Flaws wanted
Ka-In Yen
they did not point out any flaws of the mathematic derivation
of my theory. Perhaps there are something I do'nt know; If
you find any flaws of the mathematic derivation of my theory,
please kindly advise me; it's grateful.
My paper entitled "Magnetic force: Combining drag force
and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics" is at
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
You are welcome to visit my home page
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
and leave your comments.
Ka-In Yen
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Althought SRian refuse to accept my theory, but till now
> they did not point out any flaws of the mathematic derivation
> of my theory. Perhaps there are something I do'nt know; If
> you find any flaws of the mathematic derivation of my theory,
> please kindly advise me; it's grateful.
What about *physical* errors?
> My paper entitled "Magnetic force: Combining drag force
>
> and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics" is at
>
> http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
Two physical errors right at the start: neither potential
energy nor mass are vectors.
Try again.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Uncle Al
>
> Althought SRian refuse to accept my theory,
Dead on Arrival by empirical disproof.
> My paper entitled "Magnetic force: Combining drag force
> and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics" is at
[snip]
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
nospam
"Ka-In Yen" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:9f181401.05010...@posting.google.com...
> Althought SRian refuse to accept my theory, but till now
> they did not point out any flaws of the mathematic derivation
> of my theory. Perhaps there are something I do'nt know; If
> you find any flaws of the mathematic derivation of my theory,
> please kindly advise me; it's grateful.
>
> My paper entitled "Magnetic force: Combining drag force
>
> and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics" is at
>
> http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
>
Isn't Bernoulli's equation just an approximation?
tj Frazir
yen...@yahoo.com.tw
Dear nospam,
Thank you for your question. I had the same question
when I was developing the theory. In fluid dynamics,
Bernoulli's equation is an approximation, because energy
is required by vibration, rotation etc of moleculars.
But to energy level, which ether dynamics in vacuum is,
Bernoulli's equation is the ideal case. Please refer to
Halliday's "Fundamentals of Physics", chaper 14, proof
of Bernoulli's equation.
Ka-In Yen
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Ka-In Yen
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > Althought SRian refuse to accept my theory, but till now
> > they did not point out any flaws of the mathematic derivation
> > of my theory. Perhaps there are something I do'nt know; If
> > you find any flaws of the mathematic derivation of my theory,
> > please kindly advise me; it's grateful.
> >
> >
> > and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics" is at
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
>
> Two physical errors right at the start: neither potential
> energy nor mass are vectors.
>
Dear Bjoern,
Thank you for your information. It is a high
probability that a flawless derivation has
some physical meaning. Do you have any strong
reason that mass can not be vector?
For example, mass with velocity is vector: momentum.
Perhaps I should say: Electrons are connecting
node of ether strings. When an electron interacts
with the ether strings connecting to it, the
mass of stressed ether strings(MASS with FORCE)
is vector.
Ka-In Yen
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>Ka-In Yen wrote:
>>
>>>Althought SRian refuse to accept my theory, but till now
>>>they did not point out any flaws of the mathematic derivation
>>>of my theory. Perhaps there are something I do'nt know; If
>>>you find any flaws of the mathematic derivation of my theory,
>>>please kindly advise me; it's grateful.
>>>
>>>My paper entitled "Magnetic force: Combining drag force
>>>
>>>and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics" is at
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
>>
>>Two physical errors right at the start: neither potential
>>energy nor mass are vectors.
>>
>
>
> Dear Bjoern,
>
> Thank you for your information. It is a high
> probability that a flawless derivation has
> some physical meaning. Do you have any strong
> reason that mass can not be vector?
Mass is the factor appearing in Newton's second law:
F = m a.
Force F and acceleration a are both vectors, which are
parallel to each other. It follows mathematically that
mass has to be a scalar, not a vector.
> For example, mass with velocity is vector: momentum.
Momentum is not "mass with velocity". Momentum
is mass *times* velocity. And that is no longer mass!
> Perhaps I should say: Electrons are connecting
> node of ether strings. When an electron interacts
> with the ether strings connecting to it, the
> mass of stressed ether strings (MASS with FORCE)
> is vector.
You appear to have no clue what a vector actually is.
If you think you have, please tell me what it is,
in your opinion.
Bye,
Bjoern
Ka-In Yen
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >
> >>Ka-In Yen wrote:
> >>
> >>>Althought SRian refuse to accept my theory, but till now
> >>>they did not point out any flaws of the mathematic derivation
> >>>of my theory. Perhaps there are something I do'nt know; If
> >>>you find any flaws of the mathematic derivation of my theory,
> >>>please kindly advise me; it's grateful.
> >>>
> >>>My paper entitled "Magnetic force: Combining drag force
> >>>
> >>>and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics" is at
> >>>
> >>>http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
> >>
> >>Two physical errors right at the start: neither potential
> >>energy nor mass are vectors.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Dear Bjoern,
> >
> > Thank you for your information. It is a high
> > probability that a flawless derivation has
> > some physical meaning. Do you have any strong
> > reason that mass can not be vector?
>
> Mass is the factor appearing in Newton's second law:
> F = m a.
> Force F and acceleration a are both vectors, which are
> parallel to each other. It follows mathematically that
> mass has to be a scalar, not a vector.
Dear Bjoern,
Not strong enough.
F=-kx (Hook's law)
Try again, and please try harder. :)
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Your point? What has that to do with what I said above?
Do you dispute that F=ma is right, or what?
> Try again, and please try harder. :)
Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply
ridicule it."
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Ka-In Yen
yen...@yahoo.com.tw wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> >
> > Isn't Bernoulli's equation just an approximation?
>
> Dear nospam,
>
> Thank you for your question. I had the same question
> when I was developing the theory. In fluid dynamics,
> Bernoulli's equation is an approximation, because energy
> is required by vibration, rotation etc of moleculars.
> But to energy level, which ether dynamics in vacuum is,
> Bernoulli's equation is the ideal case. Please refer to
> Halliday's "Fundamentals of Physics", chaper 14, proof
> of Bernoulli's equation.
>
Dear nospam,
Do you have any further questions?
tadchem
> Ka-In Yen
> http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
I just looked at your page:
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
I respond to your explicit invitation:
"If you find any flaws of the mathematical derivation of the theory,
please kindly advise me; it's grateful "
You represent Potential energy, Potential mass, and Linear density as
vector quantities.
A vector potential is not a state function - the total energy change
represented by motion of an affected particle through a vector field is
path-dependent. As a result it cannot represent a closed system as it
would violate conservation of energy.
Potential energy is a scalar field, and the force is the gradient
(vector derivative) of that potential.
Mass (and density) are scalar quantities. To have a directional
component to mass means that one could achieve negative mass in the
opposite direction, and that mass would vanish completely in some
intermediate direction.
Your obvious ignorance of basic the mathematics of physical principles
reduces the substance of your 'paper' to total crap.
Before you start 'deriving' you should become familiar with the basic
differences between scalars, vectors, fields, and forces.
Then study Physics 101 - freshman level college physics for students
who understand elementary calculus.
There have been many good physicists who have seriously considered
aether theories, and all have abandoned the idea based on the Principle
of Parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor). The 'aether' cannot possess *any*
measurable physical properties, and empirically exerts no influence on
matter or energy that could distinguish it from a total vacuum.
No momentum no energy, no flow, no mass, no density, no drag, no
viscosity, no buoyancy, no resistance to the motions of anything
embedded within it, etc...
If you can't *measure* it, and it doesn't *do* anything, it is a waste
of time to even consider it. All empirical data to date is consistent
with the body of theory in which the role of the empty space between
particles is filled with - *empty space*.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Mike
Ka-In Yen wrote:
[snip]
>
> Not strong enough.
> F=-kx (Hook's law)
> Try again, and please try harder. :)
>
> Ka-In Yen
> Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
> http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
> http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
What does Hooke's law have to do with all these?
F= -kx is just an approximation and F and x are still vectors anyway.
In general F = -del(V), where del is a differentail operator and V the
potential function of the spring.
In the ideal case that V = (1/2)kx^2 then the general expression
reduces to: F = -kx This turns out to be good only for small
displacements of nearly ideal springs.
Mike
Ka-In Yen
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
> >>Ka-In Yen wrote:
> >>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >>>>Two physical errors right at the start: neither potential
> >>>>energy nor mass are vectors.
> >>>>
> >>>probability that a flawless derivation has
> >>>some physical meaning. Do you have any strong
> >>>reason that mass can not be vector?
> >>
> > F=-kx (Hook's law)
>
> Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply
> ridicule it."
Dear Bjoern,
There is another equation for your reference:
tau=v^2 * mu (the equation of waves on string)
tau is the tension on string, and mu is linear mass
density of string; v is vector, but v^2 is scalar.
Eric Gisse
Ka-In Yen wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> > Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > >>Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > >>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> > >>>>Two physical errors right at the start: neither potential
> > >>>>energy nor mass are vectors.
> > >>>>
> > >>>Thank you for your information. It is a high
> > >>>probability that a flawless derivation has
> > >>>some physical meaning. Do you have any strong
> > >>>reason that mass can not be vector?
> > >>
> > > Not strong enough.
> > > F=-kx (Hook's law)
> > > Try again, and please try harder. :)
> >
> > Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply
> > ridicule it."
>
>
> Dear Bjoern,
> There is another equation for your reference:
>
> tau=v^2 * mu (the equation of waves on string)
>
> tau is the tension on string, and mu is linear mass
> density of string; v is vector, but v^2 is scalar.
Your using the wrong wave equation. See:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/waveq.html
http://www.uoxray.uoregon.edu/ph351/waves.pdf
Ka-In Yen
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> > > Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply
> > > ridicule it."
> >
> > Dear Bjoern,
> > There is another equation for your reference:
> >
> > tau=v^2 * mu (the equation of waves on string)
> >
> > tau is the tension on string, and mu is linear mass
> > density of string; v is vector, but v^2 is scalar.
>
> Your using the wrong wave equation. See:
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/waveq.html
> http://www.uoxray.uoregon.edu/ph351/waves.pdf
Dear Eric,
Thank you for your information. Please refer to Halliday's
"Fundamentals of Physics", chapter 17-6, waves on a string.
It is the equation of waves on a string, but I rewrite it.
--
/ Ka-In Yen
/ Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
/ http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
/ http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Eric Gisse
Ka-In Yen wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> > > > Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply
> > > > ridicule it."
> > >
> > > Dear Bjoern,
> > > There is another equation for your reference:
> > >
> > > tau=v^2 * mu (the equation of waves on string)
> > >
> > > tau is the tension on string, and mu is linear mass
> > > density of string; v is vector, but v^2 is scalar.
> >
> > Your using the wrong wave equation. See:
> >
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/waveq.html
> > http://www.uoxray.uoregon.edu/ph351/waves.pdf
>
> Dear Eric,
> Thank you for your information. Please refer to Halliday's
> "Fundamentals of Physics", chapter 17-6, waves on a string.
> It is the equation of waves on a string, but I rewrite it.
You rewrote it? Not surprising, you probably dropped some vector
information when you did because you don't know what the difference
between a vector and a scalar is.
If you ask an educated physicist/mathematician what the wave equation
is, you will be pointed to the PDE.
Ka-In Yen
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > > > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> > > > > Read: "I can't answer your argument, so I'll simply
> > > > > ridicule it."
> > > >
> > > > Dear Bjoern,
> > > > There is another equation for your reference:
> > > >
> > > > tau=v^2 * mu (the equation of waves on string)
> > > >
> > > > tau is the tension on string, and mu is linear mass
> > > > density of string; v is vector, but v^2 is scalar.
> > >
> > > Your using the wrong wave equation. See:
> > >
> > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/waveq.html
> > > http://www.uoxray.uoregon.edu/ph351/waves.pdf
> >
> > Dear Eric,
> > Thank you for your information. Please refer to Halliday's
> > "Fundamentals of Physics", chapter 17-6, waves on a string.
> > It is the equation of waves on a string, but I rewrite it.
>
> You rewrote it? Not surprising, you probably dropped some vector
> information when you did because you don't know what the difference
> between a vector and a scalar is.
>
> If you ask an educated physicist/mathematician what the wave equation
> is, you will be pointed to the PDE.
Dear Eric,
I agree with you that the equation you pointed out is a
complete wave equation. The equation I got from Halliday's
book is a equation of wave's velocity. Most time It is
v=sqrt(tau/mu)
And I rewrote it
tau = v^2 * mu
--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Ka-In Yen
Mike wrote:
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > Not strong enough.
> > F=-kx (Hook's law)
> > Try again, and please try harder. :)
> >
>
> What does Hooke's law have to do with all these?
>
> F= -kx is just an approximation and F and x are still vectors anyway.
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your information. As you said: F and x are vectors.
What about the linear mass density of spring? The force and the
mass of spring blend together; there is no way to separate the
force from the mass of spring. The force can not exist independently.
The force is a result of material structure of spring. From
microscopic view point, electric force push/pull atoms of spring;
to macroscopic level, the mass of spring push/pull external object.
The force is a description of spring's material structure. The
force is vector, because the material structure is vector.
--
Ka-In Yen
Eric Gisse wrote:
> You rewrote it? Not surprising, you probably dropped some vector
> information when you did because you don't know what the difference
> between a vector and a scalar is.
Dear Eric,
When you do math, you must not neglect material. Force can
not exist alone, force is a result of material structure.
Force is vector, material structure is vector too.
--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> When you do math, you must not neglect material. Force can
> not exist alone, force is a result of material structure.
> Force is vector, material structure is vector too.
No.
You are drivelling
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
Ka-In Yen
Franz Heymann wrote:
> "Ka-In Yen" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
> news:1109117846.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > When you do math, you must not neglect material. Force can
> > not exist alone, force is a result of material structure.
> > Force is vector, material structure is vector too.
>
> No.
> You are drivelling
>
Dear Franz,
Thank you for your comment.
Before the mass of a spring reaches you, you can not
feel the force of the spring. When you interact with
the force of a spring, the mass of the spring interacts
with you; both the force and the mass are vector.
Ka-In Yen
> > Ka-In Yen
> > http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
>
> I just looked at your page:
> http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
>
> I respond to your explicit invitation:
> "If you find any flaws of the mathematical derivation of the theory,
> please kindly advise me; it's grateful "
Dear Tom,
Thank you for reading my paper, and your comment is highly
appreciated.
> Mass (and density) are scalar quantities. To have a directional
> component to mass means that one could achieve negative mass in the
> opposite direction, and that mass would vanish completely in some
> intermediate direction.
When you interact with the force of a spring, the mass of
the spring interacts with you. The force and the mass blend
together, there is no way to separate the force from the mass.
Both the force and the mass of spring are vector.
> There have been many good physicists who have seriously considered
> aether theories, and all have abandoned the idea based on the
Principle
> of Parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor). The 'aether' cannot possess *any*
> measurable physical properties, and empirically exerts no influence
on
> matter or energy that could distinguish it from a total vacuum.
