Commensurable Gravitational Masses and Variations G
Aleksandr Timofeev
balance method), the source masses most often used were very large in
order to amplify the weak effect being measured. This is the only
practical reason why physicists have not yet measured the gravity
between equal masses. In related literature, we have not found any
determination of G by using equal, or nearly equal interactive masses.
To date, the use of commensurable masses to determine gravitational
effect have not been done, until now":
===============================================================
Ignore, Top Secret, Eyes Only, Do Not copy, Burn before Reading
===============================================================
With large surprise I has found out, that the hypocrites
confidentially inspecting USENET subject to censorship and
edit a stream of the messages in nonmoderated conferences.
In the given particular case they automatically cut off a part
of the message, if message is contained the references on sites
" by them prohibited ".
For this reason I have made the reference to the full and not spoilt
text of the initial message:
Only http://groups.google.com/ contains all messages of this thread,
which have the not spoilt original text.
Uncle Al
>
> "In the usual laboratory measurements of gravity (based on the torsion
> balance method), the source masses most often used were very large in
> order to amplify the weak effect being measured.
Short range inverse square measurements (micron and smaller gaps) use
micromachined silicon cantilevers weighing micrograms. Is a microgram
test mass "very large?" Macroscopic short range inverse square
(millimeter gap) apparatus has gram test masses. How "very large" is
a few grams?
[snip the tar baby given the dead straw man]
> To date, the use of commensurable masses to determine gravitational
> effect have not been done, until now":
Bullshit. Dicke's classic experiment of active vs passive
gravitational mass of a teflon weight in brominated solvent of the
same density used nearly identical masses cantu and respondu. Eotvos
torsion balance test masses weigh a few grams each and are adjusted to
be identical in mass to no more than +/- one microgram deviation.
[snip]
If you want to muck with gravitation you cannot do it inside the box
because the math is self-consistent. You cannot disprove Euclid, you
cannot square a circle using a straightedge and compass, you cannot
break Einstein. However, if you go outside the box... Euclid falls to
elliptic and hyperbolic geometries (violation of Euclid's Fifth
Postulate). Circles are trivially squared with quadratix curves
(higher order curves whereas a straightedge and compass are strictly
quadratic).
All metric theories of gravitation including General Relativity
postulate continuous symmetries. One then falsifies orthodox
gravitation by attacking it *outside* the box - with discontinuous
symmetries,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Discontinuous symmetry test masses have *never* been examined in the
400 years of recorded gravitational testing. One stands amazed that
the obvious had never been exercised. It's so simple a chemist could
do it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Randy Poe
> With large surprise I has found out, that the hypocrites
> confidentially inspecting USENET subject to censorship and
> edit a stream of the messages in nonmoderated conferences.
There's no one central node for Usenet any more than there
is for any other internet protocol. Where would these
censors sit?
> For this reason I have made the reference to the full and not spoilt
> text of the initial message:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=e16a4a22.0201100552.6b7f6374%40posting.google.com
>
> Only http://groups.google.com/ contains all messages of this thread,
> which have the not spoilt original text.
Google is certainly not at the center of Usenet. They've
got an NNTP newsreader just like my ISP and yours.
- Randy
Stephen Speicher
>
> ===============================================================
> Ignore, Top Secret, Eyes Only, Do Not copy, Burn before Reading
> ===============================================================
>
> With large surprise I has found out, that the hypocrites
> confidentially inspecting USENET subject to censorship and
> edit a stream of the messages in nonmoderated conferences.
> In the given particular case they automatically cut off a part
> of the message, if message is contained the references on sites
> " by them prohibited ".
>
Aleksandr, I think I can safely assert that the CIA and the (new)
KGB really have no interest in your ideas about gravity. I think
you might search for a more rational explanation than believing
that some secretive people have expunged from your post part of
your message for some nefarious reason.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
tj Frazir
same size wile the energy filling space expands .
Gravity is a push into the low that forms around mass as the energy of
the big bang still expands,
((((((((The reaction time is slower out in space than near earth.
))))))))))) A mile of fuse takes less time one earth where the energy
rate of space is less. Space is not bent Einstien,,,,
its from one energy rate to less as the universe is energy under
presure. The faster the nucleus spins ,,the more space time it takes up
and the more intence its waves.
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<3C51A177...@atl.lmco.com>...
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> > With large surprise I has found out, that the hypocrites
> > confidentially inspecting USENET subject to censorship and
> > edit a stream of the messages in nonmoderated conferences.
>
> There's no one central node for Usenet any more than there
> is for any other internet protocol. Where would these
> censors sit?
The technical project on the project of architecture of a web
contained the requirement of monitoring of streams of the
information in net points - so-called proxy servers.
The censors sit on proxy servers. The censor is not always man,
the censor is the special program as a rule.
There are two examples:
On the site:
http://open-news.pacbell.net/
all messages of this thread are excluded.
On the site:
http://wnews.easyusenet.com/
there are no part of the messages of this thread and the present
part of my messages of this thread is spoilt.
>
> > For this reason I have made the reference to the full and not spoilt
> > text of the initial message:
> >
> >
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=e16a4a22.0201100552.6b7f6374%40posting.google.com
> >
> > Only http://groups.google.com/ contains all messages of this thread,
> > which have the not spoilt original text.
>
> Google is certainly not at the center of Usenet. They've
> got an NNTP newsreader just like my ISP and yours.
In the given architecture of a web there is no center,
but there is an administrative resource:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1484052686d&hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=e16a4a22.0110110300.13776696%40posting.google.com&rnum=77
The part of this message is located below:
===========================================================================
[snip]
Dear Steve Carlip,
Other approach to a problem of quantization in a gravitation is
shown below.
This approach leans on exotic empirical representation of
experimental data for values of masses of the Solar system and that
one has in the basis the methodological approach and historical
analog as the Kepler's Laws.
This phenomenon has not the physical interpretation within the
framework of the existing theories of a gravitation.
In this exotic empirical representation of experimental data for
values of masses of the Solar system:
MASS IS UNIQUE PHYSICAL "VARIABLE",
I.E. THE GIVEN APPROACH ALLOWS TO EXCLUDE FROM CONSIDERATION
PHYSICAL VARIABLES FOR SPACE And TIME!
EXCEPT THAT GIVEN APPROACH REMOVES DEGENERATION FOR
GRAVITATIONAL MASS, SINCE HERE EXISTENCE OF GROUPS CONSISTING
FROM FOUR GRAVITATIONAL BODIES IS DEMONSTRATED IN AN OBVIOUS KIND.
THE ABSENCE of OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM FROM OF RELATIVITISTS
And IGNORING BY RELATIVITISTS OF THE GIVEN EXPERIMENTAL PHENOMENON
IS THE DIRECT PROOF, THAT the GIVEN EXPERIMENTAL PHENOMENON IS the
MORTAL SENTENCE FOR THEIR THEORY.
Now in next time the relativitists will give to my Internet provider
the order to disconnect me from a Internet on a half of a year or
even longer, that they made already many times.
Hey guys lean on me!
[snip]
===========================================================================
> - Randy
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<Pine.LNX.4.10.102012...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>...
> On 25 Jan 2002, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
>
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > Ignore, Top Secret, Eyes Only, Do Not copy, Burn before Reading
> > ===============================================================
> >
> > With large surprise I has found out, that the hypocrites
> > confidentially inspecting USENET subject to censorship and
> > edit a stream of the messages in nonmoderated conferences.
> > In the given particular case they automatically cut off a part
> > of the message, if message is contained the references on sites
> > " by them prohibited ".
> >
>
> Aleksandr, I think I can safely assert that the CIA and the (new)
> KGB really have no interest in your ideas about gravity. I think
> you might search for a more rational explanation than believing
> that some secretive people have expunged from your post part of
> your message for some nefarious reason.
Stephen you are mistaken in your suppositions. At the end of 1996
and the beginning 1997 I had a series of meetings with the representative
NASA and/or CIA in the Moscow embassy. I even have received proposal to
work in USA. But to my good luck all was spoiled by one my answer to his
question on my estimation of the conventional theory of a gravitation.
I have answered with one word - "delirium". After such answer our pleasant
interchanging of judgements was stopped. (From character of these
conversations I have understood, that CIA has bought my file at new
" KGB ". The old KGB conducted my file with 1972.)
=================================================================
After rather continuous time to me the understanding has come, that the
Gravitation is not science and that the Gravitation is ideological dogma
of the golden calf, ensuring the far-reaching political purposes. This
situation will be saved so long as from a new Gravitation will not become
to develop new military process engineerings.
=================================================================
By the way the old KGB does not differ from new "KGB" by anything.
New "KGB" is branch MI6 and CIA. Andropov has headed KGB in sixtieth.
Already in that time Andropov was the agent MI6 and CIA, Andropov had 33
degrees. He executed the orders of West, MI6 and CIA, which Bronfman from
Canada brought to him in Moscow.
For more information see books written by Antony C. Sutton. For example:
How the Order creates War and Revolution. Research Publications Inc., 1984
Phoenix, Arizona, 106 p. ISBN 0-914981-02-1
See also book written by John Kolleman.
I had very large problems from new "KGB" both they and "others"
"look after" me till now. From "others" (those who is higher KGB and
whom it covers) I had large problems with health. Now you will put to me
the diagnosis: " persecution mania ". Do not worry now, I am in the full
order while...
Gordon D. Pusch
That was because they rightfully concluded at that point that you were a
total wingnut.
Aleksandr Timofeev
Can you give the solid and in-depth substantiation of your point of view
about "a total wingnut"? ;-))
In thanks for your hard transactions
I shall do experimentally justified
in boundaries of the solar system a refutation
of a principle of equivalence of gravitational and inert
masses, which for anyone before eyes 20 years lie,
but nobody in a state to see that one (the Old One,
the Old Serpent for GTR).
Gordon D. Pusch
> Can you give the solid and in-depth substantiation of your point of view
> about "a total wingnut"? ;-))
The fact that you continue to pursue a Dead-on-Arrival pseudo-theory.
> In thanks for your hard transactions I shall do experimentally justified
> in boundaries of the solar system a refutation of a principle of
> equivalence of gravitational and inert masses, which for anyone before
> eyes 20 years lie, but nobody in a state to see that one (the Old One,
> the Old Serpent for GTR).
That will certainly be an interesting trick, given that Roll, Krotkov, and
Dicke verfied it to one part in 10^11 in 1964, Braginsky and Panov verified
it to one part in 10^12 in 1971, and Adelberger et al. verified it to one
part in 10^13 in 1999. The fact the you are either unaware of these
experimental results or refuse to acknowledge them is simply one more piece
of evidence that you are a total wingnut.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Aleksandr Timofeev
> a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
>
> > Can you give the solid and in-depth substantiation of your point of view
> > about "a total wingnut"? ;-))
>
> The fact that you continue to pursue a Dead-on-Arrival pseudo-theory.
Where is here of particular critic.
I see here only unbalance of a nervous system.
>
> > In thanks for your hard transactions I shall do experimentally justified
> > in boundaries of the solar system a refutation of a principle of
> > equivalence of gravitational and inert masses, which for anyone before
> > eyes 20 years lie, but nobody in a state to see that one (the Old One,
> > the Old Serpent for GTR).
>
> That will certainly be an interesting trick, given that Roll, Krotkov, and
> Dicke verfied it to one part in 10^11 in 1964, Braginsky and Panov verified
> it to one part in 10^12 in 1971
I am familiar personally with V. B. Braginsky . His (not public)
judgement diametrically differs from yours.
> , and Adelberger et al. verified it to one
> part in 10^13 in 1999. The fact the you are either unaware of these
> experimental results or refuse to acknowledge them is simply one more piece
> of evidence that you are a total wingnut.
I repeat again:
In thanks for your hard transactions I shall do experimentally
justified
in boundaries of the solar system a refutation of a principle of
equivalence of gravitational and inert masses, which for anyone before
eyes 20 years lie, but nobody in a state to see that the Old One,
the Old Serpent for GTR.
Uncle Al
>
> gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<gilme5p...@pusch.xnet.com>...
> > a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
> >
> > > Can you give the solid and in-depth substantiation of your point of view
> > > about "a total wingnut"? ;-))
> >
> > The fact that you continue to pursue a Dead-on-Arrival pseudo-theory.
> I repeat again:
>
> In thanks for your hard transactions I shall do experimentally
> justified
> in boundaries of the solar system a refutation of a principle of
> equivalence of gravitational and inert masses, which for anyone before
> eyes 20 years lie, but nobody in a state to see that the Old One,
> the Old Serpent for GTR.
Nordtvedt effect; disproven by lunar laser ranging. You are a
wingnut, a crackpot, a crank, and an ineducable dunce repeating the
same Dead On Arrival spew despite overwhelming empirical observation
to the contrary.
Observation limits Equivalence Principle divergence to a few parts in
ten trillion, and then only (presumptively) for extreme chiral
mirror-image materials (which have never been examined as a class),
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
The proper test of geometric spacetime is geometry not composition.
Gordon D. Pusch
> I repeat again:
>
> In thanks for your hard transactions I shall do experimentally
> justified
> in boundaries of the solar system a refutation of a principle of
> equivalence of gravitational and inert masses, which for anyone before
> eyes 20 years lie, but nobody in a state to see that the Old One,
> the Old Serpent for GTR.
Since you are repeating yourself, and since you clearly have nothing
intelligent to say, it is obviously time to KILLfile you.
<*PLONK*>
Aleksandr Timofeev
> a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
>
> > Can you give the solid and in-depth substantiation of your point of
> > view about "a total wingnut"? ;-))
>
> The fact that you continue to pursue a Dead-on-Arrival pseudo-theory.
Since you are repeating yourself,
I intuitively suppose, and I have on that one the quite reliable
foundation, since you have solid educational base and advanced
intelligence, you obviously have something clever,reasonable and
intelligent to say, it is obviously time to do that one.
> > In thanks for your hard transactions I shall do experimentally justified
> > in boundaries of the solar system a refutation of a principle of
> > equivalence of gravitational and inert masses, which for anyone before
> > eyes 20 years lie, but nobody in a state to see that one (the Old One,
> > the Old Serpent for GTR).
>
> That will certainly be an interesting trick, given that Roll, Krotkov,
> and Dicke verfied it to one part in 10^11 in 1964, Braginsky and Panov
> verified it to one part in 10^12 in 1971,
> and Adelberger et al. verified it to one
> part in 10^13 in 1999. The fact the you are either unaware of these
> experimental results or refuse to acknowledge them
For the beginning look the publications during 1986 in
"The Physical Review Letters" about an improvement
of Eotvos's experimental outcomes.
I am familiar personally with V. B. Braginsky . His (not public)
judgement diametrically differs from yours.
At the end of 1996 Vladimir Braginsky has told me following words,
I bring them literally: " Aleksandr, whether you know what there are:
two gravitational constants, distinguishing on value?
One value of the gravitational constant is obtained
for measurements on the Earth,
other value of the gravitational constant is obtained for
measurements outside of the Earth. "
"There exist (as V.B. Braginsky pointed out) two gravity
constants - one is determined on the Earth and the other
by celestial mechanics methods."
See:
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/e3.htm
Here in the vulgar form and shape (on fingers), I shall state main
idea of interpretation of this phenomenon. I shall do a correct
account of a refutation of a principle of equivalence on the basis
of the data of the International Astronomical Union later.
Let's make physical interpretation of existence of various values of
gravitational constants. The gravitational constant for the Earth is
measured for small scales of values of masses and space. The value of
a gravitational constant from measurements outside of the Earth is
obtained for large scales of values of masses and space. Because of
existence of various values of gravitational constants we should assume
existence of a non-linear function for gravitational "constant" from an
amount of substance. By definition the amount of substance is inert mass.
Thus we come to a conclusion - because of existence of a non-linear
function for gravitational "constant" from value of an amount of
substance, gravitational mass owes should differ from inert mass for
the same body.
For deep understanding of the further account it is necessary to you
to understand importance of a physical significance " of the empirical
corrections " in the theories of a celestial mechanics.
The Old Serpent of a refutation of a principle of equivalence is
hidden in details " of the empirical corrections " in the theories
of a celestial mechanics:
3.The reliability of the input data
3.1 Inner precision of celestial mechanics
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/e3.htm
Homework 1. Now you can try to give physical interpretation of
anomaly with Pioner 10 and Pioner 11.
Homework 2. Now you can try to give physical interpretation
of anomaly of the Mercury's perihelion. ;-)
> is simply one more piece of evidence that you are a total wingnut.
My friend, be more tolerant to ideas of other persons, be more soft.
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<3C62BB13...@hate.spam.net>...
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> > gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message
news:<gilme5p...@pusch.xnet.com>...
> > > a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:
> > >
> > > > Can you give the solid and in-depth substantiation of your point of
view
> > > > about "a total wingnut"? ;-))
> > >
> > > The fact that you continue to pursue a Dead-on-Arrival pseudo-theory.
> [snip]
>
> > I repeat again:
> >
> > In thanks for your hard transactions I shall do experimentally
> > justified
> > in boundaries of the solar system a refutation of a principle of
> > equivalence of gravitational and inert masses, which for anyone before
> > eyes 20 years lie, but nobody in a state to see that the Old One,
> > the Old Serpent for GTR.
>
> Nordtvedt effect; disproven by lunar laser ranging.
Dear my friend, they deceive you by the most unscrupulous mode.
Let's forgive of deceivers and let's not give to deceivers a lot
of attention.
Dear my friend, let's be constructive and specific.
What methods of measurements of values of masses of celestial bodies
exist?
Let's be the followers of a Eotvos.
1. How to measure pure gravitational mass of a celestial body?
2. How to measure pure inert mass of a celestial body? ;-)
3. How to separate pure gravitational mass from pure inert mass
of the same celestial body in case of the mixed measurement? ;-)
> You are a
> wingnut, a crackpot, a crank, and an ineducable dunce repeating the
> same Dead On Arrival spew despite overwhelming empirical observation
> to the contrary.
Dear my friend, I assume, that it is necessary to you more often to
be on the fresh air, it is very very useful for health.
>
> Observation limits Equivalence Principle divergence to a few parts in
> ten trillion, and then only (presumptively) for extreme chiral
> mirror-image materials (which have never been examined as a class),
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> The proper test of geometric spacetime is geometry not composition.
On the Earth there are a lot of strong noise of a various physical
nature, it especially is important for a case considered by you.
Measurable quantity of your effects will sink in noise.
In space the value of noise of a various physical nature is essential
less, than energy of interaction of celestial bodies.
I work in VLBI laboratory, VLBI exists at the expense of noise.
---
Sincerely yours,
Ant --- in comparison with Uncle Al
P.S.
How do you understand " of the empirical corrections " in the theories
of a celestial mechanics from the physical point of view?
It seems to me, that the Old Serpent of a refutation of a principle
of equivalence is hidden in details " of the empirical corrections "
in the theories of a celestial mechanics:
3.The reliability of the input data
3.1 Inner precision of celestial mechanics
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/e3.htm
What your judgements are?
Patrick I Taylor
> Can you give the solid and in-depth substantiation of your point of view
> about "a total wingnut"? ;-))
> In thanks for your hard transactions
> I shall do experimentally justified
> in boundaries of the solar system a refutation
> of a principle of equivalence of gravitational and inert
> masses, which for anyone before eyes 20 years lie,
> but nobody in a state to see that one (the Old One,
> the Old Serpent for GTR).
I don't think anyone could do quite such a bang-up job as this.
Pt
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<3C645FA3...@nortelnetworks.com>...
motivation, can make it, since all necessary experimental information
for a solution of the problem is already accumulated, the time for
gathering the crop has occurred now.
You can try to give new physical interpretation
of anomaly of the Mercury's perihelion, or
you can try to give new physical interpretation of
anomaly with Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 ...
The Old Serpent of a refutation of the principle of equivalence is
hidden in details " of the empirical corrections " in the theories
of a celestial mechanics:
3.The reliability of the input data
3.1 Inner precision of celestial mechanics
http://www.friends-partners.org/~russeds/unknown/astrochem/e3.htm
Lou Verdon
...correction...
The molecular surface occurs at the locus of equal flux density
between the molecular surface and the surface approximated by the
^^^^^^^^^
limit of the domain of EM radiation for the Hubble space
telescope. These two surfaces are equivalent Schwarzschild
surfaces, and the singularities that plague the Penrose / Hawking
paradigm are in fact the merging and emerging of these surfaces
as matter or energy is created or annihilated in equal and
opposite quantities in the domains on either side of the
Schwarzschild surfaces.
Should read...
The molecular surface occurs at the locus of equal flux density
between the nuclear surface and the surface approximated by the
^^^^^^^
limit of the domain of EM radiation for the Hubble space
telescope. These two surfaces are equivalent Schwarzschild
surfaces, and the singularities that plague the Penrose / Hawking
paradigm are in fact the merging and emerging of these surfaces
as matter or energy is created or annihilated in equal and
opposite quantities in the domains on either side of the
Schwarzschild surfaces.
Lou
--
Aleksandr Timofeev
conferences.
For this reason the part of the messages of the participants of
the given controversy is lost. Please, If you want to have the
answers to your messages and if you want archiving your
messages send them by means of:
In this case I send again Lou Verdon's lost message, which I
have found out on another of a news server:
============ Start of mesage =============================
Subject: Re: Commensurable Gravitational Masses and Variations G
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 20:15:31 -0500
From: lve...@uwo.ca (Lou Verdon)
Organization: The University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Canada
MsgId: <zgHZ8odQ...@uwo.ca>
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro
References:
<e16a4a22.02012...@posting.google.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.10.102012...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>
<e16a4a22.02020...@posting.google.com>
<giadung...@pusch.xnet.com>
<e16a4a22.02020...@posting.google.com>
<gilme5p...@pusch.xnet.com>
<e16a4a22.02020...@posting.google.com>
From: Lou Verdon Subject: Re: Commensurable Gravitational Masses and
Variations G
In article <e16a4a22.02020...@posting.google.com>,
a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote:
....
> At the end of 1996 Vladimir Braginsky has told me following words,
>I bring them literally: " Aleksandr, whether you know what there are:
> two gravitational constants, distinguishing on value?
The Newtonian gravitational constant is derived from the Poisson
canonical algorithm for the relationship of forces with respect
to separation interval. This canon is incorrect, but is very
easily corrected.
The conventional algorithm characterizes the ratio of forces with
respect to separation interval as the area of the spheres for
which the separation distance is the radius. The corrected
algorithm characterizes the ratio of forces as the area of the
same spheres less the area of the polar or equatorial plane of
the nuclear material of the matter affected by the force.
This algorithm correctly characterizes both the strong and the
electroweak forces. The substitution of the corrected algorithm
in the calculation of the Schwarzschild radius approximates the
nuclear radius.
The molecular surface occurs at the locus of equal flux density
between the molecular surface and the surface approximated by the
limit of the domain of EM radiation for the Hubble space
telescope. These two surfaces are equivalent Schwarzschild
surfaces, and the singularities that plague the Penrose / Hawking
paradigm are in fact the merging and emerging of these surfaces
as matter or energy is created or annihilated in equal and
opposite quantities in the domains on either side of the
Schwarzschild surfaces.
The electrical potential of the molecular surface with respect to
any Schwarzschild surface is the potential for the equivalence of
the strong and the electroweak forces, already well known to be
10^26 units of emf. The intrinsic energy of mass can be
calculated using this electrical pressure and the conventional
Poisson canon.
Gravitation is a function of the average path length for ultra-
low frequency EM radiation in the Domain of EM radiation limited
by Schwarzschild surfaces. Irwin Shapiro has already correctly
characterized gravity in these terms.
Try these calculations for yourself. They work perfectly and
explain the relativistic Lagrangian (i.e. the difference in the
sum of the potential and kinetic energy in any relativistic
transformation) as the energy of compression for the nuclear
material.
> One value of the gravitational constant is obtained
>for measurements on the Earth,
> other value of the gravitational constant is obtained for
>measurements outside of the Earth. "
The difference is the gravitational potential. Use the corrected
cannon to calculate the radii for nuclear material within the
gravity well and the energy of compression and you need only one
gravitational constant for the entire universe and all states of
spacetime curvature within the GR paradigm. Space and time are
Newtonian (flat) when the corrected algorithm is employed.
Spacetime curvature is more an anomaly created by the use of the
conventional Poisson canonical algorithm than an attribute of the
universe.
The recently discovered "dark energy" reported in the mainstream
literature is measured as an increase in velocity for objects as
they approach the limit of the range of the HST. This increase
in velocity is in fact a function of Earnshaw's theorem and
results in an equivalent reduction of velocity for all objects
less close to the Schwarzschild surface. At the instant of
annihilation, all observers will measure the velocity of the
annihilated object to be c. The CMBR comes from such events and
is known to issue from this surface.
This hypothesis predicts an electrically induced time dilation of
1 part in the electrical potential for the equivalence of the
strong and the electroweak forces per unit change in isotropic
emf. This can be tested in an rotating tethered satellite
experiment in which high voltage generators are installed along
the tether. The needed potential difference will be 10^26 /
10^15 where 10^26 is the electrical potential for the equivalence
of the strong and the electroweak forces and 1 / 10^15 is the
resolution limit for conventional atomic clocks.
If the hypothesis is correct, the brilliant work of Irwin
Shapiro, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and Alan Guth will
finally be resolved into a single unified theory that describes
both the strong and the electroweak forces in the same terms.
....
Lou
--
hanson
news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
or > From: lve...@uwo.ca (Lou Verdon) or some Vladimir
> This thread is subjected to _censorship_ in _nonmoderated_
> conferences.
No cenorship, just ISP slip-up, web-leak, net-hole or paranoia.
Things do get lost even in cyberspace, especially me about your
shop talk which I would love to be able to follow.
So, one of you says:
> > there are two gravitational constants, distinguishing on value
Are you talking about G (~6.6E-8 cm^3/(grs^2) and g (980 cm/s^2)
or have you seen or invented one or 2 new ones?
What are you referring to?
Then you continue to talk apparently about
F = G mM/r^2, hence G = Fr^2/mM,
and you say
> The Newtonian gravitational constant is derived from the Poisson
> canonical algorithm for the relationship of forces with respect
> to separation interval.
> This canon is incorrect, but is very easily corrected.
> The conventional algorithm characterizes the ratio of forces with
> respect to separation interval as the area of the spheres for
> which the separation distance is the radius.
To me, the above Newton equation does not say anything about force RATIOS.
I can't see in it anywhere that it specifies the shape or anything else
about the condition or properties of the masses m and/or M.
To me it simply states:
There is a force acting between two masses m & M which is dependent on the
distance^2 between m & M and proportional to a constant G.
With that in mind, I ask:
How do you arrive WITHOUT experiment at the assumption or conclusion,
that the above equation must be incorrect?
Let us in on your mysterious investigative process, please.
Now, could you explain your post again to me/us non mathematicians, but
only using terms of elementary, basic algebra, without canons or algorithms
and other higher math-concept definitions?
In particular, actually the only thing I am really interested in is:
How does your new, very easily corrected form of/for the above equation
look like?
Thanks, guys
hanson
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<3Cfa8.2071$qt6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> or > From: lve...@uwo.ca (Lou Verdon) or some Vladimir
>
> > This thread is subjected to _censorship_ in _nonmoderated_
> > conferences.
>
> No cenorship, just ISP slip-up, web-leak, net-hole or paranoia.
> Things do get lost even in cyberspace, especially me about your
> shop talk which I would love to be able to follow.
> So, one of you says:
>
> > > there are two gravitational constants, distinguishing on value
>
> Are you talking about G (~6.6E-8 cm^3/(grs^2) and g (980 cm/s^2)
> or have you seen or invented one or 2 new ones?
> What are you referring to?
>
> Then you continue to talk apparently about
>
> F = G mM/r^2, hence G = Fr^2/mM,
Yes, the conversation goes just about G, indicated by you in this
place.
> and you say
No, this matter has told Lou Verdon:
> > The Newtonian gravitational constant is derived from the Poisson
> > canonical algorithm for the relationship of forces with respect
> > to separation interval.
> > This canon is incorrect, but is very easily corrected.
> > The conventional algorithm characterizes the ratio of forces with
> > respect to separation interval as the area of the spheres for
> > which the separation distance is the radius.
No comment, you can ask Lou Verdon about this matter.
> To me, the above Newton equation does not say anything about force RATIOS.
> I can't see in it anywhere that it specifies the shape or anything else
> about the condition or properties of the masses m and/or M.
You are absolutely right, these sights were stated by Mach for a long
time ago.
> To me it simply states:
> There is a force acting between two masses m & M which is dependent on the
> distance^2 between m & M and proportional to a constant G.
>
> With that in mind, I ask:
> How do you arrive WITHOUT experiment
It does not correspond to real things absolutely, my research leans on
the experimental data approved by IAU.
> at the assumption or conclusion,
> that the above equation must be incorrect?
You demonstrate very deep understanding essence of a considered
problem.
> Let us in on your mysterious investigative process, please.
>
> Now, could you explain your post again to me/us non mathematicians, but
> only using terms of elementary, basic algebra, without canons or
> algorithms and other higher math-concept definitions?
Yes, I can explain my post "again to you/us non mathematicians".
But at first, you should help me, you should answer following very
important problems:
What methods of measurements of values of masses of celestial bodies
exist?
Let's be the followers of a Eotvos.
1. How to measure pure gravitational mass of a celestial body?
2. How to measure pure inert mass of a celestial body?
3. How to separate pure gravitational mass from pure inert mass
of the same celestial body in case of the mixed mass measurement?
Uncle Al could not answer these problems contrary to his "reputation
as large expert" in problems of a gravitation. ;-)))
>
> In particular, actually the only thing I am really interested in is:
> How does your new, very easily corrected form of/for the above equation
> look like?
Be patient. The whole picture is patient of various interpretations.
We shall return to this problem many times.
You demonstrate very deep understanding essence of a considered
problem.
I can not get rid of sensation and I assume, that you are the expert
in a celestial mechanics.
>
> Thanks, guys
> hanson
[snip]
Aleksandr Timofeev
> news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> To me, the above Newton equation does not say anything about force RATIOS.
> I can't see in it anywhere that it specifies the shape or anything else
> about the condition or properties of the masses m and/or M.
> To me it simply states:
> There is a force acting between two masses m & M which is dependent on the
> distance^2 between m & M and proportional to a constant G.
>
> With that in mind, I ask:
> How do you arrive WITHOUT experiment at the assumption or conclusion,
> that the above equation must be incorrect?
> Let us in on your mysterious investigative process, please.
At first I want to have your notes concerning to considered problems.
I would like that you have given rapt attention to basic distinction
between inert mass and gravitational charge.
Leaning on a principle of equivalence Jim Cobban in the hidden form
(as well as all astronomers) does not make distinction between
different aspects of masses of the same planet.
If closely to analyse what exactly the astronomers in each of these
epoch measured, you can make surprising discovery:
1. Due to this discovery you can understand reasons on which
astronomers could not construct the exact analytical theories
of motion of planets.
2. Due to this discovery you can understand reasons on which
astronomers have begun to prefer the numerical theories of motion
of planets, i.e. in the scientific methodology the astronomers have
begun to prefer to analytical methods a numerology in pure shape.
For more deep understanding of distinctions in two methodologies
of measurements of masses of planets I shall bring again
Jim Cobban's paper:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Re; Uncertainty of gravitational constant
Author: Jim Cobban
Email: jco...@bnr.ca
Date: 1998/11/20
Forums: sci.astro
As pointed out by this discussion, the methodology of determination of
the masses of solar system objects is significantly different between
the two eras.
Prior to the space age all that could be determined was the angular
position of solar system objects. It was impossible to directly measure
distance. Assuming the applicability of Newton's laws it was possible
to calculate the absolute space position of various objects in terms of
astronomical units, that is setting the distance between the Earth-Moon
center of gravity and the center of gravity of the solar system to 1.0.
Once you have done this you can calculate, highly accurately, a
constant, traditionally called the Gaussian gravitational constant k,
which represents the gravitational
influence of the Sun on the objects in the solar system. Further, by
solving the system so as to minimize deviations between prediction and
future positions it is possible for each of the major planets to
calculate the ratio between their values of k and the value of k for the
Sun. It is NOT possible to calculate the "mass" of any of the objects
in this system. As an additional aid in reducing the massively parallel
calculations, observations of the motion of planetary satellites, in
angular terms, can provide independent measurements of the value of k
for those planets which have moons. That excludes Mercury, Venus,
Pluto, and even to some extent the Earth. That is because we cannot
trivially calculate the distance between the Earth and the Moon in
astronomical units because the Moon is the one object that we cannot
observe from different spots on the Earth's orbit.
I repeat: Using only angular measurements it is impossible to measure
the "mass" of any object. However you can measure the relative mass of
any two objects.
With spaceprobes it is possible to accurately measure their DISTANCE at
any instant in terms of the time it takes light to cross from them to
the observer. You could also measure their angular positions, for
example using a long baseline radio interferometer, but the accuracy of
the distance measurement, in terms of light time, is orders of magnitude
more accurate. Since the length of the SI metre is defined in terms of
the time it takes for light to cross it, or alternatively the speed of
light is now a defining constant of the SI system, we can accurately, to
a matter of centimetres in fact, determine the exact distance to any
spaceprobe in metric units. This permits us, for each object which a
probe passes relatively close to, to determine with significant
accuracy the value representing the strength of the gravitational field
of the object in terms of metric units.
But, once again, you cannot measure the "mass" of any of the objects.
Just as with the older methods, all you can measure is the strength of
the gravitational field. In gravitational theory the strength of the
gravitational field is proportional to the mass and the constant of
proportionality is labelled G. While the value of the field strength is
frequently known to 7 or 8 digits, the value of the constant of
proportionality (in metric units) is only known to about 4 digits.
Note that it is possible to close the loop to some extent. Since we
have now measured the length of the AU in metric units to about 9
digits, and since we know the strengths of the gravitational fields of
many of the solar system objects to 7 or 8 digits, it is possible to
plug this knowledge back into the traditional model. When we do so we
find that there is no significant change except for the orbits of Uranus
and Neptune. In the old model the predictions for these planets drifted
unless a fudge factor was introduced (called planet X). However once
the space probe determined gravitational field strengths are introduced,
that fudge factor disappears and the observed orbits of Uranus and
Neptune are accounted for over the last 200 years.
However any time you see a mass for any object published in terms of
kilograms (or Petatonnes as one source quotes) then you know that the
author is fudging his results to satisfy a semi-literate audience.
--
Jim Cobban | jco...@nortel.ca | Phone: (613) 763-8013
Nortel Networks (MED) | FAX: (613) 763-5199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At first I want to have your notes concerning to considered problems.
I would like that you have given rapt attention to basic distinction
between inert mass and gravitational charge.
hanson
news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<3Cfa8.2071$qt6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> [hanson]
> > F = G mM/r^2, does not say
> > anything about force RATIOS.
> > To me it simply states:
> > There is a force acting between two masses
> > m & M which is dependent on the distance^2
> > between m & M and proportional to a constant G.
> > How does your new, "very easily corrected" form
> > of/for the above equation look like?
[Aleksandr]
> I would like that you have given rapt attention.....
> At first I want to have your notes concerning to considered problems.
> I would like that you have given rapt attention to basic distinction
> between inert mass and gravitational charge.
My dear friend Alexi,
While I thank you for all the kudos you heaped on me in your last post,
and while you are perfectly free and welcome to make long posts for
"discussion", I am not inclined to discuss the subject, rapt or otherwise.
All I want to see is
your "very easily corrected" equation for F = GmM/r^2.
If that is too much to ask, then forget it.
The universe will continue, as it did, does and will do, with or without
discussions and corrections, be they rapt or not.
kindest regards,
hanson
EL
> There is a force acting between two masses m & M which is dependent on the
> distance^2 between m & M and proportional to a constant G.
>
[EL]
Simple is perfect. :-)
The devil is in the details.
That 'distance' is calculated to be the scalar, which is an
approximation standing on geometrical and dimensional arbitrations.
Density is left out of consideration, although higher densities tend
to 'precipitate' closer to the center of mass.
The constant is an inevitable figure to normalize the arbitration of
the metric.
Proportionality of phenomena is the most critical context in
scientific exploration.
***********************************************************************************
The phenomenon is that to bodies of matter tend to move such that the
separating distance decreases over time.
***********************************************************************************
Why is that, and how is that, then how much would that be?
There we go. :-)
If we take the distance between surface of geometries as a reference.
And if we take the length of the geometries along the line of
separation as the spatial identity of each body.
We may succeed in describing a local time of length related events of
motion, in which acceleration is evident.
What is it that separates the bodies?
Why does the dimensions of *separation* change over local time?
What is the *dynamo* (the oscillator) behind that change of state of
the separation?
Any waves any one? :-)
Any Aether for those interested? :-)
Any replacements for displacements need clarification? ;-)
Are there any hidden orbits in which the continuum flows?
Does any hidden orbits have the structure of a torus?
Did I ever say gravitation else than in this line as an inquiry? <g>
EL
hanson
news:7563cb80.0202...@posting.google.com...
> The constant is an inevitable figure to normalize the arbitration of
> the metric.
> Proportionality of phenomena is the most critical context in
> scientific exploration.
> *************************************************************
> separating distance decreases over time.
> *************************************************************
> There we go. :-)
There we go........all pointing towards discrete regions, where constants
and proportionality for a relation does hold, only to digress and terminate
quite suddenly at certain levels, in order to re-emerge in a nested self
similar fashion many magnitudes apart, smaller or larger..........
Why nature is arranged in such a self similar nested fashion is currently
nested in as many stories/explainations as there are sets.
hanson
Aleksandr Timofeev
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> All I want to see is
> your "very easily corrected" equation for F = GmM/r^2.
Yes, I " easily correct an equation " offered by you. You should
substitute instead of the letter m the value of the gravitational charge
of the body m, and instead of the letter M you should substitute the
value of the gravitational charge of the body M. You have not the right
to substitute in the equation instead of the letters m and M of the value
of inert masses of considered planets.
Now equation gains completely continuous representation:
F = GmM/r^2 ;-)
Whether you are satisfied with mine " absolutely new " an equation for
gravitational interaction of two bodies?
For those who is not satisfied with mine " absolutely new " the
equation for gravitational interaction of two bodies I offer the
alternative theoretical approaches to this problem:
Only experimental facts are unique! The theories are not unique!
Read more often a history physics, the history of development
of science has not stopped in XX century. ;-)
Read the Henry Poincare's proceedings, and you will learn, that there
should be a uncountable set of the mathematical theories, which can
interpete the same limited set of the experimental facts from the
different points of view (geometrical interpretation is most
unfortunate):
1. La Science et l'hypothhse (1903; Science and Hypothesis),
2. La Valeur de la science (1905; The Value of Science),
3. Science et mithode (1908; Science and Method), Paris,
Flammarion, 13 mille 1914, 14 mille 1918
These three writings can be found in:
The Foundations of Science,
containing Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science,
and Science and Method, trans. by George Bruce Halsted,
Lancaster(Pa), Science press, cop. 1946
4. Dernihres pensies (1913); This writing can be found in:
Mathematics and Science: Last Essays, trans. by John W. Bolduc,
New York, Dover, cop. 1963
> If that is too much to ask, then forget it.
> The universe will continue, as it did, does and will do, with or without
> discussions and corrections, be they rapt or not.
I endeavour very much for your pleasure. I even have made it
in an a little bit playful manner.
How you estimate mine of efforts?
kindest regards,
Aleksandr
hanson
news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<l3Ta8.7401$qt6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
[hanson]
> > All I want to see is
> > your "very easily corrected" equation for
> > F = GmM/r^2.
[Aleksandr]
> Yes, I " easily correct an equation " offered by you.
> Now equation gains completely continuous representation:
> F = GmM/r^2 ;-)
[hanson]
Alexi, for crying out loud ! For the sake of your own safety and especially
for retaining your remaining, residual sanity you should NOT post in code:
" ;-)"
This is dangerous for you, Alexi. KGB, and even recalcitrant NKWD remnants,
not speak of NSA, CIA, & FBI. M5 etc, have taken note of you.
The light of my disk drive lit up furiously when I downloaded your message.
Alexi, they are onto you and they will come looking for you.
To make these "secret agent man" agencies happy, please do admit NOW to
your secret code " ;-)", and do decipher and reveal what " ;-)" means.
If I read it correctly, here's what my code braking acumen has reveled thus
far:
Your "very easily NOW corrected" equation: F = GmM/r^2 ;-) means:
The Newtonian force for gravitational attraction between 2 bodies m & M is
influenced and modified by " ; " which is your code for "coming and going",
"." towards you and "," away from you. This ";" effect is then diminished
,"-" by the influence of the crescent, waxing moon " )" which makes your
new findings and your theory absolutely lunatic covariant and strongly
phase dependent on gravito-lunatic waxings and wanings.
Heavy! Big Time! Up-town! Yours is a very great discovery!
Congratulations, Alexi.
Please do let us know whether the "secret agent men" are dressed in white
coats when they come and get you. I told them to let you post one last
message before they take you to their secret government institute where
they will put you in charge of all those fantastic, advanced lunatic
studies.
Good luck, Alexi
hanson
Aleksandr Timofeev
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:<l3Ta8.7401$qt6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> Please do let us know whether the "secret agent men" are dressed in white
> coats when they come and get you. I told them to let you post one last
> message before they take you to their secret government institute where
> they will put you in charge of all those fantastic, advanced lunatic
> studies.
Just once." the Old Serpent
========= start of message =================================
From: hanson (han...@quick.net)
Subject: Re: Is nature logical? & Definition Of Non-Existence
Newsgroups: alt.sci.math.probability, alt.sci.physics,
alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.logic, sci.math, sci.physics
Date: 2001-12-02 16:36:58
{snip]
[hanson]
Of course they were. Ok, yes, any and all theories always sound right and
correct to its inventors, adherents and believers. That is cool, but
temporary. History and evolution do have a habit of moving along and trying
out any and all kinds of new possibilities. Creating and discarding. Change
goes on as nothing remains constant except change itself. Change is
inevitable, except from a vending machine, where you'll find Joe from the
street kicking it.
So, let me repeat my general feeling about theorizing: --- "It's just a
fucking story being told or a painting being sketched from/about the real
thing. Therefore, it is not that important, because it does not change the
real thing at all". --- So, why get bent out of shape over it, especially
when you can't turn a buck with it.
Enjoy life,
hanson
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"If I only knew what I was talking about. Just once." -- Einstein on his
death bed, --- 18 April 1955. ů still plagiarizingů..
========= end of message =================================
Dear friend, if you are tired, you can throw to read this paper
further. If you are not tired, you can find out as somebody can
measure value of a gravitational charge (mass) of a planet, if
he will have desire to make such measurement. I shall be grateful
to you, if you will specify methodological and physical errors in
a method circumscribed by me below.
*****************************************************************
Principle of indeterminacy for a classical celestial mechanics.
Two independent methods of measurement of values of masses
of planets of a Solar system.
*****************************************************************
Now there are two independent methods of measurements of values
of masses of planets of a Solar system basing on two in essence
various experimental techniques:
1. Classical methods of optimum selection of values of masses
of planets for large number of the fixed observations of positions
of planets for many hundreds years;
2. New or modern methods of an evaluation of value of a planetary
mass from measurements of interaction of a planet with artificial
space vehicles sent to a planet from the Earth.
Now International astronomical union officially authorizes values
of masses of planets on the basis of measurements of interaction of
a planet with artificial space vehicles sent to the appropriate planet
from the Earth, i.e. value of masses of planets on the basis of
measurements on a new methods.
***
The theoretical analysis of differences of values of masses of a
particular planet, which are obtained as a result of application of
in essence distinguishing methods of measurements.
***
===================================================================
Classical methods
===================================================================
The following concepts are put in the basis of a classical methods
of measurement of values of masses of planets:
Principle of equivalence or equality between inert and gravitational
masses for each separate planet (celestial body) and in any Principle of
equivalence or equality between inert and gravitational masses for each
separate planet (celestial body) and in any pair combinations of planets;
A system-wide or general-system inertial system of a reference.
Particular the celestial - mechanical theory of motion of planets.
Everyone a standard (specific model) celestial - mechanical theory of
motion of planets has the unique title;
Common for all system the set (optimized by variational methods)
of values of masses of planets and other astronomical constants for
large number of the fixed observations of positions of planets for
many hundreds years;
Let's name a classical methods of measurement of values of masses
of planets - as a system-wide or general-system method of measurement
of values of masses of planets.
===================================================================
Measurement of value of a gravitational charge (mass) of a planet
===================================================================
The following concepts are put in the basis of a modern methods of
measurement of value of a planetary mass:
Principle of equivalence or equality between inert and gravitational
masses for a particular planet (celestial body) and for a particular
artificial space vehicle.
The researchers neglect gravitational interactions of any other
combinations of planets with the given planet;
Rather close to a planet the segment of a trajectory of motion
of an artificial space vehicle gets out for measurements, with the
purpose of elimination of gravitational influence of other planets or
celestial bodies;
The value of mass of a space vehicle is known with a high precision
from measurements carried out on the Earth;
A local inertial system of a reference. If the space vehicle becomes
an artificial planetary satellite, the frame of reference connected with
center of planetary masses with a very high precision can be considered
as inertial for theoretical description of motion of a space vehicle,
since the space vehicle has neglectful a small of mass in comparison with
a planetary mass. Since the given inertial system is in rest concerning
center of masses of the given planet, this circumstance allows to exclude
an inertial planetary mass from the celestial - mechanical theory, which
describes motion of space vehicle in the given inertial system.
Thus given method allows to separate (separation of variables) a
gravitational planetary mass from an inert planetary mass and to
calculate value of a pure gravitational planetary mass irrespective
of an inert planetary mass.
For a trial body, which the artificial planetary satellite is, such
separation of variables is not possible since satellite is in motion
in relation to center of masses of a system, therefore in this case,
naturally, we are forced to neglect distinction between gravitational
and inert masses of satellite.In this case this assumption has not
critical character, since the satellite has insignificant mass, and
as the corollary distinction between gravitational and inert masses
of a satellite is insignificant;
Particular the celestial - mechanical theory of motion of an
artificial space vehicle around of a particular planet;
The value of a pure gravitational planetary mass is calculated on the
basis of measurements of parameters of motion of artificial space vehicles
around a particular planet.
Let's name a modern methods of measurement of value of a planetary
mass - as a local method of measurement of value of a planetary mass
or method of measurement of value of a pure gravitational planetary mass,
if the trial body is a satellite.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CONCLUSIONS:
1. A crude estimate of a deviation from a principle of equivalence.
The comparison of values of masses of a particular planet obtained by
two considered independent methods allows roughly to estimate
deviations from a principle of equivalence or principle of equality
between inert and gravitational masses for each separate planet
(celestial body). The roughness of an estimation is connected to the
empirical corrections in appropriate celestial - mechanical theory of
motion, which was used in calculations of values of values of masses.
The empirical corrections (depending extremely from intuition of the
developers of the theories) are inevitable evil connected with
imperfection of mechanical model considered system, influence of the
not taken into account and unknown real phenomena as between system
constituents, and acting on system from the outside.
2. The more obvious presentation for deviations from a principle
of equivalence between inert and gravitational masses for planets of
a Solar system can be received from my law of connection between masses
of planets of a Solar system, if in the formulas to substitute the
appropriate values of values of masses of planets authorized by
International astronomical union separately for each of two epoch:
1970 and 1994, each of these epoch used in essence various methods of
measurement of masses.
3. The system-wide or general-system approach to measurement of
values of masses of planets predominated in a classical methods of
measurement of values of masses of planets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This method gave a mixture of value of inert mass and gravitational
mass of a particular celestial body in one value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The "local" method of measurement of value of a planetary mass or
method of measurement of value of a pure gravitational planetary
mass is used now, when the trial body is a planetary satellite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientists are able to measure value of a pure gravitational
planetary mass now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a problem for you.
Who knows a method of measurement of value of a pure inert planetary
mass now?
It is naturally, that the Principle of equivalence is forbidden
for using.
Good luck, hanson
tj Frazir
energy of the big bang expands.
E=mc2 but E is never constant and the mass of a body is never constant
,,but changs with the energy of the spinning rocking nucleus making
intence wave pesure called electrons that ineract with otherwaves in the
energy of the
big bang still expanding today.
hanson
news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
[snipped all for clarity]
[hanson]
Alexi, anybody who heaps kudos upon me like you did
and who takes an interest and time to read my archive
deserves an answer from me.
Therefore, I will and can give you the perfect answer and response, one you
will love and embrace:
The master has just arrived on the scene.
The solution to all your problems is here.
This man is a "god-sent" for you, Alexi.
Read and study in his post the very profound assessment-evaluation he gave
about your theory:
news:5172-3C6...@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net...
He will solve the mystery for your "considered problems", because Prof.
Captn. Thompson Jeff Frazer, alias tj frazir, is a very great man, over 8
ft tall.
Keep this thread between you and him going.
We all will watch you two and we will gain a lot from you two learned
gentlemen.
Thank you and very kind regards,
hanson
Aleksandr Timofeev
I highly appreciate your critical contribution to my researches
(there can be a colon el se or g eneral). ;-0
I have two news to you. One news is good, other news is bad.
I shall begin from bad news to you.
One of my friends has sent me the letter of a following content:
==============
"On the bad side of things, I would caution you that the internet
is a place of all kinds of FBI-MI6 operations, etc., and that
sometimes webpages are put up which are a compilation of work done
by other people (plagarism), where the good stuff is mixed in with
bad stuff.
In the case of H....., he seems to mix the truly interesting
stuff, which you pointed out, with odd references to astrology
and the like. This would seem to me to be a way of drawing in
intelligent people like yourself with good ideas, but then dumping
all kinds of bad stuff on you as well.
One of the problems we have here in the USA is that there are
tens of thousands of people here, connected to the intelligence
community, who maintain fake computer identities and use them to
communicate with unsuspecting citizens. All of these newsgroups
are full of these fake names, who only exist in the computer, not
in the real world!
It's pretty crazy! This may not be the case in the case of
H....., but it doesn't hurt to be careful. He may also just be who
he says he is. He is raising some important questions, but also
seems to me to be mixed up in some unscientific stuff."
==============
Please. How you can interpete these idea?
Now some words about the second good news for you...:
========== start of mesasage ======================================
From: Thanatos (dga...@altavista.net)
Subject: Re: Expanding universe VS shrinking matter universe
Newsgroups: sci.physics, alt.sci.physics
Date: 2002-02-01 05:41:41 PST
[snip]
There is a minor revolution occuring among some very qualified
physicists against the almost religious worship and blind adherance
to Big Bang theory in mainstream cosmology. Part of the problem is
that most of the cosmologists in control of the peer review process
have poured much of their lives and research grants into constantly
propping BBT up in the face of new observations, a process often
more akin to an accountant cooking the books than true scientific
method.
Good luck in your quest for more knowledge. Make sure you spend time
studying both mainstream and alternative theory.
[snip]
========== end of mesasage ======================================
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Paul+Marmet+group:sci.*&hl=en&newwindow=1&scoring=d&selm=SAw68.84972%24HW3.117110%40newsfeeds.bigpond.com&rnum=1
Thanks you and very kind regards,
Aleksandr
P.S. Try to tell something intelligible about a gravitation.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Then you continue to talk apparently about
:
: F = G mM/r^2, hence G = Fr^2/mM,
: To me, the above Newton equation does not say anything about force RATIOS.
: I can't see in it anywhere that it specifies the shape or anything else
: about the condition or properties of the masses m and/or M.
: To me it simply states:
: There is a force acting between two masses m & M which is dependent on the
: distance^2 between m & M and proportional to a constant G.
Not quite. It doesn't make any sense to talk about something being
"proportional to a constant." Your equations above say that there is a
force between two masses that is proportional to the product of their masses
and to the inverse of the square of the distance between them. G is
simply a proportionality constant that converts the proportion into an
equation, and indicates the size of the force in terms of the units used
for mass and distance.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
hanson
Your comment is very profound. I mean this earnestly.
Your comment deals more or less with semantics, the language use in
physics. You point towards a problem which plagues science with ferocity.
You, perhaps rightly so, point to your "Not quite" issue, a fine point,
while I was pursuing the basic idea of Alexi, who insists that there are
two different G's.
In the olden days it was simple. Everybody understood what gravity was. An
attractive force between ponderable masses. Then along came waltzing Albi,
declared the gravitational force as non existent and as bunck, and blamed
gravitation (=heaviness) on the curve in the street instead.
That Newton’s G was still figuring in his equations was not objected to and
everybody ran down the cul de sac Albi had prepared for them, with the
effect that these days....
> Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech, said "It is my firm belief that
> the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in
> history as the dark ages of physics."
> Message-ID:
> <249a1d3c.02010...@posting.google.com>
> by Kevin in sci.physics.
> thread: Cosmology audit 2002 : Mission Statement, -- Jan-6-2002.
> The very same theme is highlighted in the Feb. 2002, cover story of
> Discover magazine.
In the olden days it was simple. Everybody understood what gravity was. It
was like a deal sealed with a simple handshake. Then in parallel with Albi,
the lawyering and the pharisaic "sci.scripture" interpreting began and
everything became fucked up. It is true that no deep insights into physics
occurred in the 20th century. All that was done was to invent new language
terms and sublime, surreal calculation methods for events in, around and
about Albi's cul de scac.
Any progress made was simply due to technology using good old cookbook
style recipes and specification schedule and agendas.
NONE was due to any basic, novel insights in the realm of physics.
Not even Gamov's Big Bang, which is really nothing more than a quasi
scientific version, was stolen from the bible’s "let there be light" gag.
Any new or any resurrected idea, as exampled in these NGs, is summarily
rejected by the folks from/in the establishment.
I wouldn't mind that as long as they would produce and come along with a
better idea. But along the lines of their own nouveaux they are all very
polite and very quiet......
The problem doesn't lay just with the peer reviewed atmosphere in Ivy-land,
it begins already here in s.p.r/s.a.r., where any non conformist post is
rejected summarily as "too speculative". It projects the impression that
outsiders might come in and poison the minds of the young students - No
order in the class room anymore -- Horrible!
I have new on this front: The teachers, the guardians of the status quo
must *basically* change from their traditional role as the “know-all
authority figure".
into acting more like coaches or advisors. The age of the towering icon has
gone, and with it his mo. Don’t blame me. I didn’t make this world. I only
have to dance in this place. Blame the web and the use-net for it.
It's a humongous and serious educational problem.
(BTW, notice in these posts, it’s only the geriatrics or the 101 students
which hang onto and use outdated expressions like “HE has shown us, HE has
taught us”
Back to the tech. level. There are continuous and gargantuan quarrels and
arguments going on about the meanings of definitions. Threads with hundreds
of posts spanning years, can't agree on Dirac, the HUP, the def. of
"metric", and especially SR/GR, etc.
I have no answers to solve the problem, except that maybe I should join
this lawyering or the scripture-like interpretation of the physical
sciences, to help to remedy the situation. But this hope is dim, for the
printed/spoken word will always carry a certain amount of ambiguous
baggage. Even numbers do, with schmucks arguing that 1+1 may not be always
2. But maybe, that's what physics is all about.
Perhaps in time there is a solution. If we all become Pharisees and money
changers, then perhaps a Jesus or a messiah will rescue us.
(Hear all the bible beaters cheering wildly now, relieved and happy about
that prospect)
So, Richie, thanks for pointing out a problem, the problem of "not quite",
which IMHO, got us into the mess we are in today, in the first place.
AFAIC, it's the numbers, the arithmetic, where its at.
But even then some schmucks will come along and whine loudly: " It's
numerology"
So, Riche, what's there left to tell?
best regards, Richie,
hahahahahahahanson, aka Prof. Ranter, THE ranter.
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:a4r9sh$mkk$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
hanson
news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > [snipped all for clarity]
[Aleksandr]
> In the case of H....., he seems to mix the truly interesting
> stuff, which you pointed out, with odd references to astrology
> and the like.
[hanson]
Yeah, that is sadly the case, because I have to remind Stupid Stink John,
this rabid enviro turd every time, that his so-called scientific views are
nothing more then a reading from his astrological chart, which he is so
fond and proud of.
BTW, since you bring it up, are you, like him, into this astrology crap
too, Alexi?
I wouldn't be surprised if you are a believer in astrology, since the solar
system planets rate very high in your research on your "considered
problems".
Are you a closet astrologer, Alexi?
Actually Alexi, do admit, repent and renounce your keen interests and your
deep abiding belief in astrology. I do not want to have astrologers amongst
my friends.
[Aleksandr]
> One of the problems we have here in the USA is that there are
> tens of thousands of people here, connected to the intelligence
> community, who maintain fake computer identities and use them to
> communicate with unsuspecting citizens. All of these newsgroups
> are full of these fake names, who only exist in the computer, not
> in the real world!
> This may not be the case in the case of H....., but it doesn't hurt
> to be careful. He may also just be who he says he is.
> Please. How you can interpete these idea?
[hanson]
I can give you just one tiny hint, Alexi. In your reference to your
"friend" Thanatos (dga...@altavista.net).... have you noticed in this
address that there are those suspicious 3 letters ** h-a-n ** in it? ---
Could that be a hidden han-son?
Alexi, be careful whom you call "your friend(s)".
Any more than that, Alexi, as you do very well know, is and stays
CLASSIFIED.
I will and can neither confirm nor deny it, old comrade Alexi.
[Aleksandr]
> There is a minor revolution occuring among some very qualified
> physicists against the almost religious worship and blind adherance
> to Big Bang theory in mainstream cosmology.
[hanson]
There certainly is, because nobody knows for sure how things really are,
since nobody has actually been out there to check on it. Then traveling
back in time to check for it is even harder, isn't it?
But as you know, the BBT will not go away anytime soon, because this
cosmo-story is too deeply interlinked with the religious feelings for "Let
there be light"...
[Aleksandr]
> P.S. Try to tell something intelligible about a gravitation.
[hanson]
It breaks my heart to see that you have resorted to plagiarism.
Your line here is tj frazir's steady message and baseline.
Like I said, Alexi, you should converse with Prof. Captn. Thompson Jeff
Frazer, alias tj frazir, who is a very great man, over 8 ft tall.
It breaks my heart to see, that you obviously can't follow what I was and
am preaching from my cyberated soapbox. But you see, Alexi, try to realize,
that the universe gives an utter fuck whether or what we preach and
believe. And this "we" includes you, Alexi. The cosmos don't care nor worry
about nor pay attention to that. Or does it?. Are you surprised to hear
this, Alexi?
You should be, because a significant step achieved in comprehending the
mystery of gravit y/ation is when it is realized that it is nothing more
than the second derivative, a description of the change of mass density
(rho [gr/cm^3]) when undergoing an acceleration (1/t^2),
formalized in the equation Gr = d2(1/rho) / dt^2.
Run the numbers and you will celebrate, Alexi.
Don't make the changes too fast or your old GRand serpent will bite you in
the ass.
regards,
hanson
EL
> Thanks you and very kind regards,
> Aleksandr
>
> P.S. Try to tell something intelligible about a gravitation.
[EL]
You make too many spelling and grammatical mistakes in English.
Being a foreigner is not an excuse, so try using a spelling checker or
at least a dictionary.
I also take it that you never attempted to read any of my
correspondences with Hanson.
If you did read any, you might change your mind.
Your virtue is in being very 'polite'.
Your 'sin' is in being one more dreamer who is under the magic of
believing that he is a scientist.
Kindest regards.
EL
EL
[EL]
Another good chemist!
Richard, I agree completely, but I tend to believe that Hans is human.
For sake of perfection you might wish to rephrase your statement using
the expressions:
-directly proportional.
-inversely proportional.
Nevertheless, you are absolutely correct that constants of
proportionality is what nails down a floating ratio.
Tell me, do you go to the 'bar' every day? :-)
Who gets drunk first, the students or the teachers?
Ok, ok, enough bad jokes and back to work.
Kind regards.
EL.
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Yo, Richie,
>
> Your comment is very profound. I mean this earnestly.
> Your comment deals more or less with semantics, the language use in
> physics. You point towards a problem which plagues science with ferocity.
> You, perhaps rightly so, point to your "Not quite" issue, a fine point,
> while I was pursuing the basic idea of Alexi, who insists that there are
> two different G's.
I disagree, it is barbarous distortion of my point of view on this
problem, I give reasons for the evidence of existence of a continuous
non-linear function G.
>
> In the olden days it was simple. Everybody understood what gravity was. An
> attractive force between ponderable masses. Then along came waltzing Albi,
> declared the gravitational force as non existent and as bunck, and blamed
> gravitation (=heaviness) on the curve in the street instead.
> That Newton's G was still figuring in his equations was not objected to
> and everybody ran down the cul de sac Albi had prepared for them, with
> the effect that these days....
It is gold words, you read my idea on distance of 40 thousand kilometers.
> > Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech, said "It is my firm belief that
> > the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized
> > in history as the dark ages of physics."
He sees deeply consequences of events, but he does not indicate social
political reasons of these events. Not only the gravitation, but also
all science, culture and civilization as a whole is infected by
civilized cancer of the golden calf.
> > Message-ID:
> > <249a1d3c.02010...@posting.google.com>
> > by Kevin in sci.physics.
> > thread: Cosmology audit 2002 : Mission Statement, -- Jan-6-2002.
> > The very same theme is highlighted in the Feb. 2002, cover story of
> > Discover magazine.
>
> In the olden days it was simple. Everybody understood what gravity was. It
> was like a deal sealed with a simple handshake. Then in parallel with
> Albi,
> the lawyering and the pharisaic "sci.scripture" interpreting began and
> everything became fucked up. It is true that no deep insights into physics
> occurred in the 20th century. All that was done was to invent new language
> terms and sublime, surreal calculation methods for events in, around and
> about Albi's cul de scac.
Albi is not the creator of this so-called "theory", he is only popularizer
of the crazy mathematician Henry Poincare's "theory".
Poincare H.:
1895 " To the Larmor's theory "
1898 " Measurement of time "
1899 "Optical phenomena in moving bodies" (course of lectures about the
theory of an electrodynamics, Sorbona in 1899).
1902 " About a principle of a relativity of space and moving "
1904 " Present and future of mathematical physicists "
1905 June 5 (Poincare H. " Sur la dynamique de l'electron " Comptes rendus
hebdomadaires des seances. De l'Akademie des sciences.- Paris, 1905. "
About dynamics of an electron ")
1905 July 23 " About dynamics of an electron ".
The Albi's works are printed later in 1905:
1905 June 30 has arrived in Bern: " To an electrodynamics of a moving
body " (is published in the magazine Ann.d. Phys.);
1905 September 27 has arrived in Bern: " Whether the inertia of a body
depends on an energy contained in a body? ". (is published in the magazine
Ann.d. Phys.).
Whittaker Å.À. "History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, The
Modern Theories", 1900-1926, London, Thomas Nelson, 1953, p.27-43,
September 24, 1904. Poincare has made the report on the Congress of
"Art and science" in Saint-Luis (USA). He has given the generalized
explanation to the principle (expressed by him earlier), naming it as
" a principle of a relativity ".
Bull. des ScJ.Math.l904. v.28.2ser.p.302.
traslation 1905ã. "The Monist''v.XV, Nl
27 dec 1959 (Holton G. Amer.J.Phys. 1960, v.28p.627)
Keswani G.H. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
1965, v.XV.N60.p.286-306; v.XVI,N61,p. 19-32
I like people to tell me the truth.
> Any progress made was simply due to technology using good old cookbook
> style recipes and specification schedule and agendas.
> NONE was due to any basic, novel insights in the realm of physics.
> Not even Gamov's Big Bang, which is really nothing more than a quasi
> scientific version, was stolen from the bible's "let there be light" gag.
>
> Any new or any resurrected idea, as exampled in these NGs, is summarily
> rejected by the folks from/in the establishment.
> I wouldn't mind that as long as they would produce and come along with a
> better idea. But along the lines of their own nouveaux they are all very
> polite and very quiet......
>
> The problem doesn't lay just with the peer reviewed atmosphere in
> Ivy-land,
> it begins already here in s.p.r/s.a.r., where any non conformist post is
> rejected summarily as "too speculative". It projects the impression that
> outsiders might come in and poison the minds of the young students - No
> order in the class room anymore -- Horrible!
I use in this case other more exact medical term - schizophrenia of
biorobots.
>
> I have new on this front: The teachers, the guardians of the status quo
> must *basically* change from their traditional role as the "know-all
> authority figure".
> into acting more like coaches or advisors. The age of the towering icon
> has
> gone, and with it his mo. Don't blame me. I didn't make this world. I only
> have to dance in this place. Blame the web and the use-net for it.
> It's a humongous and serious educational problem.
> (BTW, notice in these posts, it's only the geriatrics or the 101 students
> which hang onto and use outdated expressions like "HE has shown us, HE has
> taught us"
>
> Back to the tech. level. There are continuous and gargantuan quarrels and
> arguments going on about the meanings of definitions. Threads with
> hundreds
> of posts spanning years, can't agree on Dirac, the HUP, the def. of
> "metric", and especially SR/GR, etc.
You do not understand the deep hidden purpose of a similar methodology
of tutoring, this methodology of tutoring includes deeply in
subconsciousness of the programs of dependent methods of thinking.
The programming of methods of perception of a reality is principal in
construction of mentality of the biorobot, in the further biorobot is
independently controled by the programs included in his "consciousness"
by the hosts.
All this mathematical schizophrenia serves a magnificent means for the
purposes to make a fools (read "biorobots") and for a long time
discontinues development of science...
Those are the purposes of the shepherds of human herd.
>
> I have no answers to solve the problem, except that maybe I should join
> this lawyering or the scripture-like interpretation of the physical
> sciences, to help to remedy the situation. But this hope is dim, for the
> printed/spoken word will always carry a certain amount of ambiguous
> baggage. Even numbers do, with schmucks arguing that 1+1 may not be always
> 2. But maybe, that's what physics is all about.
>
> Perhaps in time there is a solution. If we all become Pharisees and money
> changers, then perhaps a Jesus or a messiah will rescue us.
> (Hear all the bible beaters cheering wildly now, relieved and happy about
> that prospect)
All this mathematical schizophrenia serves a magnificent means for the
purposes to make a fools and for a long time discontinues development
of science...
Those are the purposes of the shepherds of human herd.
> So, Richie, thanks for pointing out a problem, the problem of "not quite",
> which IMHO, got us into the mess we are in today, in the first place.
> AFAIC, it's the numbers, the arithmetic, where its at.
> But even then some schmucks will come along and whine loudly: " It's
> numerology"
It is the other story, I shall ask you about some substances in the
other message.
> So, Riche, what's there left to tell?
>
> best regards, Richie,
> hahahahahahahanson, aka Prof. Ranter, THE ranter.
I like a great deal, when you, Prof. Ranter, went into a long rant.
I like people to tell me the truth.
Alexi
Aleksandr Timofeev
> a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Thanks you and very kind regards,
> > Aleksandr
> >
> > P.S. Try to tell something intelligible about a gravitation.
>
> [EL]
> You make too many spelling and grammatical mistakes in English.
> Being a foreigner is not an excuse, so try using a spelling checker or
> at least a dictionary.
I do not understand where I have done an errors. I carefully have
checked up all quoted text with the help of the electronic
dictionary, but has not found any errors. Now, I begin persistently
to work above the theory of synchronous spontaneous errors in
electronic devices, electronic texts, electronic dictionaries and
losing one's heads.
While I am a bit in ideological dock. Do you have any ideas of
the help for me in this direction?
In the meantime I go to search for the conventional paper
dictionaries...
> I also take it that you never attempted to read any of my
> correspondences with Hanson.
I shall do this in nearest future.
> If you did read any, you might change your mind.
Really? Actually, let's just read this little bit where they've
made them bump into each other.
> Your virtue is in being very 'polite'.
You make an error strongly, I am simplly very cowardly. My enemies
from the Internet write very much frequently complaints to mine the
Internet provider. My enemies exclude from the Internet complaints
of the insult in my address, but my answers serve the sufficient and
necessary legal foundation for my cut-off from the Internet. :-(
> Your 'sin' is in being one more dreamer who is under the magic of
> believing that he is a scientist.
I am not the "one more dreamer". Now a while, I am half of rate of
the scientist in the Russian Academy of Sciences. Really, I am very
much surprised myself. ;-)
I have not sins. I am simplly Sacred.
Moreover, I am Messiah of The Gravitation of new epoch.
Do you believe to Me?
Kindest regards.
Messiah of The New Gravitation
Aleksandr
Aleksandr Timofeev
> So, Richie, thanks for pointing out a problem, the problem of "not quite",
> which IMHO, got us into the mess we are in today, in the first place.
> AFAIC, it's the numbers, the arithmetic, where its at.
