Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?
BURT
Why is mass related by the square of light speed?
God chose this fundamental.
rabid_fan
> E = MC Squared
>
> Why is mass related by the square of light speed?
The relation is derived mathematically.
The kinetic energy of a particle, in a completely general
sense, is expressed by the integral with respect to time
of the following quantity:
F * v
where F is the force vector, v is the velocity vector,
and "*" represents the scalar product. (IOW it is a path
integral.)
The integral wrt time of F*v is the total energy required
to accelerate the particle from rest (at t0) to some final
velocity (at t1).
Using the standard methods of vector calculus (which I will
not reproduce), and with the substitution of relativistic mass,
the quantity can be re-expressed as:
F*v = c^2 * dm/dt
Integrating this quantity wrt time gives:
c^2 (m1 - m0), with m0 being the mass at t0 (i.e. rest mass)
So, a change in energy (delta E) is proportional to
a change in mass (delta m).
Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of
energy.
spudnik
as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought
it was just the first power of speed (Galileo i.e.,
I think).
> Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy.
thus:
well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron,
early in your proof, that only applies
to a small class of them.
thus:
now that you've read some of it; so?
> Nice site, lyndon larouche & 21stcenturysciencetech.googolplexth.com.
thus:
he seems to be unaware of the neccesity in a"proof,"
of "neccesity AND sufficiency," as first stated
by Leibniz (although having one or the other is,
still, very good -- if actually so .-)
> state of the aether, as determined by our inability to detect it.
thus:
so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and
**** happened? > read more »
thus:
with only the "trivial" solutions on the curves o'Fermatttt,
it sounds like a "necessary but insufficient" proof;
PdF certainly could have done it.
> I have been interested in the odd and even aspect of FLT , and
> when Cn = 1. May I have your reference? DRMARJOHN
thus:
so, your coinage of pi(a,b) is the same as pi(b) - pi(a); now,
can you say thr proof as a wordprolemmum?
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.takeTHEgoogolOUT.com
BURT
How can light have kinetic energy if it is a constant?
C would mean all the same energy for every light wave.
And this clearly is not the truth.
Mitch Raemsch
rabid_fan
> the original "KE" equation is known
> as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought it was just the first
> power of speed (Galileo i.e., I think).
>
Energy (mechanical) = Force * displacement
For one dimension:
E = F * dx = F * v * dt, where v is velocity in that dimension.
From this the classical kinetic energy can be derived.
>
>> Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy.
>
> thus:
> well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, early in
> your proof, that only applies to a small class of them.
>
Usually, when discussing elementary relativity, the motion of
material bodies is assumed. Thus, mechanical, or kinetic, energy
seems most appropriate.
BURT
Energy of motion is by gamma for speed and is mass.
Mitch Raemsch
rabid_fan
>
> How can light have kinetic energy if it is a constant? C would mean all
> the same energy for every light wave. And this clearly is not the truth.
>
Light (photons) has no mass, but it does have momentum:
Momentum = p = Plank constant/wavelength = h/wl
The energy of light, from quantum mechanics, is:
Energy = h * frequency = h/wl * c
Compare with the relativistic energy defined in terms of
the momentum (p), with rest mass (m0) being zero for light:
Energy = square root(m0^2 * c^4 - p^2 * c^2)
hanson
>
Mitch Raemsch BURT wrote:
>> E = MC Squared
>> Why is mass related by the square of light speed?
>
> The relation is derived mathematically.
> The kinetic energy of a particle, in a completely general
> sense, is expressed by the integral with respect to time
> of the following quantity:
> F * v
> where F is the force vector, v is the velocity vector,
> and "*" represents the scalar product. (IOW it is a path
> integral.)
> The integral wrt time of F*v is the total energy required
> to accelerate the particle from rest (at t0) to some final
> velocity (at t1).
> Using the standard methods of vector calculus (which I will
> not reproduce), and with the substitution of relativistic mass,
> the quantity can be re-expressed as:
> F*v = c^2 * dm/dt
> Integrating this quantity wrt time gives:
> c^2 (m1 - m0), with m0 being the mass at t0 (i.e. rest mass)
> So, a change in energy (delta E) is proportional to
> a change in mass (delta m).
> Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of
> energy.
>
... ahahahaha.... Why all that highfaluting buzz-wording and
drawn-out text book shit? Raemsch, the great physics muser,
with his compulsive motor-mouthing on all walks of physics,
and him being a profound Bible beater, who tries to rewrite
physics in biblical terms, can't even understand it when it's
explained to him in simple ways, like
>
in E= mc^2, if c is constant by def, then dc = 0, so
dE = c^2dm or dE/dm = c^2 which "is a change in energy
(delta E) that is proportional to a change in mass (delta m)"
... or even simpler
>
if E= mc^2, and if c is constant by def, then
"energy (E) is proportional to mass ( m)".
>
But Raemsch did not ask what you so laboriously amd
rabidly cut and pasted out of a convoluted text book.
He wonders about, like so many other folks like him do:
----- "why is it "c^2" and not some other value ------
>
Many like Raemsch cannot accept the fact, that "c" has
been measured & it was agreed upon that the numerical
value of "c" should be DEFINED as a "FIXED" constant.
Religious folks like him need to find a notion which they
can use to point at a bible passage & say: z'God did it.
>
Equally urgent is the c= constant need for Einstein and
his Dingleberries who must pack their baggage & flee
as they watch their physics Sodom & Gomorrah-SR/GR
structure collapse like a house of cards with a variable "c"...
>
So, thanks for the laughs, guys... hahahaha.. ahahnson
.
calvin
a certain number of grams times *exactly* the square
of a certain number of centimeters per second?
rabid_fan
> ... ahahahaha.... Why all that highfaluting buzz-wording and drawn-out
> text book shit? Raemsch, the great physics muser, with his compulsive
> motor-mouthing on all walks of physics, and him being a profound Bible
> beater, who tries to rewrite physics in biblical terms, can't even
> understand it when it's explained to him in simple ways, like
Actually, uninformed people sometimes ask questions
that can be very challenging to answer.
They should not always automatically be dismissed as
being nonsense.
The origin of "E = mc^2" is a very rich topic that could
involve a great deal of explication.
>
> So, thanks for the laughs, guys... hahahaha.. ahahnson
>
Simple minds enjoy simple pleasures.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
God does not need to prove that He exists hanson.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
-------------
equivalently as mass in Energy in macrocosm
is related by c^2 ---
E =1.2 m V^2 !!
(Enrgy in macrocosm is started to be measured AND CALCULATED by
summation in small steps
from rest to maximum
Integral from Zero to s -- (dp ds )
while in microcosm it does not start
from zero ---
IT IS ALWAYS THERE !!! in maximum speed
BTW
is it another copyright explanation of mine??
i wonder (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
Androcles
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:904c03ee-55c6-490a...@g21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Why is a certain number of ergs equal to *exactly*
> a certain number of grams times *exactly* the square
> of a certain number of centimeters per second?
For the same reason there are exactly 12 inches to a foot and 3
barleycorns to an inch, it is defined that way. One cannot say
there are 5 toes to a foot; I can cut one off and it is still a foot,
but if I cut an inch off a foot then it is no longer a foot, it
is 11 inches.
Why does bcd come after a, and pqr always precede s?
Because we were taught that convention and we'll go on
teaching our children that and similar conventions not because
they have to be but because it is convenient to have everyone
on the same wavelength. The qwerty keyboard is here to stay;
questioning why won't change it, the child that wants it
otherwise will be disadvantaged and you will be if you questions
conventional definitions.
Note that definitions are neither proof nor axioms, they are merely
conventions to be stipulated to.
hanson
ahahahahaha.... Cal it is a bad move for you to come
here and ask me for remedial education because you
paid attention to the units of boobs of the girls instead
of you listening to to the teacher.
So, be thankful for the help you got from Androcles'
post.
Now, if the subject REALLY interests you then Google
for and read about
------- the history of units, weight and measures. -----
It is utterly fascinating.
You'll see that most of the units got started to stop the
rampant fucking that ancient folks gave each other over
bartering. Then for inbstance, the width of the rail roads
and early roads has to do with the width of a couple
of horses' asses in Roman times. -- The foot came from
the English having foot fetishes, and the inch came from
the remaining stub that was left after Sir Lancelot inserted
his dick into Gwenevier's snasp-blade chastity belt. Then
mercifully the French came along who thought that their
revolution made them smart and so they introduced the
decimal system, with its CGS units during which workgroup
sessions they labeled composite units with names like erg,
(from ergot, the LSD fungus on Rye), dyne (from dynamite)
and they paid homage to all kinds of physics masters, like
Newton, Joule, Dalton, etc. That habit carried on into the
20th century when the Zios insisted that there must be a unit
for Einstein too. "oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go figure!"
>
Cal. you will see socio-physic in all its Glory & action!
Have fun, Cal, and rail at your Tea Parties. Good luck
... ahahaha... ahahaha.... ahahahahanson
bert
Einstein used the big number of light speed squared to show matter has
great energy. I do not think it need be 100% acurate. Still it
works,and stuff that works best not fix TreBert
Sam Wormley
> Einstein used the big number of light speed squared to show matter has
> great energy. I do not think it need be 100% acurate. Still it
> works,and stuff that works best not fix TreBert
See: http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~rudolf/E=mc%5E2.jpg
Mathal
Is that kilometers per second,miles per second, miles per hour.....
squared.
Each is a different number.
Try substituting C = 1, with all other velocities being a fraction <
1.
E=MC^2 is an icon, that is all.
Mathal
calvin
> On May 1, 4:17 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > E = MC Squared
> > Why is mass related by the square of light speed?
> > God chose this fundamental.
>
> Is that kilometers per second,miles per second, miles per hour.....
> squared.
Energy in ergs equals mass in grams times the square of the
speed of light in centimeters per second.
Tom Roberts
> E = MC Squared
> Why is mass related by the square of light speed?
[Your "C" is normally notated in lower case, which I'll use.]
You got it wrong. In that equation c is not really the speed of light -- calling
it that is merely an accidental historical curiosity (see below).
In that equation, c is actually the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform,
and it is really just a units conversion factor, relating the unit of time to
the unit of distance. Historically we use seconds and meters, which happen to
make c be a very large number with units meters/second; most theoretical
physicists use units in which c=1 (and is unitless); that is, we use the same
unit for both time and distance (most commonly cm; for time, 29.9792458 cm = 1
nanosecond).
So in the above equation, c is merely converting the units between mass and
energy. If you look in the Particle Data Group publications, you'll see they
list the masses of particles in MeV, which is at base a unit of energy; clearly
they are using c=1 (this is standard in particle physics for units of mass,
momentum, and energy).
The reason c is also called the speed of light, and the reason that historical
curiosity occurred in the first place, is that light "just happens" to travel
with the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform. That is one of the more
remarkable facts about the world we inhabit, and its effect on theoretical
physics is profound.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7eKdnWuvxZp...@giganews.com...
> BURT wrote:
>> E = MC Squared
>> Why is mass related by the square of light speed?
>
> [Your "C" is normally notated in lower case, which I'll use.]
>
> You got it wrong. In that equation c is not really the speed of light --
> calling it that is merely an accidental historical curiosity (see below).
>
> In that equation, c is actually the invariant speed of the Lorentz
> transform,
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
We've heard of fast Fourier transforms, now we have even faster Lorentz
transforms.
Did anyone see that Lorentz transform going past Roberts's neuron like
a bat out of hell?
calvin
> ... Historically we use seconds and meters, which happen to
> make c be a very large number with units meters/second; ...
It's centimeters per second.
Ralph Garbage
It could be measured in inches per year or meters per meter
If you go 60 meters per second, that's the same as 6000 centimeters
per second. They are the same.
calvin
I know that, but the equation is:
Energy in ergs equals mass in grams times the square of
the speed of light in centimeters per second.
Units matter, and if you're going to express c as meters, then
you need to adjust the other units accordingly.
calvin
> Units matter, and if you're going to express c as meters[/sec],
> then you need to adjust the other units accordingly.
Make indicated insertion to correct typo.
cjcountess
just in time for the "100th aniversery, of this most famouse equaton
in the world, (E=mc^2), by the most famouse scientist, "Albert
Einstien".
The answer is the most simplest, yet most profound and is that,
(E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), and/or sphered, and (c=sqrt-1), because
c^2, is c in liniear direction, x c in 90 degree angular direction,
creating a 90 degree angular, counterclockwise rotation, which if
constant creates a circle, of energy of momentum "h/2pi", or standing
spherical wave, of momentum "h/2pi/2", "spin 1/2" and "-1 charge", as
well as gravitational rest mass = "G" because (c^2 = v^2 = G) as the
ultamite (L/T^2).
You all can go from website to website, trying to get a different
answer, but no one can get around it, because it is the simplest, yet
most profound truth.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
professors and scientist, is, "if the speed of light is constant, and
the highest possible speed, than how can it be squared to create
matter"?
No one could give me a satisfacory answer, but through the power of
analogy and reason, I found one.
Analogous to, "a line of 1 inch in the linear direction, x a line of 1
inch in the 90 degree angular direction, to create 1 square inch", I
reasoned that ",c" in the linear direction, x "c" in the 90 degree
angular direction, must = "c^2", and creates matter. This analogy,
coupled with the fact that, photon "energy/mass", is measured (E=hf/
c^2) that the higher the energy, mass, and momentum, the shorter the
wavelength, and more "particle like", the wave becomes, I reasoned
that, at some point on the EM spetrum, "E must = hf = c^2" or, as
debroglie stated, (E=hf=mc^2) and that (mc^2), (Ec^2), or just (c^2),
is a frequency/wavelength, where energy equals, and turns to matter.
As it turns out E=mc^2 could represent F=mv^2 and point on EM spectrum
where energy equals and turns to matter because it take on a spherical
and or circlear motion due to c^2 being c in liniear direction x c in
90 degree angular direction creating c in circular and or spherical
rotation due to a balence of centripital and centrifugal forces
measured as F=mv^2/r or E=mc^2/r
Conrad J Countess
BURT
Why does the fundamental energy come from the speed limit of the
universe squared?
It is the best question.
Mitch Raemsch
hanson
cranked himself and he weaseled as he wrote:
... ahahahaha.... Why all that highfaluting buzz-wording and
drawn-out text book shit? Raemsch, the great physics muser,
with his compulsive motor-mouthing on all walks of physics,
and him being a profound Bible beater, who tries to rewrite
physics in biblical terms, can't even understand it when it's
explained to him in simple ways, like
>
dE = c^2dm or dE/dm = c^2 which "is a change in energy
(delta E) that is proportional to a change in mass (delta m)"
... or even simpler
>
if E= mc^2, and if c is constant by def, then
"energy (E) is proportional to mass ( m)".
>
But Raemsch did not ask what you so laboriously amd
rabidly cut and pasted out of a convoluted text book.
He wonders about, like so many other folks like him do:
----- "why is it "c^2" and not some other value ------
>
Many like Raemsch cannot accept the fact, that "c" has
been measured & it was agreed upon that the numerical
value of "c" should be DEFINED as a "FIXED" constant.
Religious folks like him need to find a notion which they
can use to point at a bible passage & say: z'God did it.
>
Equally urgent is the c= constant need for Einstein and
his Dingleberries who must pack their baggage & flee
as they watch their physics Sodom & Gomorrah-SR/GR
structure collapse like a house of cards with a variable "c"...
>
>
Actually, uninformed people [like Raemsch] sometimes
>
... ahahahaha.. True, that can be seen in glaring quality
in your answer to Raemsch... ahahahaha...
>
Rabid Fanatic wrote:
They should not always automatically be dismissed as
being nonsense.
>
... ahahaha.. Well, there seem to be religious undertones
of regrets in your phrase... Raemsch will understand that
an give you 3 "Hosties" & full absolution. Say 25 Hail-Marys
now, like only a rabid fanatics could do.... ahaha.. ahahaha..
>
Rabid Fanatic wrote:
The origin of "E = mc^2" is a very rich topic that could
involve a great deal of explication.
>
hanson wrote:
yeah, yeah... especially the explanation of how Einstein
plagiarized that "E = mc^2" from the originators without
giving them any credit. A good start would be to find out
why Albert's original 1905 paper was accepted by the Zio-
or goyim ziophile editors, when "Einstein had made no
reference to any works that have led to its development".
That "E = mc^2" topic was discussed here in sp at very
great length and it concluded with KWs's epic phrase:
== "Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar" ==
Look it up, you Johnny-come-lately.... ahahahaha...
>
Rabid Fanatic wrote:
Simple minds enjoy simple pleasures.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... if that is a proud characterization of yourself
then you are a good man. But if that is a stab at Raemsch
then you are one of those putrid and mentally debauched
Dingleberries that dangle from Einstein's sphincter, and
needlessly complicate everything. Not only in the more or
less abstract world of modeling nature.. but even when they
are working at Wall street & conjure up "derivatives".... So,
tell here what "complicated pleasures" these math-bastards
have given to millions of hardworking people around the world.
>
Till then thanks for the laughs, .. ahahaha... ahahahahanson
cjcountess
the natural form of traveling in a relativly straight, or wavey line,
at constant speed.
The speed limit of "c", acts as a wall of resistence, which prevents
this raw energy from going any faster in this liniear direction.
Increases in energy is deflected off of this wall of resistence,
displacing itself, in the angular direction, which creates waves. The
more energy - the shorter thw waves.
Energy in its ground stated, at lowest level, moves in relatively
straight line, at constant speed of "c", and as such, is in a sense,
standing still, or not accellerating.
And so "h" Planck's constant, which is the "energy of the constant
speed of light, in a straight line", is also euvalent to "the constant
mass of the photon", and as such, is like its rest mass, if moving at
constant speed, in straight line, is equivalent to being still.
Thus (c=h) = "The rest frame of the Universe", and might be called
"the Aether, Higgs field, Background Dark Energy, zero point energy
field or Cosmological Constant, or what ever one choses to call it. To
me they are all the same, generaly, and I will not argue over the
details seperating each, unless they are of quantum leap importance.
Still the constant speed of light "c" with its constant mass/energy of
"h", is the very foundation and central sun, around which all waves
and particles ocsilate, analogouse to orbiting.
Thus the equation E=hf/c^2 is analogouse to F=Mm/r^2 with, (E = F), (h
= M) and (c^2 = r^2) for these equations.
Isn't it interesting, that from this perspective, "c", which appears
as the fastest speed in the Universe, is actualy the slowest, and
"Rest Mass", which appears as the slowest, is actualy the fastest, as
indeed "c^2", is faster than "c", and "Rest Mass" is revealed to be
"relative mass", in circular and or sperical rotation.
We are all moving faster than, "The Speed oflight"
Enjoy the Ride
Conrad J Countess
BURT
Time from gravity pushes light. It slows in the atom.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> We are all moving faster than, "The Speed oflight"
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
cjcountess
all, "waves" and "rest mass" particles oscilated, analogous to
"orbiting".
And "c", which appears to be the fastest speed in the Universe, is
actualy the slowest, and "rest mass", which appears as the slowest, is
actualy the fastest, are revolutionary concepts, and literaly turns
the concepts of physics on their head. This can be both exciting and
disturbing. But don't we need to stir things up a bit? The old ideas
of physics as they stood, were running out of time, and I merely
turned the hour glass right side up, giving it more time, "The Big
Bang" turns to "The Big Bounce", "E=mc^2, turns to m=Ec^2", "Lorentz
Contraction," of EM waves, turns to "Space=Time Curvature" of EM
waves, as Energy turns to Matter, Waves to Particles, Special
Relativity to General Relativity, and Quantum theory.
The evidence was right under our noses all the time. All I did was to
connect the points of scientific evidence, through a line of logic, or
put together already known points of already established evidence, in
some cases, to reveal a previously unseen, an emergent picture, of
beautiful problem solved.
IT is a Masterpeice
Conrad J Countess
Sam Wormley
> The evidence was right under our noses all the time. All I did was to
> connect the points of scientific evidence, through a line of logic, or
> put together already known points of already established evidence, in
> some cases, to reveal a previously unseen, an emergent picture, of
> beautiful problem solved.
>
>
Uncle Al is right!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
hanson
>
Mitch Raemsch aka BURT wrote:
E = MC Squared. Why is mass related by the square of light speed?
>
"Tom Roberts" wrote:
[Your "C" is normally notated in lower case, which I'll use.]
You got it wrong. In that equation c is not really the speed of light --
calling it that is merely an accidental historical curiosity (see below).
relating the unit of time to the unit of distance. Historically we use
with units [of] meters/second. [BUT] most theoretical physicists
use units in which c=1 (and is unitless); that is, we use the same
unit for both time and distance (most commonly
cm; for time, 29.9792458 cm = 1 nanosecond).
>
ahahahaha... you might have added as well that G/c^2 is "just
a units conversion factor relating the unit of distance with the
unit of mass" .. and confuse Raemsch even more & convince
yourself ever deeper...... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
>
Roberts , notwithstanding poster JP Androcles' criticism about your
"fast Lorentz transform" you as the NG/cyber teacher here do owe
folks a better explanation, then what you just gave in that paragraph
above, because you just said above that **length is time** and that
a the** light speed is dimensionless**... ahahahaha....yeah right, but
most folk here are not theoretical physicists and you do not need
to convince yourself. So, have another crack at it and specifically
address, why is it the "square" of "c" & not "^1.99 or ^2.001", &
why has "c" that particular numerical value & not some other one.
>
Do it on a level that Raemsch cannot smack you down with his
standard, "God did/wanted/willed it that way" but that Raemsch
will light up & say: "Roberts, you made mine eyes to see the
real glory. Thank you, Roberts".
Till then thanks for the laughs, Tom. ahahahaha... ahahahanson
"Tom Roberts" wrote:
> So in the above equation, c is merely converting the units between mass
> and energy. If you look in the Particle Data Group publications, you'll
> see they list the masses of particles in MeV, which is at base a unit of
> energy; clearly they are using c=1 (this is standard in particle physics
> for units of mass, momentum, and energy).
>
> The reason c is also called the speed of light, and the reason that
> historical curiosity occurred in the first place, is that light "just
> happens" to travel with the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform. That
> is one of the more remarkable facts about the world we inhabit, and its
> effect on theoretical physics is profound.
> Tom Roberts
>
hanson wrote:
Tom, it is not easy, maybe not possible at all, to teach remedial
physics to folks when they are past their formative years & after
their Rabbis, Priests, Reverends & Imams have brainwashed them,
already earlier, with their respective religo-theological agenda.
>
I have long given up to teach anything, to anybody here, but I
do marvel at & even envy the folks who were/are successful
in their lives without having needed any knowledge of modern
physics & got by with very little arithmetic, let alone algebra
& math...
1) So much for the success of the teachings by the clerics.. and
2) So much for the abscess of a progressive/secular education.
Even the attempt of the Zios to establish a new age Einstein
worshipper cult has miserably failed, as it produced nothing
but a horde of useless Einstein Dingleberries... ahahaha...
>
There is a medieval saying: "God loves the poor; that's why he
made so may of them" ... Now, replace "poor" with "mentally
feeble".. and you will discover that this issue has already been
covered by the religious priesthood, as they simply invoke an
edict, allegedly by god's son, Jesus, who promised his disciples
that the morons amongst them will get into heaven much easier
then you, the intellectual, can ever hope for...
>
See Roberts, the clerics' type & kind of info transfer is brilliant
& effective. It has no counter part in a secular progressive edu.
Aux contraire, the info exchange type/MO we see in schools,
and particularly here in sp, is subliminally & involuntarily
geared, by the "intellectuals " here, to drive any inquirer back
into the "loving, forgiving & understanding" fold of the Rabbis,
Priests, Reverends and Imams... AHAHAHA.... AHAHAHA....
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
hanson
>
hanson wrote:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f2e793227791609e>
wherein there are these 2 operatuional questions:
Mitch Raemsch BURT asked: "E = MC Squared
of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"?
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.. yes, I enjoy the ride, of course, & I hope
that you duly impressed yourself with your very own
perception and interpretation of nature. That is good.
However, I do miss in your tripe any answer to the 2
operational questions:
Mitch Raemsch BURT asked: "E = MC Squared
size of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"?
>
So, Conrad, dream up a response and conjure up
an answer which Mitch cannot smack down with:
"God did/made/wanted it that way"... ahahahaha...
>
Till then, Conner, thanks for the laughs... ahahanson
>
PS:
Don't mind the critizism by some old, washed up farts
like Sam or rect-Al. Their time has come and gone.
But don't blame them neither for them trying to be
the keepers of "what was yesterday"... ahahaha....
Tom Roberts
Actually, furlongs per fortnight is the usual example for other units.
Tom Roberts
calvin
Energy in ergs equals mass in grams times the square
of the speed of light in centimeters per second. Units
matter. If you want to rewrite the equation with the
speed of light in furlongs per fortnight, that's fine, but
you will need to adjust the units of the other terms
accordingly.
J. Clarke
This is called a "unit conversion". If you have visions of becoming a
scientist or engineer then you should learn how to do them.
What _is_ the name of the unit of energy in the furlong-firkin-fortnight
system anyway?
spudnik
as you *know* what units are actually involved with "c"'
(as i recall, this is Einstien's abbreviation "celeras," or
some thing, which means "speed" in Latin), but
I'd hardly say that "c" is "dimensionless," even if
it is "one lightyear per year.... and "A" stood
for "arbeit" or work, as in "A=mcc;" he was not enough
of a schmuck to put his own initial into it, I guess.
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
BURT
The square of the universal speed limit is used to define the
fundamental amount of energy in mass. But why should that be the case?
Mitch Raemsch
spudnik
the formula being discovered by Leibniz (mv^2), and
"mass is apparently composed of energy."
> The second power of the ultimate speed is used to define the
> fundamental amount of energy in mass. But, why?
thus:
no-one is without bias; why do you say,
that you are without bias?
"rubber rulers" is just a simple thing:
if matter is ultimately made of energy, then
its internal workings can go no faster than light;
so, what happens if the matter "approaches"
that ultimate speed?... anyway,
the Michelson-Morley results were never "nil,"
and their results have been refined by others.
(would you like a reference?)
thus:
why should such analogy be used
to insinuate that the redshift is dopplerian --
is there really a perfect vacuum,
for lightwaves not to propogate in?
was Hubble hounded into this interpretation, or
was he such a self-promoter that he just said,
Surely!
> > 1) Draw spots on a rubber balloon and inflate.
thus:
what glaciers really do,
while gently flowing out to sea in a dynamic stasis (well,
on Antarctica and Greenland), is that
the boulders stuck in the underside grind teh bedrock
into dust (some times blown, later,
into deposits of loess).
[ref.: J.D.Hamaker, retired mechanical engr.,
who worked at an oil company.]
thus:
nor are most glaciers actually receding, although
this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack
of historical data on nearly all glaciers.
satellite telemetry has shown almost no change
of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect,
considering that there is as much ice as can
be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve,
period."
> OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008,
> 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008.
thus:
it's just a "paradox" of assuming that it is a photon,
when it is merely a wave; obviously,
a thing with p=mv not equal to zero,
can't have one of the terms being zero; so,
it is not a particle or Newtonian corpuscle -- and
did they *have* to give Einstein a Nobel,
just to reify that foolishness of his?
> There is no mass in the momentum of the photon.
thus:
it's probably just his grasp of English;
don't you think?
as for "Newton's law,"
its universality is actually due to Kepler;
Hooke merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints,
using some work of Huyghens (then,
Knewton stole the inverse second-power thing from Hooke,
and destroyed Hooke's portraits .-)
thus:
I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing;
am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place
to measure CO2, it's still just one place,
with a record since the '60s (I think).
now, most of the effect of humans may not
be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but
the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all,
oil comes out of the ground, by itself,
under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy
in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.)
thus:
most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical
interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school
of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities;
they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness
of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor
on your so-called theory. but,
why do you say that conversation of momentum
supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum
of light in some standard theory?
and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and
that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force,
merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort
of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem).
> - The future determines the past
> - Virtual particles exist out of nothing
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
BURT
Kinetic energy of mass is still mass.
Mitch Raemsch
cjcountess
> hanson wrote:
> ahahahaha.. yes, I enjoy the ride, of course, & I hope
> that you duly impressed yourself with your very own
> perception and interpretation of nature. That is good.
> However, I do miss in your tripe any answer to the 2
> operational questions:
> Mitch Raemsch BURT asked: "E = MC Squared
> and hanson added: "Why is it **numerically** the
> size of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"?
>
Thank you, I will address both question as they are simple, well
stated, and are answered very simply also.
Mass is equal to, and related to energy by "c^2", becaues "c^2", is
not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, with no
physical signifacanse, as "Sam Worthy", and others seems to think, it
is a conversion frequency/wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum,
where energy equals and turns to matter, because it takes on a
circular and or spherical rotation.
This is because c^2 is c in the liniear direction x c in the 90 degree
angular direction, creating a balence of centrifugal and centripital
forces that create circular and or spherical motion.
This is where (E=hf)=(E=mc^2), (E=mc^2) = (h/2pi), and (E=mc^2) =
(F=mv^2).
As to the second question, why is "c" used, instead of something else?
it is simply because, "c" is a natural unit, and the only one that
fits perfectly.
(c = h), is the natural unit constant of energy and (c^2 = h/2pi--> "h/
2pi/2" = G) is natural unit constant of rest mass.
(c = h) as energy equals and turns to matter at (h/2pi -->"h/2pi/2" =
c^2 = G) at the high end of the "EM", spectrum which is not only the
"electromagnetic", spectrum, but also the "energy/matter" spectrum as
well, and as such is where "E=hf=mc^2," as deBrolie stated.
> PS:
> Don't mind the critizism by some old, washed up farts
> like Sam or rect-Al. Their time has come and gone.
> But don't blame them neither for them trying to be
> the keepers of "what was yesterday"... ahahaha....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Point well taken
Conrad J Countess
BURT
Point particle cores are of infinite C squared density of energy in an
infinitely small space "quantum."
Mitch Raemsch
hanson
>
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrotehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f2e793227791609e
> >
hanson wrote:
ahaha... cj, yes, I enjoy the ride, of course, & I hope
that you duly impressed yourself with your very own
perception and interpretation of nature. That is good.
However, I do miss in your tripe any answer to the 2
operational questions:
Mitch Raemsch BURT asked: "E = MC Squared
Why is mass related by thesquareof lightspeed"?
and hanson added: "Why is it **numerically** the
size of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"?
>
Thank you, I will address both question as they are
simple, well stated, and are answered very simply also.
Mass is equal to, and related to energy by "c^2", becaues "c^2", is
not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, with no
physical signifacanse, as "Sam Worthy", and others seems to think, it
is a conversion frequency/wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum,
where energy equals and turns to matter, because it takes on a
circular and or spherical rotation.
This is because c^2 is c in the liniear direction x c in the 90 degree
angular direction, creating a balence of centrifugal and centripital
forces that create circular and or spherical motion.
This is where (E=hf)=(E=mc^2),
(E=mc^2) = (h/2pi), and
(E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2).
>
Conner, some dimensions must have curled up and
disappeared or gone into a different universe in
your (E= (h/2pi) and with your (F=mv^2).
... ahahaha... But, may the force stay with you, though...
>
Conner wrote:
As to the second question, why is "c" used, instead
of something else? it is simply because, "c" is a natural
unit, and the only one that fits perfectly.
(c = h), is the natural unit constant of energy and
constant of rest mass.
(c = h) as energy equals and turns to matter at
(h/2pi -->"h/2pi/2" = c^2 = G) at the high end of the
"EM", spectrum which is not only the "electromagnetic",
spectrum, but also the "energy/matter" spectrum as
well, and as such is where "E=hf=mc^2," as deBrolie stated.
>
Conrad, Point particle cores are of infinite C squared density
of energy in an infinitely small space "quantum."
>
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... See, Conner, Burt did NOT
buy your stuff. Now, you two should get together and find the
proper **Countess-Raemsch transformation**. It will be a
seminal event! It'll open the possibility, for the 1st time, that
inhabitants of 2 different universes, you Conner and Burt can
properly communicate. Not only that, but all the establishment
big shots here will begin to realize that one will not have to go
far out & away in time and space nor even go thru worm holes
to get into different universes... All these universe do exist &
they are real... right here and now... in our own minds....
>
I shall visit your universes from time to time... to contemplate
and ROTFLMAO. Till then, guys, thanks for the laughs...
AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
BURT
> ------- ahahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ---------
>
> Conrad, Point particle cores are of infinite C squared density
> of energy in an infinitely small space "quantum."
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... See, Conner, Burt did NOT
> buy your stuff. Now, you two should get together and find the
> proper **Countess-Raemsch transformation**. It will be a
> seminal event! It'll open the possibility, for the 1st time, that
> inhabitants of 2 different universes, you Conner and Burt can
> properly communicate. Not only that, but all the establishment
> big shots here will begin to realize that one will not have to go
> far out & away in time and space nor even go thru worm holes
> to get into different universes... All these universe do exist &
> they are real... right here and now... in our own minds....
>
> I shall visit your universes from time to time... to contemplate
> and ROTFLMAO. Till then, guys, thanks for the laughs...
> AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
>
dWhy shoulf the universal speed limit squared relate energy to mass?
Why is that relationship fundamental?
Mitch Raemsch
hanson
> Conrad, Point particle cores are of infinite C squared density
> of energy in an infinitely small space "quantum."
>
> hanson wrote:
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... See, Conner, Burt did NOT
> buy your stuff. Now, you two should get together and find the
> proper **Countess-Raemsch transformation**. It will be a
> seminal event! It'll open the possibility, for the 1st time, that
> inhabitants of 2 different universes, you Conner and Burt can
> properly communicate. Not only that, but all the establishment
> big shots here will begin to realize that one will not have to go
> far out & away in time and space nor even go thru worm holes
> to get into different universes... All these universe do exist &
> they are real... right here and now... in our own minds....
>
> I shall visit your universes from time to time... to contemplate
> and ROTFLMAO. Till then, guys, thanks for the laughs...
> AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
>
dWhy shoulf the universal speed limit squared relate energy
Mitch Raemsch
>
hanson wrote:
"fundamental" it is, as of today, because that
is how deep we have been able to "dig" into the
"fundament" of nature. --- Maybe in the future
we'll find and measure new items/events/processes
that reveal an even deeper fundamental level of nature.
That even occurred to Einstein when he said:
>
|||AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
|||AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
|||AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, [my]
|||AE:: gravitation theory included." --- 1954 --- Albert Einstein
>
Einstein Dingleberries however, so far, have not heeded their
idol's intuition and love to keep on dangling in the breeze of
the farts that emanated for Albert's sphincter.... ahahahahaha...
You, OTOH, Raemsch, you've got it made. Just look it up in
your Bible. That's the only answer you will accept anyway...
Thanks for the laughs, Mitch,..... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
cjcountess
I take your comments humorously and with no offense
Bert
As you know, I do not agree that frequency is infinite, no more than
the speed of light is.
Thus “c^2”, does not represent infinite frequency, it represents “c in
circular and or spherical rotation, such as binding energy and
standing spherical waves ”
c^2 represents the high end of the EM spectrum where energy equals and
turns to matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical
rotation giving it rest mass.
And thus (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) because “c^2” is the ultimate “c^2” and
also = “G”, because all are the ultimate “L/T^2”
In its simplest terms c^2 is
1)c in the linear direction
2)x c in the 90 degree angular direction
3)= c in circular and or spherical motion with angular momentum of (h/
2pi-->h/2pi/2), due to a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces
I don’t know how much simpler I can make it, but the evidence speaks
for itself.
The infinite frequency idea has lead to “renormalization, as well as
running coupling constants” problems, as well as “point particle”,
“probability wave”, and corresponding “Uncertainty principle”. It has
lead to unrealistic Planck unity of (c = h/2p1 = G ) which gives mass
length and time not related to anything in this world and is therefor
wrong.
But that was the best they could do at the time and it did allow for
some progress in physics.
But with the “Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled)
and (c=sqrt-1)”moves Physics a quantum leap further,
it is revealed that (c^2 = h/2pi-->h/2pi/2 = G) and (c=h=i) thus
resolving “Uncertainty Principle” as we knew it, Quantum Gravity,
Running Coupling constants, as well as taking “sqrt-1”, out of realm
of imaginary numbers and bringing it into the real world of natural
units.
The revelations are too much for people like “Uncle Al” and “Sam
Wormley”, as their ground has been pulled from under them, and
everything they once believed is in question
Sam Wormely
stated that he agreed with “Al” and that I am an idiot, and also
provided a link to some childish cartoon, stating as much.
Well at least he was not as disrespectfully as “Al”, but apparently I
have the effect of making these once prominent scholars of physics,
revert back to infancy, They must feel really small in my presence.
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
-- if it was not the original proof --
and you'll see that circles are better fro areal mensuration;
generalize to prove the spatial pythagorean theorems
-- there are two of them --
and you'll see that, not only does second-powering
have nothing in particular to with the tetragon, but
also not with a two-dimensional object.
thus:
like I said, dimensional analysis is fine, and
woe to he who ignores it, but it cannot be used
ex post facto to remake a wave-form into a particle. surely,
the wave can impart, at least, internal "momentum"
to the atomic system that is tuned to absorb it. that is,
whatever energy propogates through the *medium*
of space, not a vacuum, is in its effect
upon that medium just as waves in H2O.
so, do not apply "momentum" to the wave, only
as a formalism for the seemingly-aimed "photon"
that was speared by the cone of your eye. so,
you can use other, valid formlisms, like E=hf,
or what ever. otherwise, you get absurdities
like the EPR paradox, and simplistic statements
about the photoelectrical effect.
not to say that a total formalism of rocks o'light
is not possible, and a gravity that is "pushed" by such-like, but
it is probably at present "intractible," even as Huyghens wavelets
are intractible, except for getting a concept of light,
propogating. (photons are massless & cannot propogate
at any speed, because they don't exist, is my feeling, even though
they are the only "zero-D particle" that can "go at c.")
as for wlym.com, folks who pretend to "do the math,"
should know what *mathematica* ("maths") is; if
you "go" to wlym.com, and hit the Fermat button,
and find the Geometrical Fragments pdf,
you''ll find his reconstruction of Euclid's porisms,
whis are quite elementary (and planar).
lastly, here is a thought experiment:
what are those little black & white paddle-wheels,
tht rotate in the sunlight in clear globe?... since
there is no actual vacuum in the globe,
provide an *aerodynamical/thermal* explanation
of the force, after waves of light have been absorbed
by the black pigment in the vanes. thought of that,
yesterday, after more of this chat.
> Get rid of that [M] dimension in the photon equation
thus:
Moon could have supported life, a long time ago (i.e.,
smaller bodies have shorter lives), as is evidences
by the remnants of plate tectonics (maria & highlands).
