> >
>> >Except you do not have a degree.
>> >
>> >You have neither proved you have a degree nor shown an understanding of
>> >the material expected of someone who supposedly has the degree you have
>> >claimed to have.
>>
>> Poor boy.
>> Absolutely no talent at all.....
>
>Go ahead, dismiss what I am saying by insulting me. It just makes it
>easier to believe you have no degree in anything, much less one in
>applied mathematics.
What are those two certificates in frames then?
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 22:00:16 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 19 Sep 2006 15:47:31 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> >Might want to talk to one of those mathematicians you were mentioning.
> >> >
> >> >Oh wait, didn't you say you had a degree in applied mathematics?
> >>
> >> One doesn't need a degree to understand what a log is Geesey.
> >> If you have any brains at all you would have known that.
> >
> >Ok.
> >
> >How do you represent zero distance with the logarithm?
>
> According to hte log space theory, there is no such thing as zero distance.
Yea that degree certaintly is paying for itself, isn't it?
You have no idea what a vacuum is because you can't describe it without
referring to words like "absurd", and you have no concept of the term
"zero".
>
> >It doesn't matter which branch of log you pick, log(0) is a problem.
>
> It isn't
> Distances can approach 1/infinity. Remember 'distance' or 'absolute length' is
> the space between two objects. How can it be zero?
How far away is something from itself?
>
> >While you are tackling this amazing problem, why don't you go back to
> >the other discussion about Maxwell's equations? Or are you going to run
> >away again?
>
> Geesey, why can't you tackle the simple qestions yourself instead of asking me
> to educate you all the time?
So in other words, you are shifting the workload from yourself onto me
because I'm the one asking. Science doesn't work that way, Henri. Then
again, you never quite did grasp the fundamentals of science, so your
ignorance of yet another simple topic isn't surprising.
Here is a clue: It is your theory - you support it, or you shut the
fuck up and be quiet. If you are going to use this newsgroup to parade
shit theory after shit theory, you had better get used to the
consequences.
Most everyone here ignores you, the rest fight you. You and Androcles
can't agree on anything without insulting eachother, "fighting a common
enemy" notwithstanding. Nobody else even shows you a modicum of
respect.
I don't even see why you bother posting when it is obvious that you are
never going to contribute anything of worth even to USENET.
When are you going to publish your theories, Henri? Or are you STILL
"working out the details" as you have been for the last ten fucking
years?
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2006 18:27:47 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 18 Sep 2006 17:00:01 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'medium' used by Maxwell represents a rest frame.
> >> >
> >> >Since Maxwell's equations do not need a medium, I can't imagine why you
> >> >are using this argument because you are wrong either way.
> >>
> >> They do.
> >
> >Then explain to me why Maxwell's equations have nontrivial solutions
> >when current density and charge density are zero.
>
> Oh dear! That's a big sentence for a little boy...
So in other words, you can't answer my question.
>
> >Or are you saying the
> >"medium" that Maxwell's equations suddenly need have a current and
> >charge density?
>
> Maxwell's equations have ALWAYS required a medium. Maxwell assumed an aether
> exists. Didn't you know that geesey?
So in other words, you don't know the answer.
>
> >Why are you using the "Maxwell's equations need a medium" copout
> >anyway? You have specifically stated MULTIPLE times that you not only
> >think Maxwell's equations are correct. Do you now believe Maxwell's
> >equations are incorrect?
>
> Geesey, ahev never said Maxwell's equations are incorrect. Of course they are
> correct...for EM waves in a dielectric medium.
So in other words, you DON'T accept Maxwell's equations. You can't pick
and choose when they apply. They either apply everywhere or they don't.
Maxwell's equations have plenty of nontrivial solutions that apply in
VACUUM, no matter how hard you cry about the mythical Maxwellian
medium.
>
> force you to create Wilson's equations? Or have you refrained from doing that
> because you have no idea what you would write down?
>
> Geesey, If I measure the two constants and apply Maxwell, I will get the answer
> c. That will be the speed of light produced by me, relative to myself and the
> apparatus I used for the measurements.
You have no idea how to "apply Maxwell".
>
> >> >Since - according to you - Maxwell's equations use a medium, the
> >> >permittivity and permissivity constants are nonzero, which invalidates
> >> >your entire argument.
> >>
> >> Their values are zero in a perfect vacuum...That means devoid of fields, too.