In 1846, Michael Faraday wrote in his paper: The consideration
of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines
of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant
phenomena. http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
Franz Heymann
> tadchem wrote:
> > > Ka-In Yen
> > > http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
> >
> > I just looked at your page:
> > http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
> >
> > I respond to your explicit invitation:
> > "If you find any flaws of the mathematical derivation of the
theory,
> > please kindly advise me; it's grateful "
>
> Dear Tom,
> Thank you for reading my paper, and your comment is highly
> appreciated.
>
> > Mass (and density) are scalar quantities. To have a directional
> > component to mass means that one could achieve negative mass in
the
> > opposite direction, and that mass would vanish completely in some
> > intermediate direction.
>
> When you interact with the force of a spring, the mass of
> the spring interacts with you. The force and the mass blend
> together, there is no way to separate the force from the mass.
> Both the force and the mass of spring are vector.
No.
The problem of the spring with distibuted mass is fully understood in
the case of a spring which obeys ooke's Law.
> In 1846, Michael Faraday wrote in his paper: The consideration
> of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines
> of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant
> phenomena. http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
> It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
You are about 150 years too late.
Have you heard of Maxwell?
Ka-In Yen
> > the spring interacts with you. The force and the mass blend
> > together, there is no way to separate the force from the mass.
> > Both the force and the mass of spring are vector.
>
> No.
> The problem of the spring with distibuted mass is fully understood in
> the case of a spring which obeys ooke's Law.
Dear Franz,
When you do math, you must not neglect material. According
to Hook's law, another equation is derived:
kx^2/2=Mv^2/2 (Potential energy equal to kinetic energy)(1)
M is the mass of a payload, and v is the maximum speed of the
payload.
| MMM
|/////////////MMM
| MMM
fixed end spring payload
But equation(1) is incomplete, the mass of spring is neglected.
We can rewrite it:
kx^2/2=(M+m/3)v'^2/2
m is the mass of spring, v' is the maximum speed of payload,
and v'<v. We can consider this is an example of ether dynamics.
> > In 1846, Michael Faraday wrote in his paper: The consideration
> > of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines
> > of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant
> > phenomena. http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
> > It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
>
> You are about 150 years too late.
> Have you heard of Maxwell?
If my derivation was 150 years earlier, Maxwell would not
give up the lines of force. Maxwell's equation
c=1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) is the key link between electric force
and magnetic force. Below is my decipherment:
c = 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) = sqrt(PE/m) = sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
(For detail, please refer to my site below.)
This beautiful equation mathematically proves that lights
are waves on string. Simplicity is beautiful.
--
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Ka-In Yen" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1111981020....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
> c = 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) = sqrt(PE/m) =
> sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
> (For detail, please refer to my site below.)
>
> This beautiful equation mathematically proves
> that lights are waves on string. Simplicity is
> beautiful.
Christmas lights, maybe. Does this beautiful math describe the
photoelectric effect?
David A. Smith
RP
I took me a minute to figure out what you were saying. This is very
interesting, OTOH, a mathematical relationship does not a cause equal.
Perhaps the linear density is just an artifact of SR??
Richard Perry
OsherD
I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
mass isn't a vector.
Vectors in Euclidean geometry have directions in ordinary language.
For example, when you drive a car or walk in the street or on the
sidewalk, you go in a particular direction with a particular speed, and
that defines a velocity vector v (written in boldface or with an arrow
above it to indicate that it is a vector). Its magnitude is either
written /v/ or v in non-boldface print or without an arrow on top of
it. Since all vectors are parallel to vectors beginning at the origin
(with tails at (0,0,0) in 3-dimensional Euclidean space), any vector in
3-dimensional Euclidean space can be represened as (x, y, z) which is
the vector that starts at the origin (0, 0, 0) where the coordinate
axes meet and has its tip or arrowhead on the point (x, y, z) such that
the perpendicular line segments from the point to the x-axis, y-axis,
and z-axis respectively hit those axes at the points labelled x, y, an
z.
Nobody has found a direction for mass. Weight has a direction
(downward toward the Earth vertically roughly speaking) but weight is a
force or pull of gravity near the Earth for example, and weight = mg (m
times g) where m is mass and g is the acceleration due to gravity. g
is constant near the surface of the Earth more or less. Acceleration
is the change of velocity as time changes, and since velocity is a
vector and time isn't usually taken as a vector, acceleration is a
vector. Since mg already has g as a (relatively constant) vector, mg
doesn't "need" a second "vector m" to have a direction.
If you find a direction for mass, let me know. I have people who will
pay top dollar for it. :>)
Osher
RP
OsherD wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22transverse+mass%22&btnG=Google+Search
Richard Perry
FrediFizzx
news:3apgoeF...@individual.net...
Heck, no wonder we haven't seen the direction. Dang stuff has been
going sideways on us. ;-)
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Ka-In Yen
Dear David,
Thank you for your question. I had the same question when
I was developing this theory. A wave on string is honestly
transported from emitting end to receiving end without
dispersion(Here we neglect the friction of string). It is
differnet from a sound wave.
Ka-In Yen
OsherD wrote:
> >From Osher Doctorow
>
> I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
> mass isn't a vector.
Dear Osher,
Thank you for your e-course of geometry, it's helpfull.
All equations come from material, this is a major difference
between physics and mathematics. If the potential mass of
spring can be confirmed experimentally, the mass of a compressed
spring heavier than the mass of the spring relaxed, than
we should say the physical potential-mass gives the force
a direction.
> If you find a direction for mass, let me know. I have people who
will
> pay top dollar for it. :>)
PLEASE, let me know who are those people.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Ka-In Yen" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1113353849.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear Ka-In Yen:
>
> "Ka-In Yen" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
> news:1111981020....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>> > c = 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) = sqrt(PE/m) =
>> > sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
>> > (For detail, please refer to my site below.)
>> >
>> > This beautiful equation mathematically proves
>> > that lights are waves on string. Simplicity is
>> > beautiful.
>>
>> Christmas lights, maybe. Does this beautiful
>> math describe the photoelectric effect?
> Dear David,
> Thank you for your question. I had the same
> question when was developing this theory.
> A wave on string is honestly transported
> from emitting end to receiving end without
> dispersion(Here we neglect the friction of
> string). It is differnet from a sound wave.
It doesn't describe the photoelectric effect. Two "waves" can
arrive simultaneously, yet not boost an electron. Even though
together they should have enough energy to do so. Waves on
string(s) can be additive.
David A. Smith
Ka-In Yen
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> "Ka-In Yen" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
> news:1113353849.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > question when was developing this theory.
> > A wave on string is honestly transported
> > from emitting end to receiving end without
> > dispersion(Here we neglect the friction of
> > string). It is differnet from a sound wave.
>
> It doesn't describe the photoelectric effect. Two "waves" can
> arrive simultaneously, yet not boost an electron. Even though
> together they should have enough energy to do so. Waves on
> string(s) can be additive.
Dear David,
You ask a good question, and I can not answer your question
in a short time. To add two waves on two strings across an
electron, you have to consider the polarization of light,
the incident angle, and photon-to-electron ration etc.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Ka-In Yen
>
>
> Heck, no wonder we haven't seen the direction. Dang stuff has been
> going sideways on us. ;-)
>
> FrediFizzx
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
> or postscript
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Dear FrediFizzx,
Thank you for the information you provide. Bernoulli's equation
is a fine tool to certify a theory of dynamics. I suggest that
physicists apply Bernoulli's equation to field theory; they can
try their best effort to avoid the ether dynamics.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Ka-In Yen
RP wrote:
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > Franz Heymann wrote:
> >>>It is my great honor to be a successor of Faraday.
> >>
> >>You are about 150 years too late.
> >>Have you heard of Maxwell?
> >
> > If my derivation was 150 years earlier, Maxwell would not
> > give up the lines of force. Maxwell's equation
> > c=1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) is the key link between electric force
> > and magnetic force. Below is my decipherment:
> >
> > c = 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) = sqrt(PE/m) = sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
> > (For detail, please refer to my site below.)
>
> I took me a minute to figure out what you were saying. This is very
> interesting, OTOH, a mathematical relationship does not a cause
equal.
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your comment. It is a high probability that
a flawless derivation has some physical meaning. Beside
the controversive mass-vector, do you find any flaw of
the mathematic derivation of this theory? Your comment is
highly appreciated.
> Perhaps the linear density is just an artifat of SR??
Ka-In Yen
Ka-In Yen wrote:
> OsherD wrote:
> > >From Osher Doctorow
> >
> > I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
> > mass isn't a vector.
>
> Dear Osher,
>
> Thank you for your e-course of geometry, it's helpfull.
> All equations come from material, this is a major difference
> between physics and mathematics. If the potential mass of
> spring can be confirmed experimentally, the mass of a compressed
> spring heavier than the mass of the spring relaxed, than
> we should say the physical potential-mass gives the force
> a direction.
>
>
Dear Osher,
Do you have any further questions? Is mass vector
acceptable? Your comment is highly appreciated.
Ka-In Yen
--
Ka-In Yen
Ka-In Yen wrote:
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >
> > Have you heard of Maxwell?
>
> If my derivation was 150 years earlier, Maxwell would not
> give up the lines of force. Maxwell's equation
> c=1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) is the key link between electric force
> and magnetic force. Below is my decipherment:
>
> c = 1/sqrt(ep_0*mu_0) = sqrt(PE/m) = sqrt(Force/Linear_density)
> (For detail, please refer to my site below.)
>
> This beautiful equation mathematically proves that lights
> are waves on string. Simplicity is beautiful.
>
Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
Do you have any further questions?
Is mass-vector acceptable?
Beside the controversive mass-vector, do you find any
flaws of the mathematic derivation of this theory?
your comment is highly expected.
Ka-In Yen
--
Ka-In Yen
Ka-In Yen wrote:
>
> Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
> Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
>
> Do you have any further questions?
> Is mass-vector acceptable?
> Beside the controversive mass-vector, do you find any
> flaws of the mathematic derivation of this theory?
> your comment is highly expected.
>
Hello guys,
What's the meaning of silence?
Ka-In Yen
Ka-In Yen wrote:
> Dear FrediFizzx,
>
> Thank you for the information you provide. Bernoulli's equation
> is a fine tool to certify a theory of dynamics. I suggest that
> physicists apply Bernoulli's equation to field theory; they can
> try their best effort to avoid the ether dynamics.
