Re: An open letter to Mr. Ross A. Finlayson

[Barry Aecca]

kenseto wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 11:47:12 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 12/23/19 9:43 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>> > I would claim "that the cause of the decay of a particularly unstable
>> > particle is not known, but most probably is triggered by other
>> > particles"
>>
>> Such GUESSES are useless. We do know experimentally that no known
>> particles induce decays (if they did they would not be called
>> "decays").
>> We also know that if any "extra" particle does induce what we call a
>> particle decay, then it must have energy and momentum consistent with
>> zero, because particle decays are observed to conserve 4-momentum.
>
> See page 50 of my book in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> A neutron is decayed into a proton with the capture of a free
> S-Particle.

That’s where kWh comes into play. Here’s the breakdown:
10 bulbs X 100W = 1,000W or 1kW of lighting
10 hours of daily use X 30 days in the month = 300 hours of use
1kW X 300 hours of use = 300kWh of energy consumption

[Page Harritt]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> The purposes of SR is to justify the em ether, Maxwell's theory and the
>> ether, composed of matter.
>
> Sure it does.
> That's light's speed, constant in the vacuum,
> in deep, still space the theory.
> Sure, Special Relativity is quite well held up.
> Also electrical....

you write like shit. And no, SR makes "ether" _completely_ obsolete,
deprecated, or you two lovers terribly misunderstood something.

[Page Harritt]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 21.01.2020 um 11:00 schrieb Page Harritt:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 16.01.2020 um 22:04 schrieb Chuck Oberwise:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> My main point of critique: SRT (from 1905) contains a HUGE number of
>>>>> errors. I counted above two-hundred errors of all kinds in 'On the
>>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
>>>>
>>>> Enlist the biggest three.
>>>
>>> 1) 'spherical waves' he assumed, that a spherical wave emitted in a
>>> FoR at rest is also a spherical wave in a FoR in relative motion
>>
>> Who told you it's not like that, german boy? You don't undrestands
>> relativity big time. The rest of nonsense builds on typos and your
>> misunderstanding on what is going on.
>
> I wrote, what I think is wrong in SRT.

It doesn't add or subtract from anything. In physics. You learn this fact
in kindergarten. That's why the alleged _moon landing_ looks 96% fishy,
disregard what you guys are "thinking".

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Ah, this you say - SR is _there_ for ether.

[Butch Ello]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 22.01.2020 um 18:08 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> I have now written a little more than three hundred comments into it
>>> and mot (but not all) are errors.
>>
>> Such a Talmudic analysis is appropriate for religious texts, but not
>> scientific papers.
>
> Actually I'm not a Jew, but a Christian.
> 'Talmudic' refers to Talmud and that is something I dislike. I think, it
> is an 'evil' book and Jews should through it away.

not really. Judging the symbols alone, your "Christianity" must be the
most barbaric (a _tortured man on cross_) in no way better than a
_domestic animal, a goat_, a _moon_, a _star_ or a _meditating dude_. You
lost again. And think, before making a fool of yourself.

[Thomas Heger]

Religion is REALLY off topic here.

But Christianity is based on Judaism. The 'tortured man' stems actually
from other (non Jewish) sources. It have been the Romans, who merged the
Roman version of Zaroastrism and the early Christianity to what is known
today as Catholicism.

This was introduced to the Roman Empire as state religion by Emperor
Constantine.

If fact the early Christianity had no cross and their prophet was not
crucified. That prophet was also not called 'Jesus', but the person in
question was a Jew and belonged to the Jewish sect called 'Essenoi',
which lived in Qumran.

The Romans prosecuted the early Christians and they had to flee. They
went along the Silk Road into the city Merv.

Later the Saracens captured that city and took over the believes of the
so called 'Arians' for a while. So in the 7th century the Arabs have
been Christians (in a way).

Later the Umayads wanted to get rid of the 'Jews' and ordered to
translate the remains of the Qumran scripts into Arabic. In that process
the Aramaic title 'mahmed' was changed to 'Mohammed' (and a few
centuries added).

That person was actually the same, the Greeks (and later the Romans)
called 'Iesos'.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

The question is: what is it, that makes light move with c?

Apparently the speed of light behaves somehow similar to speed of sound,
but way faster.

The speed of the emitter is irrelevant, only the features of the space
between emitter and receiver are relevant. Therefor there should be
something, which causes light to pass through at always the same speed.

Since there is no matter (in vacuum), the space itself should have an
influence.

This is certainly astonishing, since because of this behavior any
'ballistic' theory could be ruled out.

My personal explanation is this:

Empty space is not really empty, but emptiness is 'relative', too.

This emptiness is a function of the perspective and matter for one
observer is not necessarily matter for all others.

I call this concept 'structured spacetime' and have actually written
kind of 'book' *) about it, which could be found here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

TH

*) it is not really a book, but a google.doc presentation

[Wyrzyk Ślązak]

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> you write like shit. And no, SR makes "ether" _completely_ obsolete,
>> deprecated, or you two lovers terribly misunderstood something.
>>
>>
> The question is: what is it, that makes light move with c?

it doesn't. That's a resonance.