> But even then some schmucks will come along and whine loudly: " It's
> numerology"
I need in yours scientific assembled examinations of the following
example of a pathological numerology:
========== statr of message ===============
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Quantum Gravity?
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, rec.arts.sf.science
Date: 2002-02-14 05:45:52
Steve Carlip <sjca...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:<a4cg5j$rdb$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> In sci.physics.research Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > Spin as such is not the boojum. Non-superposable chirality/parity
> > on a multi-Angstrom scale is the boojum. It is described by
> > crystallography and is therefore beneath consideration by the
> > politics of gravitational physics. Pity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is not a "pity", it is frank gangsterism so-called " the scientific
elite " against the honour researchers of a gravitation.
> > The chiral Eotvos experiment
> > is the only untested rigorous GR challenge. The proper test of
> > geometric spacetime is geometry not composition.
Only experimental facts are unique! The theories are not unique!
Read more often a history physics, the history of development
of science has not stopped in XX century. ;-)
Read the Henry Poincare's proceedings, and you will learn, that there
should be a uncountable set of the mathematical theories, which can
interpete the same limited set of the experimental facts from the
different points of view (geometrical interpretation is most
unfortunate):
1. La Science et l'hypothhse (1903; Science and Hypothesis),
2. La Valeur de la science (1905; The Value of Science),
3. Science et mithode (1908; Science and Method), Paris,
Flammarion, 13 mille 1914, 14 mille 1918
These three writings can be found in:
The Foundations of Science,
containing Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science,
and Science and Method, trans. by George Bruce Halsted,
Lancaster(Pa), Science press, cop. 1946
4. Dernihres pensies (1913); This writing can be found in:
Mathematics and Science: Last Essays, trans. by John W. Bolduc,
New York, Dover, cop. 1963
> I'm sure Uncle Al knows it already, but it might be
> worth emphasizing just how radical this would be.
Wow! It stunned me to see him as physical dissident.
He has become engaged in dissident physics since he had
absolute failure in chemical science. ;-)
> When a chunk of rock falls, the usual view is that it
> is falling because each individual constituent is
> accelerating in the gravitational field (or, strictly
> speaking, moving along a geodesic). Uncle Al is
> suggesting that this may not be true:
Uncle Al is the "physical dissident".
> that two
> objects with exactly identical constituents might
> accelerate differently because of the relative
> arrangement of the constituents.
>
> This would not just mean a breakdown of the
> principle of equivalence.
I have proved this fact for planets of solar system.
See below.
> It would mean a break-
> down of locality, at scales that are (to a physicist,
> at least) enormous---it would require that the
> effect of gravity on any one particular atomic
> nucleus depend on the positions of other nuclei
> located Angstroms away.
>
> This would be really weird. We know, for instance,
> that individual neutrons fall in a gravitational
> field, that is, that gravity really does act on single
> elementary particles. A dependence on macroscopic
> chirality would mean, as far as I can tell, that some
> ``extra'' piece of gravity acts on collective, large-
> scale configurations in a way that is not reducible
> to the known microscopic action, or to *any*
> microscopic action.
You adhere of the conceptual approach of the philosopher Whitehead.
In the thirtieth years Whitehead has put forward idea of collective
inorganic systems of a lifeless nature.
I adhere of the conceptual approach of the philosopher Whitehead
too and for a long time.
The breakdown of the principle of equivalence,
the collective, large-scale configuration natural phenomenon
of a macroscopic gravitational chirality here is considered:
> > SYMMETRIES _FOR CHIRAL MASSES_ INSIDE SOLAR SYSTEM
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B36EEFB%40MailAndNews.com
>
> Doesn't work. Chirality is inversely proportional to radius of
> gyration. Chiral test masses scaled at angstroms give allowable tenth
> part-per-trillion deviations versus chemical calorimetric
> mesaurements.
The research of gravitational systems is common in our researches.
The gravitational systems, researched by us, belong qualitatively
to different spatial scales!
1. I share and I support your physical concept of an inconsistency of
the equivalence principle.
However there is only one but, as against you I consider
inconsistent
the equivalence principle in an astronomical scale, i.e. everywhere.
2. The symmetry is mathematical abstract idea.
In your physical case you consider a symmetry of the distribution
concentrated masses in space of three dimensions. Thus from the
mathematical point of view you have space of four dimensions - three
spatial coordinates for every atom and one coordinate for value of
mass for every atom.
3. The case, considered by me, is much easier. I have excluded from
research space, it does not assume elimination of a category of the
gravitational symmetry in my research since it is mathematical
category! ;-)
I examine a symmetry in one dimension, this dimension is the value
of mass of a gravitational body.
Since, according to your statement you (Unkle Al) own a scientific
method therefore you are obliged to see here chiral symmetry:
Magic Ratios of the Singular class
linear combinations of planetary masses
Planet Symbol Mass | Ratio Exact Rounded
used for value | considered value ratio
each planet Earth=1 | of the ratio
. |
Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE) = 12.9959 ~ 13
Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.0010 ~ 10
Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.9948 ~ 3
Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24
Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0110 ~ 8
Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39
Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33
Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5
*********************************************************************
These empirical relations for natural phenomenon of Nature have not
physical interpretation within the framework of any modern theory of
gravitation.
The breakdown of the principle of equivalence,
the collective, large-scale configuration natural phenomenon
of a macroscopic gravitational chirality here is considered.
The violation of a principle of equivalence is explained by
difference of value of an inert planetary mass from value
of a gravitational charge of the same planet,
that is exhibited in difference of the ratios from integers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In epoch of space researches with space probes
the value of a gravitational charge of a planet is measured,
but not value of an inert planetary mass.
Note: gravitational charge is equal gravitational mass! ;-)
*********************************************************************
Conclusion:
The explicit and implicit symmetries of the Solar system are
a corollary of a phenomenon of quantization of a gravitational charge.
Chiral symmetry of ratios
When organised graphically, the ratios of linear combinations of
the planetary masses considered, reveal a chain of gravitational
correlations between triples of planets possessing chiral symmetry:
10
I<----------->|
I 13 |
I<==============>I
I | I
? 39 I | I
|<----------------->I 33 |<---------------->I 24 | I
| |<------------------>I |<----------------->I
| | I ? | | I 5 | | I 8 | | I 3 | | I
| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I
| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I
10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I
I | | I | | I | | I | | I
I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI
I I I I I
10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1
ln(mass)
- - -------------------------------------------------------------->
The following symbols here are used in this graphic:
MSA + MJU <-> 2 + 1; MUR + MNE <-> 4 + 3;
MVE + MTE <-> 6 + 5; MME + MMA <-> 8 + 7;
MJU <-> 1; MSA <-> 2; MNE <-> 3; MUR <-> 4;
MTE <-> 5; MVE <-> 6; MMA <-> 7; MME <-> 8;
5
Direct gravitational correlation - <====>;
33
Reverse gravitational correlation - <---------->
For your convenience:
Chiral symmetry of Direct gravitational correlations
I 13 |
I<==============>I
I | I
I | I
| | I ? | | I 5 | | I 8 | | I 3 | | I
| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I<====>| | I
| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I
10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I
I | | I | | I | | I | | I
I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI
I I I I I
10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1
ln(mass)
- - -------------------------------------------------------------->
The arrow connects on the right one mass, and at the left two masses.
We have 4 groups of three heavenly bodies.
Chiral symmetry of Reverse gravitational correlations
10
I<----------->|
I |
I | I
? 39 I | I
|<----------------->I 33 |<---------------->I 24 | I
| |<------------------>I |<----------------->I
| | I | | I 5 | | I | | I | | I
| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I
| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I
10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I
I | | I | | I | | I | | I
I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI
I I I I I
10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1
ln(mass)
- - -------------------------------------------------------------->
The arrow connects on the right two masses, and at the left one.
We have 4 groups of three heavenly bodies.
As in a molecule DNA, here we have two " spiral chromosoms ":
Direct gravitational and Reverse gravitational correlations.
The research of gravitational systems is common in our researches.
The gravitational systems, researched by us, belong qualitatively
to different spatial scales!
The case, considered by me, does not assume elimination of a category
of the gravitational symmetry in my research.
It is mathematical category! ;-)
> That would rule out any local
> field theory description, and would probably require
> that we drop the idea that physics is local at all.
You adhere of the conceptual approach of the philosopher Whitehead,
which in the thirtieth years has put forward idea of collective
inorganic systems of a lifeless nature.
> (Note that people talk about the possibility that
> quantum gravity is nonlcal; but the suggestion
> here is for nonlocality at scales 25 orders of
> magnitude larger than those relevant to
> quantum gravity.)
You can see natural " quantum gravity " at scales
exceeding your dreams.
> This is not to say that the experiment shouldn't be
> done, if someone has the equipment sitting around
> and nothing else to do for a while.
Do not worry, I already have made that.
See up.
> But it's not just
> ``politics of gravitational physics'' to say that it is
> implausible to expect that degree of macroscopic
> nonlocality.
Only " political interests of gravitational physicists " and
the stereotypes of physical thinking hinder you to see in my
discovery realization of your dreams about a new physics.
The gravitation is not an electricity,
and the electricity is not a gravitation!
Only mathematician Henry Poincare could put forward the concept,
that a gravitation and electricity submit to the same laws.
It is nonsense, and those who persists in these "scientific views"
requires long improving of health.
========== end of message ===============
Aleksandr Timofeev
EL
> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message news:<7563cb80.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> > a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Thanks you and very kind regards,
> > > Aleksandr
> > >
> > > P.S. Try to tell something intelligible about a gravitation.
> >
> > [EL]
> > You make too many spelling and grammatical mistakes in English.
> > Being a foreigner is not an excuse, so try using a spelling checker or
> > at least a dictionary.
>
> I do not understand where I have done an errors.
[EL]
It should have been:
"I do not understand where have I made any errors. "
Or
"I do not see where did I make any mistakes".
Yet before, and in what I have quoted you,
it should have been:
"Thanks, and very kind regards"
Or
"Thank you, and very kind regards"
But those are a just samples while your text is littered. :-)
*****
[EL]
No, unfortunately I never had the honor of being exposed to any
premises to make me believe in you.
What do you know about 'gravitation' anyway?
Russians are very welcome, but remember that it was you who pointed
out a racial point not me.
In ASPNT news group, your nationality is irrelevant as much as your
father's wealth.
Does it make any difference if you knew that I have royal blood from
ancient Egyptian Elite Science Monks?
Does it make any difference if you knew that I hold Seven 'Philosophy
Doctoral Degrees' in Biochemistry?
Certainly not.
I have been insulted many times by idiots who have access to the news
groups.
Nevertheless, watch out when I get really angry, or pissed off enough
to take action.
EL
*****
Kevin Watkins
> > > > Thanks you and very kind regards,
> > > > Aleksandr
> > > >
> > > > P.S. Try to tell something intelligible about a gravitation.
> > >
> > > [EL]
> > > You make too many spelling and grammatical mistakes in English.
> > > Being a foreigner is not an excuse, so try using a spelling checker or
> > > at least a dictionary.
> >
> > I do not understand where I have done an errors.
> *****
> [EL]
> It should have been:
> "I do not understand where have I made any errors. "
> Or
> "I do not see where did I make any mistakes".
Don't you mean "I do not understand; where have I made an error?"
Or "I do not understand; where have I made errors?"
Or "I do not understand why I have made an error."
And for the second, don't you mean "I do not see where I have made a mistake."
Afraid your corrections are grammatically wrong too...
Kev
Aleksandr Timofeev
> a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message
news:<e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> > hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message
news:<7563cb80.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message
news:<e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> [EL]
> It should have been:
> "I do not understand where have I made any errors. "
> Or
> "I do not see where did I make any mistakes".