> >
> >WRONG.
>
> Prove it Geesey...
F = q_1q_2 * r^ * 1/r^2.
There is no constraint on what is between the two charges.
Take div.E = rho/epsilon_0. There is still no constraint.
You have no functional understanding of Maxwell's equations or what
they imply.
>
> >Take an introductory physics course, Henri. Specifically, study the
> >section about the electrostatic force. There does not need to be
> >anything between two point charges for a field to exist and exert
> >force.
>
> You are really funny Geesey. Firstly you say there doesn't have to be
> 'anything' then you say 'a field' exists between them.
> Geesey, a 'field' is SOMETHING..
Vacuum is devoid of matter, not fields.
Stop re-inventing terminology to suit the moment.
>
> >Why do you keep using such sad copouts? Since you believe yourself to
> >be such an awesome physicist, why is it you are suddenly incapable of
> >dealing with the concept of "vacuum"? You were *so* sure of yourself
> >when you were talking about photons slowing down and speeding up in
> >space.
>
> Why shouldn't they? Space is not completely homogeneous. How could it be?
...because it is? Space is the same no matter which direction you look
in. Matter is also distributed almost completely isotropically.
Oh, you wouldn't know this because your knowledge of cosmology is stuck
in the 1850s.
>
> >Is it because I am forcing you to take the debate to a level you have
> >not thought out at all? Are you incapable of supporting your assertions
> >on a mathematically rigorious level?
>
> Geesey, one day you will realise how naive you are.
>
> I would give you a plus for enthusiam though. You never give up.
So is that a "yes" to my questions?
>
> >> >You say you understand Maxwell's equations.....right?
> >>
> >> They are fucking easy to understand.
> >
> >Then why do you have such difficulty understanding basic concepts or
> >trivial conclusions?
>
> Geesey, speeds are not absolute, they are relative.
Yet...c is absolute in Maxwell's equations. This is trivial to show via
the wave equations in E and B. Go ahead Henri, show me how Maxwell's
equations permit a wave speed that goes as c+v. Oh wait, you can't! You
don't understand anything about Maxwell's equations.
>
> >> >> According to Maxwell, light moves at c wrt that frame. It can have another
> >> >> speed wrt something else.
> >> >
> >> >Ok.
> >> >
> >> >Prove it.
> >>
> >> I have. For a start, see:
> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
> >
> >That is *not* a proof.
> >
> >I am asking for a MATHEMATICAL proof that a wave can have a velocity of
> >c+v.
>
> There you do again....showing your complete ignorance of physics.
>
> Relative to what is this velocity you are talking about geesey?
GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS DO NOT PRESERVE MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS YOU
FUCKWIT. You have absolutely NO concept of the development of
electromagnetic theory after Maxwell.
Open and read any E&M book published after 1930. Griffith's
introduction to electrodynamics is a crowd favorite.
>
> >Since you supposedly have a degree in applied mathematics and
> >completely understand Maxwell's equations, this is an easy task.
>
> I have Geesey, It's up on my wall in front of me. I am looking at it now. Are
> you envious?
Of you? Why would I be?
You show no sign of having any mathematical education beyond skimming
some textbooks. You cannot apply what you have learned, thus what your
degree is WORTHLESS.
>
> >I have asked this simple task of you at least a half dozen times over
> >the last year. Each and every time you either insult me and run away,
> >or change the subject and run away. Why might that be, Henri?
>
> I really don't know why I waste time answering this garbage Geesey.
...because you are a moron with no self control
>
>
> >> >> >> Poor boy, ....absolutely no hope....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then it is going to be really, really funny when I get my degree.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyone can get a degree these days. Not like when I was a boy.... we really had
> >> >> to work...and THINK.
> >> >
> >> >Except you do not have a degree.
> >> >
> >> >You have neither proved you have a degree nor shown an understanding of
> >> >the material expected of someone who supposedly has the degree you have
> >> >claimed to have.
> >>
> >> Poor boy.
> >> Absolutely no talent at all.....
> >
> >Go ahead, dismiss what I am saying by insulting me. It just makes it
> >easier to believe you have no degree in anything, much less one in
> >applied mathematics.
>
> What are those two certificates in frames then?
I have to see them to answer that question.
I want to know where you obtained your degree from so I can figure out
whether you are the expected output of that university or not.