> Apparently the speed of light behaves somehow similar to speed of sound,
> but way faster.

this neither, completely different distinct domains. The sound goes
longitudinal, light transversal.

> The speed of the emitter is irrelevant, only the features of the space
> between emitter and receiver are relevant. Therefor there should be
> something, which causes light to pass through at always the same speed.

there is no mechanism, end of story. At that level a logical mechanism
cannot even exists.

> My personal explanation is this:
> Empty space is not really empty, but emptiness is 'relative', too.

wrong, since you base your assessment on wrong premises. EM is not sound.

[Evin Inoguchi Tsukawaki]

patdolan wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 1:08:48 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson
> wrote:
>> Here "space contraction" is a lot going on in Einstein's theory.
> Ross, tomorrow will be the end of my ability to interact with this forum
> unless you give me a link to a free news reader.

https://news.novabbs.com/tech/thread.php?group=sci.physics.relativity

𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗮_𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲:_𝗪𝗵𝘆_𝗻𝘂𝗸𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗘𝗨_𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗯𝗲_𝗮_𝗻𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗲 lol
Scared of being abandoned by the US under Trump, European officials are
floating the idea of the bloc’s own nuclear force
https://r%74.com/news/592689-eu-us-trump-nukes/

All major catastrophes start out with a great plan ,the EU was a great
plan.

And as soon as they give Nukes to 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘂𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘀

Why the nuclear bomb is a kosher psyops? George Orwell correctly predicted
in 1945 that it would never be used in war. So far--he has been right.
Secondly, the architects of the nuke--Oppenheimer, Teller, Einstein--have
no history of engineering ability. So how did they magically invent such a
device? If Edison, Tesla, and Von Braun had made a bomb-it would be easier
to believe since they had the resumes for it. And nuke testing wondrously
went underground in the 1970s--likely because everyone with a camera could
have recorded these blasts. TNT also makes a mushroom cloud.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday 28 January 2020 at 05:45:04 UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.01.2020 um 12:48 schrieb Page Harritt:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>> The purposes of SR is to justify the em ether, Maxwell's theory and the
> >>> ether, composed of matter.
> >>
> >> Sure it does.
> >> That's light's speed, constant in the vacuum,
> >> in deep, still space the theory.
> >> Sure, Special Relativity is quite well held up.
> >> Also electrical....
> >
> > you write like shit. And no, SR makes "ether" _completely_ obsolete,
> > deprecated, or you two lovers terribly misunderstood something.

Right, that was the whole purpose of e=mcc-hv, to make aether obsolete, as it relates to aum, a Hindu concept.
The main idea was to get rid of Hinduism, by colonialism and deception, so it would not do to have the Vedic physics as valid.
So Jewish physics was invented by Jews to keep up the books relating to the One True God.
Tesla rightly wrote that the relativists were very brilliant people, but not as scientists. They were/are theologians.
An infinite, eternal universe pervaded by infinitely fine aether supporting waves, and positive and negative charges, does not suit the Jewish metaphysics.

> >
> The question is: what is it, that makes light move with c?

Maxwell related them to electric permittivity and magnetic permeability, in his famous equations for the em travelling wave.
Which makes three important points:
em radiation is a wave
there are electric and magnetic fields
there has to be a medium for their progagation, for all waves need media.

>
> Apparently the speed of light behaves somehow similar to speed of sound,
> but way faster.

Doppler effect works for both yes.
When we consider that wavelength does not change, just moves faster with a higher velocity of the wave.
Mathematically, f(v)=(c+v)/wavelength, where c is speed of light/sound and v is the velocity of the emitter of the light/sound.
Much simpler, above, than twisting up the wavelength as is done now.

>
> The speed of the emitter is irrelevant, only the features of the space
> between emitter and receiver are relevant. Therefor there should be
> something, which causes light to pass through at always the same speed.

Light does not pass at the same speed.
c(v) = c(epsilon, mu)+V
The MMI clearly shows that light speed varies with the speed of the emitter, when we correct the big bungle there about the interferometer moving with the Earth's movement.
I made this clear back in 2005.

>
> Since there is no matter (in vacuum), the space itself should have an
> influence.
>
> This is certainly astonishing, since because of this behavior any
> 'ballistic' theory could be ruled out.

Wrong. Why continue with the bungle about light speed constancy? It is ridiculous. Scandalous. Idiotic, unless money/fame/ascendancy is involved, in which case it is criminal.

>
> My personal explanation is this:
>
> Empty space is not really empty, but emptiness is 'relative', too.

It is full of aether, through which electrons glide through without opposition, as aether is composed of infinitely fine matter.

>
> This emptiness is a function of the perspective and matter for one
> observer is not necessarily matter for all others.
>
> I call this concept 'structured spacetime' and have actually written
> kind of 'book' *) about it, which could be found here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> TH
>
> *) it is not really a book, but a google.doc presentation

All intelligent people must consider my new physics:
****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ

The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ

*****
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ

Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ

Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ

Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ

Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ

Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ

Section 5
The forces involved in rotational motion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ

*******

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee