Re: From first principles


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42ad6b10$0$18643$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1118653161.2825.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
|
| > | > | > | > I awake and observe two point of light a & b from O. I wish
to
| > | > tranfer
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > | > data a,b onto line O, x.
| > | > | > | > How do I do it.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > b
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > a
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > O---------------------x
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > D & R *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic
field,
| > two
| > | > | > unbound
| > | > | > | > field effects
| > | > | > | > http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| > | > | > | > Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up
| > nicely.
| > | > Ooh
| > | > | > | > ah.{:-)
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | Oh! a,b IS the data.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yep, you did ask for Euclid remember, any ideas ? no paper or
blue
| > lines
| > | > | > allowed but you can expand the data bandwidth of a,b. Or you
could
| > | > include
| > | > | > another observer at x or in the other side of the bed. {:-)
| > | > |
| > | > | Before I quip "who ordered that" I'll check to see if it can't
simply
| > be
| > | > | returned to the kitchen as a violation of Euclidean dietary law.
| > | > |
| > | > | Hmmmm...
| > | > |
| > | > | Dr*** wrote:
| > | > | <salad>
| > | > | I would put it slightly differently and in a more word salad way
{:-).
| > A
| > | > | structure has both a wavelength and a frequency wrt the
surrounding
| > vacuum
| > | > | state and we can define that as a reference if we include the
motion
| > and
| > | > | potential of the structure in relation to the vacuum state. If we
wish
| > to
| > | > | observe\ record that structures wavelength and frequency we need
to
| > | > | calculate\record both the observer motion and the structures
motion in
| > | > | relation to the vacuum state before we can determine the true
relative
| > | > | states of the observer and the structure and the structures
wavelength
| > and
| > | > | frequency from the pov of the observer.
| > | > | </salad>
| > | > |
| > | > | Thru clearer eyes that looks Eucledian enough. The term
| > | > | "observer motion" must have set me thinking it was four space.
| > | > | I credit your account with one free insult and will wait an
additional
| > | > | week before telling your wife what a flirt you are.
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | > She knows and tells me that you are flirting with me and to make
sure my
| > | > underpants are tight and I have my Karate box on at all times {:-)
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | << wrt the the surrounding vacuum >>
| > | > |
| > | > | You do like violence don't cha?
| > | > | Whaddya mean *we* said that Kimosabe? ;-)
| > | > | OK *pilgrim* WE can get creative about points of reference
| > | > | but YOU are soaking up the arrows. It looks like you
| > | > | are still wearing a few from the last attack when you said
something
| > | > | like that. ;-)
| > | >
| > | > I hadn't notice I thought they were cat licks.
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Sadly, AE thru out the baby with the bath water to convince the
| > | > | high priests that de Cartes and the creator were not in cahoots.
| > | >
| > | > No I think AE hid the baby *under* the bath so everbody got the idea
| > that
| > | > there was no baby but there was.
| > |
| > | OK... that does fit the historical notes better acording to some other
| > | postings I've seen.
| > |
| > | > You read it again it says that c is
| > | > constant in dilectrics called empty space, all dilectrics\empty
space is
| > | > equall and that you can tell the speed of the empty space by the
fact
| > that
| > | > light always goes at c in it, same as what I'm saying but in not so
| > clear
| > | > and loud fashion.
| > |
| > | But there really is no empty space. One souce says 1 atom/cc for
| > | interstellar gas. If you saying empty space is really a dielectric
gas
| > | then I would agree.
| >
| > This is tricky ground because you will be called a dentists anaesthetist
by
| > others of you call it a gas. I might agree with the term gas\fart as
applied
| > to the cosmos being a bubble of it with crunchy bits of fart in called
| > particles and when the crunchy bits moved about the fart moves with the
| > bits.
|
| They can call me a nitrous junkie if they please but they must supply
| their own container to win the debate.
| << gas
| A gas is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a container
| in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the container,
| even in the presence of gravity and regardless of the amount of
| substance in the container.

On this you may be on shaky ground.

| If not confined to a container, gaseous
| matter, also known as vapor, will disperse into space. The term gas
| is also used in reference to the state, or condition, of matter having
| this property. >>
| http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci852807,00.html
|
|
| >
| > |If you are saying "it would be sufficient to really
| > | understand the electron" then I would agree and Einstein's estate
| > | would file suit. ;-)
| > |
| >
| > No I'v gone past being polite I say lets take an electron or similar to
bits
| > and find out *why* it ticks.
| Ticks? Arrrrrrrrrgh!
|

Yes I put that word to get an Arrrrrrrrrgh! out of you {:-)

|
| How about "how it functions" ;-)

There is an implication particularly in programming that a function is a set
of operators (electron) that are arranged in a particular way and operate
on the parameters passed to the function in a particular way. Now I'm not
saying that a function cannot be written that caters for time dilation being
a factor in a function but it may have to be written as a factor that
changes the other factors in the function. depending on the parameters
passed and the local\global variable state.

| I think we can do that better remembering that we don't have to
| appease the Cartesian priests or gods the way AE had to.
|
| You must admit, Maxwell got a lot of stuff right by swirling
| his Æther around. There are plently of swirly and whirlpooly
| notions that folks have published.
|

Indeed yes but thats not the same as some of the posters on this group
claims that because I cant see it it cannot exist and Maxell is local.

| Conjuring leptons and pulling apart like taffy seemed to illustrate
| the Coulomb force pretty well.
|
But the question then becomes what is the taffy made of.


| But the YOU wern't satified with salt water taffy, or even
| anionic taffy!
| YOU just had to have muon taffy so you could see it decay.
| I'll bet you pulled the wings off of insects when you were a
| kid too didntcha?
|

Muons are the insects I pulled the wings of to see how they worked. Kids
will be kids.

| >
| > >
| > | > | There are no grid lines in the ocean but a submariner can do some
| > | > | swell dead reaconing with a speed log and rudder/planes positions.
| > | >
| > | > Humans have to draw lines on things its because we are vandals at
heart.
| >
| > | Whaddaya mean WE, Pincushion ?
| >
| > It was you who wanted the blue lines but I'll take the blame if you
| > like.{:-)
| Sorry... Insufficient funds. Please make a deposit. ;-)
| >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | As I flunked marketing 101,
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > I think *your* selling job would be to
| > | >
| > | > This is a negative selling job except in your case were I like to
keep
| > | > pinging your knocker and knicker elastic to keep you hot and sassy
| > hopefully
| > | > as much for your fun as mine{:-)
| > | >
| > | > | convince the high priests (some even admit to a taking a toke)
that
| > | > | great big interstellar light-clocks could actually work, in spite
of
| > the
| > | > | null results of M&M's little earth-bound device. It didn't have
| > asteroids
| > | > | moving between the mirrors.
| > | >
| > | > This is difficult as I have no muon minions that live long enough to
| > bring
| > | > the good news but I will muse, Galactic contraction ?.
| > |
| > | Puleeeze! Fix your Maxwell near-fields. You'll have no further need
for
| > | contractions and dilations (your not pregnant? ) and you won't even
have
| > | to search for new applications for them.
| >
| > Differences in contraction\dilation states is what everything is made of
| >
space\particals\electric\magnetic\fields\radiation\force\gravity\everything
| > IMHO. If I abandon that view I have to think of another so untill you or
| > somebody gives me a clue to a better idea I'm hanging onto that, as to
date
| > its working at explaning everthing, to me anyway. Sure near\far field
| > details need the mould knocking off but I find it more fun playing ping
pong
| > with you than doing boreing and difficult formula.
|
| We'll if you've built you house on sand, it's good you've got a girlfriend
| that can walk in sandals. But... the boardwalk looks to be a lot smoother
| walking.

Yes but after the sand blows over the board walk your back on the sand, mind
you I'm all for the easy route but just keep an eye on that sand because it
will be over this board walk in two farts of a donkeys bum.

| AE can justify the *imaginary* contraction/dilation as a way to resolve
| what "apPEARS" (his word) a conflict with Maxwell, SOL and PoR.
|
| He STATES:
| <<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the
| principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that
| by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid
| theory could be arrived at. >>
| http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
|

Yes but that is because he did not think that the medium in which light was
propagated was stationary but had a variable state in which light was
propagated at c irrespective of the velocity of the source. Only the
physists with the imagination and politics of a blind duck managed to dream
up the absence of *any* medium in which light was propagated.

| There is no physical basis for the imaginary clocks he used
| to make his point. So no physical theory needs to include them
| nor should it if they cannot exist.

All existence has a rate of process (an internal\imaginary clock). This rate
is a variable and depends on the surroundings and the particular piece of
existence you are referring to, and its relationship with the surroundings.
Disprove this to me and I'm in your bed without my box on. Win win situation
{:-)


|
| >
| > | > Astronomy probably has some clues but its a long way to Acapulco via
the
| > | > M74.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | If I have taken the wrong tack on this, try turning on the coffee
| > maker
| > | > | before the computer. :o)
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | > Keep that bow into the wind love and you cant go wrong, just dont
let
| > the
| > | > *** flap.
| > |
| > | "Hello Sailor! "
| > | http://www.mutineer15.org/images/diagram.main***.gif
| >
| > You've got the right bits just jiggle them about in the right
fashion.{:-)
| >
| > | Your turn to blush. ;-)
| >
| > Blush?, I should coco after >60 years I keep my blood for more
entertaining
| > parts of my body.{:-)
| The only people that call lines ropes and sails sheets are those with
| three sheets to to the wind. In four-space, that means you lack a
| rudder too. :o)

My rudder or bum is in 5 space.

|
| >
| > |
| > | "You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron",
| > | --Albert Einstein
| >
| > Who was he ?{:-)
|
| Some patent clerk in Bern <shrug>
|

Clearly a case of to much coffee at tea break
Nobody but nobody but you has even attempted to solve my observation puzzle.
I thought the frame experts would have slapped a frame on that and converted
it to the speed of a tortoise before lunch and I would still be trying to
dig it out of the mud. It must be they cant stand my jokes.

| Sue...
|
|
|
| >
|
|


.

Quantcast