Can we derive Bernoulli force from a gas of virtual photons?
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
Paper: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
Home: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
Ka-In Yen
Ka-In Yen wrote:
> OsherD wrote:
> > >From Osher Doctorow
> >
> > I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
> > mass isn't a vector.
>
> Dear Osher,
>
> Thank you for your e-course of geometry, it's helpfull.
> All equations come from material, this is a major difference
> between physics and mathematics. If the potential mass of
> spring can be confirmed experimentally, the mass of a compressed
> spring heavier than the mass of the spring relaxed, than
> we should say the physical potential-mass gives the force
> a direction.
>
The physics of 20th century was incomplete, mass vector
was absent. Einstein's STR was based on an incomplete
physics.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
Bill Hobba
>
> Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > OsherD wrote:
> > > >From Osher Doctorow
> > >
> > > I think that the original author of the thread asked to explain why
> > > mass isn't a vector.
> >
> > Dear Osher,
> >
> > Thank you for your e-course of geometry, it's helpfull.
> > All equations come from material, this is a major difference
> > between physics and mathematics. If the potential mass of
> > spring can be confirmed experimentally, the mass of a compressed
> > spring heavier than the mass of the spring relaxed, than
> > we should say the physical potential-mass gives the force
> > a direction.
> >
>
> The physics of 20th century was incomplete, mass vector
> was absent. Einstein's STR was based on an incomplete
> physics.
Since the STR is based on the POR how it can be made more complete without
going to GR is beyond me.
Bill
yen, ka-in
Ka-In Yen wrote:
> OsherD wrote:
> > >From Osher Doctorow
> > will pay top dollar for it. :>)
>
> PLEASE, let me know who are those people.
Dear Osher,
Do you have any further question? Is mass vector
acceptable? Can I get the said top dollar?
Ka-In Yen
--
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
Paper: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
Home: http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
yen, ka-in
Ka-In Yen wrote:
>
> Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
> Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
>
> Do you have any further questions?
> Is mass-vector acceptable?
> Beside the controversive mass-vector, do you find any
> flaws of the mathematic derivation of this theory?
> your comment is highly expected.
>
SRians always describe themselves to be vastly superior to
crackpots, but the mass vector is beyond their superiority.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
--
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
news:1115696850.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>Ka-In Yen wrote:
>>
>> Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
>> Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
>>
>> Do you have any further questions?
>> Is mass-vector acceptable?
>> Beside the controversive mass-vector, do you find any
>> flaws of the mathematic derivation of this theory?
>> your comment is highly expected.
>>
>
> SRians always describe themselves to be vastly
> superior to crackpots, but the mass vector is
> beyond their superiority.
Look mommy! It is a troll in sheep's clothing...
What's the matter, nobody want to pet your pet theory?
David A. Smith
yen, ka-in
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> news:1115696850.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Ka-In Yen wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
> >> Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
> >>
> > superior to crackpots, but the mass vector is
> > beyond their superiority.
>
> Look mommy! It is a troll in sheep's clothing...
> What's the matter, nobody want to pet your pet theory?
>
Dear David,
Thank you for your comment. The principle of identity
is very important to logic, and logic is the foundation
of science. The principle of identity:
If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
Now let us measure the length of an embankment of a train
station.
1) L0 is the length of the embankment measured by an observer
in the rest frame s0.
(A=B, L0 is A, length of embankment is B)
2) L1 is the length of the embankment measured by an observer
in an inertial frame s1.
(B=C, length of embankment is B, L1 is C)
3) Then L0=L1.
(A=C)
It seems that lenghth contraction is illogical.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"yen, ka-in" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1117849910.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> "yen, ka-in" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
>> news:1115696850.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >Ka-In Yen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
>> >> Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
>> >>
>> > SRians always describe themselves to be vastly
>> > superior to crackpots, but the mass vector is
>> > beyond their superiority.
>>
>> Look mommy! It is a troll in sheep's clothing...
>> What's the matter, nobody want to pet your pet theory?
>
>
>Thank you for your comment. The principle of identity
>is very important to logic, and logic is the foundation
>of science. The principle of identity:
>If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
Rather than your misapplication of logic, why don't you
concentrate on the postulates? What is it about Maxwell's
equations that you disagree with? Because they provide for OWLS
= c, and special relativity only says the laws of physics is the
same for all inertial observers. Maxwell's equations equate to
"laws of physics".
David A. Smith
SOiL
known as the "pole and barn paradox" of Taylor and Wheeler.
However, there are several errors in your statement of the question.
1. There is no "global" frame in which to compare L0 vs L1 as you have
defined them. This is the whole point of introducing special
relativity. If you do the proper Lorentz transform on either L1 or L0 so
that they are in any comparable inertial frame, then you will find L1 and
L0 have equal lenghts. This is entirely consistent with logic.
In the language of relativity this problem wouldn't even arise. The
length of the platform would be described by a 4-Vector
x^u=(ct, r(x,y,z)).
The length squared of this 4-Vector (x^u*x_u) IS the same in any (every)
Lorentz frame.