> Yet before, and in what I have quoted you,
> it should have been:
> "Thanks, and very kind regards"
> Or
> "Thank you, and very kind regards"
> But those are a just samples while your text is littered. :-)
I guessed existence of large problems for the readers
in understanding of my texts. We have large distinctions in
civilizations and stereotypes of thinking. The linguistic
complexities of language of my mother considerably differ
from pure English.
To my deep regret, I do not speak better and in language of my
mother. Now, I shall take English lessons from you. I guess I've
just the right amount of brains for that. :-|
" Say, EL, guess you're between the Devil and the W.C. "
(A. Huxley, 1969) ;-)
[snip]
> > Do you believe to Me?
> [EL]
> No, unfortunately I never had the honor of being exposed to any
> premises to make me believe in you.
> What do you know about 'gravitation' anyway?
> Russians are very welcome, but remember that it was you who pointed
> out a racial point not me.
> In ASPNT news group, your nationality is irrelevant as much as your
> father's wealth.
> Does it make any difference if you knew that I have royal blood from
> ancient Egyptian Elite Science Monks?
Now I read the magnificent book G. A. DE GOBINEAU " EXPERIENCE ABOUT
an INEQUALITY of HUMAN RACES ". 1853, Paris
The G. A. DE GOBINEAU's scientific approach to study of propulsions of
civilizations is based on the concepts of blood or genetics.
According to DE GOBINEAU, the offsprings cease to be an Elite in that
moment, when they refuse the FAITH of ancestors (and FAITH in blood).
For me very much signifies, that you have royal blood from
ancient Egyptian Elite Science Monks.
> Does it make any difference if you knew that I hold Seven 'Philosophy
> Doctoral Degrees' in Biochemistry?
> Certainly not.
Certainly not. For me, only your original scientific outcomes and the
sights have a real value.
> I have been insulted many times by idiots who have access to the news
> groups.
The aggressive behavioral response is property of the limited people.
The limited people reach psychological compensating of the intellectual
powerlessness in aggression.
> Nevertheless, watch out when I get really angry, or pissed off enough
> to take action.
You have good family upbringing. Your family upbringing excludes the
concepts of the patient liberalism.
Aleksandr
EL
That is the fun. ;-)
EL
Aleksandr Timofeev
You make a conceptual error trying to decide a problem of
mathematical description of motion of planets in a solar system
by modification of the law of inverse quadrates of distances:
F = GmM/r^2
If you're really curious in this problem, take a look at
"Mercury's Perihelion from Le Verrier to a_Einstein,"
N. T. Roseveare, _Oxford Univ. Press_, 1982.
The 1985 Russian edition kept the same title."
N. T. Roseveare has described in historical sequence the various
conceptual approaches to a natural phenomenon of a gravitation.
I suppose that this book will be useful to you in your transactions,
as introduction to the very problem.
But the problem is much more complicated.
In reality there are error postulates in the fundamentals of the
theoretical astronomical concepts:
1. The violation of _equivalence_principle_ in a scale
of the solar planetary system
2. Also the problem is connected to the modern error
understanding of the Relativity Principle.
We would rule out any local field theory description, and would
require that we drop the idea that physics is local at all.
We must adhere of the conceptual approach of the philosopher
Whitehead, which in the thirtieth years has put forward idea of
collective inorganic systems of a lifeless nature.
Natural Quantum Gravity must be nonlcal!!!
In any most exact modern theory of motion of planets
the empirical corrections " are used "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which have not physical interpretation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
===============================================
The reason is very simple,
in the fundamentals of the theoretical astronomical concepts
really there are error postulates.
===============================================
On my sight, the violation of _equivalence_principle_ in a scale
of the solar planetary system gives the greatest contribution to
_the empirical corrections_ of the theories of motion of planets.
> The universe will continue, as it did, does and will do, with or without
> discussions and corrections, be they rapt or not.
On my sight, here I give a perfect physical example for a
refutation of your presentations about operation of mystical
(empirical !!!) gears of a gravitation inside the Solar system:
"BALMER'S FORMULA" FOR THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/timo.htm
and more
Here you have touched a controversy about
some gravity stuff between Tom Van Flandern
and Steve Carlip in the thread "Speed of Gravity"?:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1578805946d&hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=9nm59h%24jde%241%40woodrow.ucdavis.edu
Here you have touched a very interesting physical problem.
This problem is connected to modern error understanding of
the Relativity Principle.
Tom Van Flandern and Steve Carlip dogmatically trust in an
electromagnetic Relativity Principle, that is a _basic _error
of their conceptual approach to a Gravitation.
It is a subject for large and long
separate discussion or lecture.
While a hint in this direction:
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-09-24 06:28:34
Steve Carlip <car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:<9olrg5$mjt$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
[snip]
> My goodness! You think this somehow supports your bizarre idea that
> gravitational fields propagate instantaneously? I suggest that you go
> back to the book and try to understand the remark after eqn. (3.2.9).
> The ``field theory'' approch Feynman is writing about makes it, if
> anything, much easier to see that the propagation speed is c.
I shall try to attract your attention in the
possible alternate approach to a problem of
speed of propagation of interaction considered
in this thread.
The presented below example should be considered
as allegorical.
Let's consider own oscillations of a string with
the fixed ends. In this case oscillations of a
string represent standing waves. All points of
a string make oscillations in the same phase
(analogy - in a problem of two bodies, the bodies
make motion in the same phase too).
Here there is no aberration during motion of parts
of a system and we _have _illusion of an _infinite
_transfer _rate of _interaction_ between parts of
a system - a string or two bodies.
But we perfectly know, that the speed of propagation
of elastic interaction between parts of a string is
limited.
You can ask what analogy can be between own oscillations
of a string and problem of two gravitating bodies?
In case of own oscillations of a string or own oscillations
of a rectangular elastic thin plate we deal with a class of
physical systems located in a _stationary_ _state_.
_stationary_ _state_ !!!
For this reason indicated by Tom Van Flandern the absence
of aberration in gravitational systems can be connected with
a stationary state of gravitational systems.
The given approach is the alternate approach to a problem of
speed of propagation of gravitational interaction considered
in this thread, but the given point of view empirically is
justified by existence of the empirical data for the benefit
of a stationarity of the Solar system and so on.
The paradox of a problem of speed of propagation
of gravitational interaction consists of impossibility to determine
speed of propagation of interaction by motion of parts of a system
located in a stationary state.
The Stationary gravitational system is a system located in a state
of own free oscillations, when all bodies of a system make motion
in the same allegorical "phase".
Comments.
[snip]
> ---
> Aleksandr Timofeev
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&q=msgid:3B372CA5%40MailAndNews.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
kindest regards,
Crazy russian Aleksandr
P.S. There are many crazies in the sci.physics..., :-)
but only they are true physicists.
eshal
How can one argue with that? .... (-;
Aleksandr Timofeev
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:<l3Ta8.7401$qt6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:e16a4a22.02021...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > > All I want to see is
> > > your "very easily corrected" equation for F = GmM/r^2.
[snip]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=78crhk%245b0%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
The extremely explosive character of scientific and technical
revolution has shaded a fundamental role of physicists and
mathematicians in paths of development of a modern civilization.
Very much frequently we have ceased to distinguish the qualified
engineers from physicists and mathematicians. Very much frequently
we have ceased to distinguish applied researches from a fundamental
physical science.
Let's consider a history of crisis physicists in an extremity of
the last century and we compare to a situation in a physics now.
That crisis has lead to creation of a series of the fundamental
physical theories.
From your point of view, what phenomena of a nature have not
satisfactory explanation in the boundaries of the modern physical
theories?
This is a part of report "Future of the Science" wrote
by P. L. Kapitza (he is Rutherford's disciple) in 1959:
«Scientific discoveries of the future.
Now I want to stay on those areas of a science, which, as it is
possible to assume, anew will arise hereafter. Here prognosises can
be done, proceeding of different premises. I assume it to make on a
principle of an extrapolation and consequently I shall begin
consideration from an evaluation of an amount of new natural
phenomena, which were open by a science within past years. I want to
be stipulated, that expression " the new phenomenon " I enclose to
such physical phenomenon, which cannot completely be predicted, to
explain because of already of being available theoretical concepts,
and consequently they open new areas of researches.
To make an offered extrapolation clearer, I shall name the main,
main new phenomena in physics, which were open for the last hundred
fifty years. First of all I want to name discovery Galvany in 1789.
An electric current, which, certainly, did not follow in any way from
existing then theoretical concepts about a nature of an electricity,
in main created by Franklin.
The following discovery approaching under the given definition,
is a discovery by the Oersted in 1820 of influence of an electric
current on magnetic arrow. From our point of view, made later
discovery Faradey of a magnetic induction is not new, as the magnetic
induction on the entity represents the phenomenon, return open by the
Oersted and, thus, in that time it could be foreseed. The works of the
Oersted and Faradey have reduced in the Lenc's law, to creation of the
equations of the Maxwell and to a number of other fundamental
conclusions, but all of them were development of main discovery of the
Oersted to predict which on a theoretical basis it was completely
impossible.
The following example of the new phenomenon - external photoeffect
open in 1887 by Hertz (all of us, certainly, are greater honour of
the Hertz for detection by him of electromagnetic waves). This
phenomenon also could not be foreseed theoretically. Because of
studies of a photoeffect of years a thirty after has introduced
famous of the equations by Einstein, which has determined a quantum
nature this phenomenon. Principle of indeterminacy and quantum theory
were predetermined by discovery of a photoeffect, and all remarkable
scientific development of this phenomenon make only further methodical
work.
Then it is possible to name discovery Becquerel in 1896 of a
radio-activity (which also it was impossible to foresee on a basis of
existing then theories), nuclear physics, which has put in pawn
beginnings.
Further, detection by Thomson of an electron too can be considered
as discovery of the new phenomenon which has put in pawn the basis of
a modern electronics engineering.
Experiment Michelson and Morley, as it has given an outcome,
which could not be foreseed theoretically, too it is possible to
name as discovery of the new phenomena installing main principles of
a relativity theory.
It was impossible to foresee discovery Hess in 1919 of space rays.
I believe, that it is necessary to mark as new also discovery of
division of uranium made Meitner and Gan.
===================================================================
What is typical all former discoveries? First of all, the value
them was realized completely only in 20-30 years, when became clear,
that they cannot be explained scientific sights of that time, and
consequently under their influence varied and the new directions in
the main theoretical concepts developed.
===================================================================
Whether the similar discoveries hereafter are possible? Whether
all physical discoveries in a nature are settled now? Whether there
are still such fundamental new phenomena in a nature, which wait
for the discovery?
If to construct a curve and on a horizontal axes to postpone time,
and on vertical - number of discoveries and if honesty to consider
this curve of discoveries, we can see, that she has not the tendency
to drop to zero. Therefore, to extrapolate this curve, we can see,
that in the near future we shall witness not yet one of the not less
important and "new" discovery, than just listed. They will allow
even deeper to understand a nature, enclosing us, and the new
possibilities for growth our of culture will put at disposal of the
people.
===========================================
Usually it is possible to see, that the people are inclined
to consider, that they already know about a nature everything,
that it is possible to know. So was always. It is enough
to esteem transactionses of the contemporaries of a Newton to see,
as then many considered, that with discovery of the classical laws
of a mechanics the knowledge of a dead nature is completed. Though
it frequently also contradicts our subjective sensation, but we
should not henceforth do same an error - to consider, that hereafter
new discoveries will not be make.
Probably, you ask me, what it there will be new discoveries.
If I could them predict, thereby they would not become unexpected
and new. ...»