> >http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorites-alpha_frame.htm
thus:
you call that, an explanation,
"photons wedged apart by light rays?"
an interesting relationship between two things
that only exist as mathematics, both representing
"rocks o'light!"
thus:
you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors,"
but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and
unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time,
while it is quite obvious that the "time part"
is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates,
either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway,
bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions.
and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that
a phase-space tells you what time really is;
it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though,
as in electronics (although, NB,
electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space,
instead of quaternions, as it could be,
for some reason .-)
maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do,
is work the math of quaternions ...
that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean,
what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis
with a "different sign" and a different letter,
whether or not negatives are even needed?)
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless,
you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
cjcountess
sense matter is made of energy, its most basic quanta must include
“c”. It turns out to be c^2
“c” is the natural unit of most basic energy quanta, and can be
represented geometrically, as energy moving in a straight line, at
constant speed
(c=h), because “h”, is the constant kinetic energy that comes from the
constant speed of c in straight line.
Thus (c=h) can be geometrically represented by straight line as in a
basic string theory
“c^2” s the natural unit most basic unit of rest mass and can be
represented as
3) “c” in linear direction
2)x “c” in the 90 degree angular direction
3)= “c” in circular and/or spherical motion, as balance of centrifugal
and centripetal forces, and angular momentum of (h/2pi) as a circle,
or (h/2pi/2) as a circle making 2 rotations to complete one wave
cycle, (spin1/2), to create a standing spherical wave.
Thus (c^2 = h/2pi = G), and can be geometrically represented by energy
in a closed loop rotation, which can also be a part of a simplified
string theory, without the numerous dimensions.
(E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) because c^2 is the ultimate v^2
(G = c^2) because c^2 is the ultimate L/T^2
spudnic
I have been told several times that my idea violated "Dimensional
Analysis", to which I pointed out that Dimensional Analysis is
transcended in some ways by my theory. In the same wave that photons
have wavelength that can be interpreted as energies, although energy
and length have different dimensions, they still can be converted into
each other.
And did you know that the meaning of “Dimensional Analysis” was
refined on “wikipedia” sense I first pointed this out a few years
back?
I have before and after copies
I must be having an impact
Conrad J Countess
BURT
If light has kinetic energy it would all be by the constant C. Every
photon would have the same energy.
Mitch Raemsch
cjcountess
Light has a speed that is constant in the liniear direction,
reguardless of frequency.
But the speed is not constant in the angular direction, which allows
for varying frequency, and the corresponding varying, mass, energy,
and momentum, that goes with it.
Thus light has a constant mass/energy = "h" in the liniear direction,
and a varying mass/energy in the angular frequency direction = "f".
Therefore energy of photon is measured as E=hf, because while the "h"
remains constant the "f" varys
E=hf/c^2 is analogous and directly corresponds to F=Mm/r^2
"h" is the "central sun", around which all waves and rest mass
particles oscilate, analogous to orbiting, and is another example of
quantum gravity being right under our noses all the time.
In other words (E=hf/c^2) is a quantum version of (F=Mm/r^2) not just
analogous but exactly just as (E=mc^2) is not only anaologous to but
directly corresponds to (F=mv^2).
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
-- 0-dimensional massless particles,
thought to exist til Kaluza and stringtheory --
that can "go" at c with no momentum, because
they are not waves. in particular,
they are not the "plane waves" of math-phys idealization, because
they always have a curvature, no matter how far they "go"
from the source.
how is a wave (quantum) of light emitted from the whole surface
(quantum)
of a Sun?
personally, I do not believe in Wikipedia or the googolplex, so that
such an event makes no difference, at all.
> I must be having an impact
thus:
see "Alfven cosmology." there is really no way, as of yet,
to determine whether the COBE radiation is not within system Sol;
not as silly an assumption as for the redshift, though,
which even Hubble apparently denounced, at least
for a while.
and, if you googol it, They'll know, for sure.
> The nuclear forces have a range, the EM is next with Hubble's Limit as
> a hand waving attempt at it and gravitation could be well after that
> maybe a few billion times larger than the observable cosmos.
thus:
hey, I'd forgotten about that;
wonder what HAnson could reply, given that
he associates it with Barbara Streisand,
who wasn't nearly as weighty.
> Conservation laws COME FROM Noether's theorem.
thus:
yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether,
the *really* perfect gas. so, now, all that you have
to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts
for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead
of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting,
"I have a dream!")
"Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!"
> This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses.
thus:
to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above,
Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4,
because his proof only applied to prime exponents,
excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents).
thus:
yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..."
what is the shape of the wave of light?
> Aether is matter times the second power of the speed of light.
thus:
spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra,"
meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces
of the other, and vise versa.
thus:
the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if
one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect
(and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and
the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone.
thus:
how about this:
show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then,
tackle the remaining primes.
thus:
NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_
for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and
"three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but,
this is just the original "vectors."
compare Lanczos' biquaternions
with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure,
to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion.
"wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants,"
totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism --
time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability
(of dimensionality !-)
thus:
try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or
"go" to wlym.com.
> This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987,
thus:
the problem appears to be,
"some observers measure the angle to the marker,
relative to the other observers,"
which would not give you the distance *on a plane*,
because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature
of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure
of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine,
triangulatin' that contested area .-)
thus:
notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and
the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway,
I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy,
who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind.
thus:
sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
have read in an article about his retirement.
> I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
> I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
> once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
> others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
> capNtrade e.g.).
> what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> his real "proof" is _1599_;
> the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co....
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]:
"Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They
can ?!?"
* His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain;
so?
BURT
Set H bar to One for energy.
Mitch Raemsch