2. Also, lengths are not statements of logic, they are not statements
which are interpreted as either true or false. They are physical
quantites. Indeed, A=C&B=C -> A=B is a theorem of mathematics, where
A,B,C are statements. This theorem is also held to be true in all
physical arguments, including those of SR. Nevertheless this has no
implications for the laws of physics. It does not imply that you can
compare the value of a quantity in one system with the value measured
from some different system.
This is most often seen in the Hamiltonian or total energy. The
Hamiltonian is not identical in all inertial frames. Not even in
classical physics with Galilean relitivity. The Hamiltonian depends on
the particular coordinates of the problem. However the laws of physics
arising from the Hamiltonian are the same in every frame and this is what
is important. This idea is one of the 2 postulates of special
relativity. It is true in classical as well as modern physics.
"yen, ka-in" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in
news:1117849910.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
yen, ka-in
SOiL wrote:
> This is a relativity FAQ. You can find alot of writing on this, it's
> known as the "pole and barn paradox" of Taylor and Wheeler.
>
Dear SOiL,
Thank you for the information you provide, it's helpful.
> However, there are several errors in your statement of the question.
>
> 1. There is no "global" frame in which to compare L0 vs L1 as you have
> defined them. This is the whole point of introducing special
> relativity. If you do the proper Lorentz transform on either L1 or L0 so
"The proper Lorentz transform on either L1 or L0" is redundant.
> that they are in any comparable inertial frame, then you will find L1 and
> L0 have equal lenghts. This is entirely consistent with logic.
>
> 2. Also, lengths are not statements of logic, they are not statements
> which are interpreted as either true or false. They are physical
> quantites. Indeed, A=C&B=C -> A=B is a theorem of mathematics, where
> A,B,C are statements. This theorem is also held to be true in all
> physical arguments, including those of SR. Nevertheless this has no
> implications for the laws of physics. It does not imply that you can
> compare the value of a quantity in one system with the value measured
> from some different system.
We can prove L1=L0. Please refer to my site
(http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee), the article
entitled "How to correct measure an unknown length
with a clock". Although L1 and L0 are measured by
different observers in different frames, but we can
compare them and L1 is equal to L0.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
If you find any flaw of my theory
(http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html), please
kindly advise me.
Ka-In Yen
yen, ka-in wrote:
> SOiL wrote:
> > 2. Also, lengths are not statements of logic, they are not statements
> > which are interpreted as either true or false. They are physical
> > quantites. Indeed, A=C&B=C -> A=B is a theorem of mathematics, where
> > A,B,C are statements. This theorem is also held to be true in all
> > physical arguments, including those of SR. Nevertheless this has no
> > implications for the laws of physics. It does not imply that you can
> > compare the value of a quantity in one system with the value measured
> > from some different system.
>
> We can prove L1=L0. Please refer to my site
> (http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee), the article
> entitled "How to correct measure an unknown length
> with a clock". Although L1 and L0 are measured by
> different observers in different frames, but we can
> compare them and L1 is equal to L0.
>
Dear SOiL,
Do you have any further questions?
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
If you find any flaw of the theory, please kindly advise me.
--
bryan...@yahoo.com
yen, ka-in wrote:
>
> Ka-In Yen
> Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
> If you find any flaw of my theory
> (http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html), please
> kindly advise me.
>
look here, people have been trying to "kindly advise" you, but as far
as i can see you have not taken heed to any of the discussion that you
have had with other people, you are just claiming, they are wrong or
don't undestand you, and that you maintain the position that you are
constantly right. from reading your posts, i can't even see that you
have a good understanding of the most basic of physics concepts. like
amss vector, what the hell is that? mass is a scalar quantity, anf F is
a vector not because m is vector but because a is a vector. if both m
and a are vectors what the hell is ma then?
you are just another silly, proud, person with a houlier-than-thou
attitude, looking for attention. in other words, you are a crackpot.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<bryan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118195884.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> yen, ka-in wrote:
>>
>> Ka-In Yen
>> Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
>> If you find any flaw of my theory
>> (http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html), please
>> kindly advise me.
>
> look here, people have been trying to "kindly advise" you,
> but as far as i can see you have not taken heed to any
> of the discussion that you have had with other people,
> you are just claiming, they are wrong or don't
> undestand you, and that you maintain the position that
> you are constantly right. from reading your posts, i
> can't even see that you have a good understanding of
> the most basic of physics concepts. like amss vector,
> what the hell is that? mass is a scalar quantity, anf F
> is a vector not because m is vector but because a is
> a vector. if both m and a are vectors what the hell is
> ma then?
>
> you are just another silly, proud, person with a
> houlier-than-thou attitude, looking for attention. in
> other words, you are a crackpot.
And the truth shall set you free...
You must be a carpenter, because you hit the nail *right* on the
head. Good work.
David A. Smith
yen, ka-in
> Thank you for your comment. The principle of identity
> is very important to logic, and logic is the foundation
> of science. The principle of identity:
> If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
In most web site, it's call transitivity, except the
book I read? I am trying to contact the author of the
book.
>
> Now let us measure the length of an embankment of a train
> station.
>
> 1) L0 is the length of the embankment measured by an observer
> in the rest frame s0.
> (A=B, L0 is A, length of embankment is B)
>
> 2) L1 is the length of the embankment measured by an observer
> in an inertial frame s1.
> (B=C, length of embankment is B, L1 is C)
>
> 3) Then L0=L1.
> (A=C)
>
> It seems that lenghth contraction is illogical.
Hello guys,
Can you help me analysis the length contraction.
Syllogism:
Science is logical.
Length contraction is illogical.
Therefore, length contraction is not science.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics.
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
--
aa
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"yen, ka-in" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1118365584.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
> Hello guys,
>
> Can you help me analysis the length contraction.
>
> Syllogism:
>
> Science is logical.
Not really. Science employs logic. It is therefore more than
just "logical".
> Length contraction is illogical.
Not really. Length contraction is in agreement with experiment.
> Therefore, length contraction is not science.
Better:
Therefore, provincial application of "logic" is not in agreement
with all experimental results obtained.
David A. Smith
yen, ka-in
bryan...@yahoo.com wrote:
> yen, ka-in wrote:
> >
> > Ka-In Yen
> > Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics
> > If you find any flaw of my theory
> > (http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html), please
> > kindly advise me.
> >
>
> look here, people have been trying to "kindly advise" you, but as far
> as i can see you have not taken heed to any of the discussion that you
> have had with other people, you are just claiming, they are wrong or
> don't undestand you, and that you maintain the position that you are
> constantly right. from reading your posts, i can't even see that you
Dear Bryant_j_j,
Your comment is highly appreciated. All theories have
to be tested by experiment. At the present stage, I am
trying to confirm the flawless of the mathematic derivation
of the theory, and thanks for everybody's help.
Beside the controversive mass vector, do you find any
flaw of the theory? your comment is highly expected.
> have a good understanding of the most basic of physics concepts. like
> amss vector, what the hell is that? mass is a scalar quantity, anf F is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Frankly speaking, I am not sure. For a wave on string:
tau=mu*v^2 (tau is tension, mu is linear mass density,
and v is wave velocity).
It seems that the linear mass density is vector.
> a vector not because m is vector but because a is a vector. if both m
> and a are vectors what the hell is ma then?
>
> you are just another silly, proud, person with a houlier-than-thou
> attitude, looking for attention. in other words, you are a crackpot.
>
>
> > > >> >Ka-In Yen wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
> > > >> >> Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > SRians always describe themselves to be vastly
> > > >> > superior to crackpots, but the mass vector is
> > > >> > beyond their superiority.
I provoked them, but they kept silence; it's a method
to confirm the flawless of the theory, not the best method.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli force of ether dynamics.
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"yen, ka-in" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:1119229006....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
> >> Dear Franz Heymann, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al,
> >> Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
>
> I provoked them, but they kept silence; it's a method
> to confirm the flawless of the theory, not the best method.
You are lying. You had responses. Franz Heymann died. But you
are too busy feeling sorry for yourself, you feel you can spew on
anyone.
Goodbye.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
yen, ka-in
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>
> "yen, ka-in" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
> news:1119229006....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > >> Eric Gisse, tj Frazir, noapam, Tom Davidson,
> >
> > I provoked them, but they kept silence; it's a method
> > to confirm the flawless of the theory, not the best method.
>
> You are lying. You had responses. Franz Heymann died. But you
I am very sorry to hear that. It's a very good experience
to dialog with Franz Heymann. His absent is a great loss
to us.
Ka-In Yen
yen, ka-in
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear yen, ka-in:
>
> "yen, ka-in" <yen...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
> news:1117849910.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Thank you for your comment. The principle of identity
> >is very important to logic, and logic is the foundation
> >of science. The principle of identity:
> >If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>
> Rather than your misapplication of logic, why don't you
> concentrate on the postulates? What is it about Maxwell's
Dear David,
Thank you for your comment. Einstein suggest that photon
is massless, but according Poincare's derivation the mass
of photon is m=E/c^2. please refer to
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einx.htm
> equations that you disagree with? Because they provide for OWLS
^^^^^^^^
Lines of force vs field.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics.
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee/mdb2.html
yen, ka-in
> bryan...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > look here, people have been trying to "kindly advise" you, but as far
> > as i can see you have not taken heed to any of the discussion that you
> > have had with other people, you are just claiming, they are wrong or
> > don't undestand you, and that you maintain the position that you are
> > constantly right. from reading your posts, i can't even see that you
>
> Dear Bryant_j_j,
> flaw of the theory?
Dear Bryant_j_j,
Do you have any further question?
> > have a good understanding of the most basic of physics concepts. like
> > amss vector, what the hell is that? mass is a scalar quantity, anf F is
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Frankly speaking, I am not sure. For a wave on string:
>
> tau=mu*v^2 (tau is tension, mu is linear mass density,
> and v is wave velocity).
>
> It seems that the linear mass density is vector.
Is mass vector acceptable? Your comment is highly expected.
Ka-In Yen
Magnetic force: Drag and Bernoulli of ether dynamics.
http://www.geocities.com/redlorikee
>
> > a vector not because m is vector but because a is a vector. if both m
> > and a are vectors what the hell is ma then?
> >
>> >>Ka-In Yen wrote:
>> >> Dear Bjoern Feuerbacher, Uncle Al, Bryant_j_j, David A. Smith,