Re: What is LET?


"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1138402979.905913.128190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1138399764.568615.243640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > sal wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:06:01 -0800, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > > >> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:1138316461.347715.317440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Joe Fischer wrote:
> > > > >> > > On Thu, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > >"dej4" <clujdej@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >| Thank you, Dirk
> > > > >> > > >| So, we can conclude that Lorentz gracefully bowed out, as a real
> > > > >> > > >| scientist he was. So, who picked up LET? What did they do with
> > > > >> > > >| it? Is LET just a term that is thrown around by cranks? I got
> > > > >> > > >| only one
> > > > >> > > >answer, | a fairly good one from "Aetherist".
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > >Our "Spin Matrix" is an attempt at a modified Dirac Sea. We do
> > > > >> > > >make some predictions from an ether-like medium theory. FrediFizzx
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Now shake your head, I want to hear it rattle.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Joe Fischer
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Suppose Fred had said,
> > > > >> > "We do make some predictions from a spacetime field theory".
> > > > >> > Would that sound better to you Joe?
> > > > >> > Ken
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Suppose Fred had said:
> > > > >> | "Tom you're terminology is ambiguous (to me). Anyhow. the norm "E"
> > > > >> | is a constant, it's the rest mass that varies. Pleases see my post
> > > > >> | to David Smith."
> > > > >> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=2202379a.0404181000.1371e1d5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> Would that sound better to Joe, Ken?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dirk Vdm
> > > > >
> > > > > Dirk, that's unfair, you took something out of context, (without a link)
> > > >
> > > > He did too include a link.
> > > >
> > > > > that discussion was evolving terminology and definitions, and was
> > > > > successfully done.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "rest mass" is defined by the energy-momentum component "p_0" of the
> > > > > e-m vector
> > > >
> > > > It is not, in anybody else's lexicon.
> > >
> > > Sal, if you choose to speak for everyone, I guess
> > > you're elected the "pope" or is that the "dope"?? :-).
> > >
> > > Planck's invariant "h" in GR is expressed,
> > >
> > > h = p_0 x^0 == ergs*secs
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e8a8062cc7d91949
> > | "Beginning with the well known
> > | ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v , u,v,w={0,1,2,3}.
> > | We can use association provided the covariant
> > | derivative,
> > | g_uv;w = 0.
> > | Then by association,
> > | ds^2 = dx_u dx^u.
> > | Expanding to time and space gives,
> > | ds^2 = dx_0 dx^0 + dx_i dx^i , i,j={1,2,3}.
> > | The absolute spatial motion I'll define by
> > | dx_i dx^i = Absolute spatial motion.
> > | Absolute spatial motion cannot exist, IOW's
> > | it vanishes, hence,
> > | dx_i dx^i =0."
>
> Thanks again Dirk,
> By utilizing U_i =0 (= dx_i/ds) we solve the following
> phenomenology...

http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=2202379a.0409090230.12b1045c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| "That's new to me, I thought the Gamma applied only to positive
| integers, are you saying one can apply it to complex numbers?
| (you're evidentally an expert)"


Dirk Vdm



.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast