 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / November 2005EXHiBiT VELOCiTY & SPEED of light ..for DiFFERENT particle COUNTs.!! EXHiBiT ERROR-BARs for ALL "in-vacu" PARTiCLE-COUNTs, Cracked-pot.!! Many DiFFERENT particle-COUNTs *NOT* different SiTUATiONs, Dimwit.!!
EXHiBiT VELOCiTY & SPEED of light ..for DiFFERENT particle COUNTs.!! EXHiBiT ERROR-BARs for ALL "in-vacu" PARTiCLE-COUNTs, Cracked-pot.!! Many DiFFERENT particle-COUNTs *NOT* different SiTUATiONs, Dimwit.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> Tom Roberts wrote: > > Stan Byers wrote: > > I wish to have English web pages (~9) translated into German. The > > title and URL of the material is; "Light Speed versus Special > > Relativity", http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm > > That page is useless. It only looks at ANCIENT measurements, and > does not include an error analysis at all. In fact, it is extremely > likely that when the errorbars of those measurements are included, > they will be consistent with modern measurements. > > Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars. EXHiBiT ERROR-BARs for ALL "in-vacu" PARTiCLE-COUNTs, Cracked-pot.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > That page completely ignores the many modern measurements, which > VASTLY smaller errorbars, that all show the constancy of the speed > of light in many different situations. EXHiBiT VELOCiTY & SPEED of light ..for DiFFERENT particle COUNTs.!! Many DiFFERENT particle-COUNTs *NOT* different SiTUATiONs, Dimwit.!! brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > EXHiBiT VELOCiTY & SPEED of light Be careful what you exhibit. It may be an imprisonable offense now. Joe Fischer wrote: > > On 20 Nov 2005 22:36:40 -0800, franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote: > > >Old Man wrote: <franklinhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> >I would say that gravity is definitely a force. I find [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >> m*c^2, gravitates. Kinetic energy, p*c, belongs to the > >> null-geodesic. It works. Newton doesn't. WHAT "iNVARiANT mass".?!! WHAT "mass.".?!! GR HAS *NO* "mass".!! EXHiBiT how any GR mass mathematically RELATEs to GR T_uv = G_uv. (Snicker) oh, what happened to any sign of GR *ANGULAR* momentum? > >OK, I may be missing something Well GR, *NOW* has ..TWO (2) MiSSiNG-mass ..IT's ONLY TWO (2).!! > You missed a lot, and since you seem to be interested, > no need to miss all the fun. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > For objects smaller than a mountain, mass is not required > in the math. -- insert .."dipstick".!! > -- The reduced formula for gravity is a = GM / d^2 > where M is the mass of the overwhelming object (a different [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Neglecting air friction, right. -- $ The interPLANETARY and interSTELLAR ambient MASS: No ATMOSPHEREs are iNCLUDED in the THEORY of NEWTON or GR. Newton's work and GR-Tivity DOES NOT include the GRADiENT, ( the DENSiTY gradient ) which EXiSTs around massive ORBs. The THEORY of NEWTON & GR-Tivity call ALL this a VACUUM.!! > -- But there are other gravity models that also do not use force. > > > It is simply following the > >shortest possible path between any 2 points which just happens to be an > >orbit around the Earth. As far as the shuttle is concerned, it is > >following a straight path. $ Read my My lips.!! ANGULAR momentum pA = planet-like, mass*radius*velocity: ( Notice there is NO quantity for CENTRAL mass in there. ) > That is a good way to think of it, but the path is determined > by the speed, if the shuttle and a light beam were to go the same > speed past the sun, the light beam would bend _more_ than > the path of the shuttle, twice as much, in fact. There's NO EARTH-mass in GR.!! There's NO SPACE-time curvature in GR.!! HOWEVER, if there COULD BE a mass in GR ..NO Newtonian LiMiT (i.e. if), THEN, subsequently, the EARth's *GR-WORLD-line-POiNT-mass* will "curve" the trajectory of ANOTHER *GR-shuttle-WORLD-line-POiNT-_TEST_-mass*, iN the GR-space, ON (..not, ABOVE) the GR-surface, of GR-WORLD-line-POiNT. BUT, where-as Newton's TEST-mass m1 (in G*M1*m1) has a CALCULATED field ..mathematically speaking NOTE the corresponding GR-TEST-mass does NOT. [Mathematically CENTRAL mass M1 "attracts" TEST m1, but m1 doesn't M1.] [That's ANOTHER thing.!! There's NO centro-SYMMETRY in GR THEORY, duh.] [Again iRONiCALLY, there is NO mass mathematically RELATED to GR T_uv.] [Again PROFOUNDLY, there is NO mass-RELATED GR-SPACE-time "curvature".] [Again, ADAMantLY, there is NO GR-mass-RELATED SPACE-time "curvature".] >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > >Now if the astronaut in the shuttle shines a laser pointer out the > >front window, it should also follow the straight path, which should [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Speed is the reason. LiGHT velocity c is NOW a MATHEMATiCAL constant ..just as is, pi.!! LiGHT velocity c is NOW a, transcendental, MATHEMATiCAL constant.!! LiGHT velocity v VARiEs, inversely, WiTH the PATH particle COUNT.!! > >Now what does time or space-time have to do with this phenomenon? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >I have a standard college physics text (Physics, Douglas Giancoli), and > >only has 1 paragraph -- $ Communists and dyslextics fall iDENTiCALLY.!! ..AND its TRUE, that RiGHT and LEFT handed TWiNs, arriving BACK from the SAME SPACEtime trip, will: (A) Arrive BACK at somewhat DiFFERENT TiMEs or; (B) LEFTY will be turned COMPLETELY iNside OUT.!! [ The ONLY way to KNOW ..if (B), is TAG underwear labels.!! ] > -- beyond the rubber-sheet analogy with absolutely no > >justification for this spacetime bending. Another book (Einstein's [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > gravity, but he got only half the correct anount, he worked the > problem as if it were Newtonian gravity. -- [Mathematically speaking GR steals and DOCTORs Newton's 3-d TEST-mass.] [Mathematically speaking GR steals and DOCTORs Newton's 3-d ..MERCURY.] [Note GR does NOT enter ANY OTHER data input, mathematically speaking.] > -- In 1915, with the formalized version of General Relativity, he > predicted the correct amount. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Velocity, yes, but if the mass is more than one percent > of the Earth, it requires a different formula. -- > -- While "force" is used, it is the relative acceleration that > is wanted, then Newton would have to calculate the acceleration. > For objects as big as the moon, a formula that looks > like a = G (M + m) / d^2 is used, rather than F = GMm / d^2. $ NOT "that N-body systems decay into 2-body ones." ..but that NEWTON simplified N-bodies to PROFOUNDLY TWO (2).!! Newton PROFOUNDLY simplified N-bodies to just TWO (2).!! Re: THOSE equate for BiNARY systems, you PROPER idiot.!! > > So light, being very fast and > >light, escapes very easily, while the shuttle, being massive and slow, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > freefall and orbits nothing but inertial motion, where objects > follow geodesics in spacetime. No GENERAL THEORY of RELATiViTY c^4 / G ..it's ALL NEWTON's.!! The PLANCK c^4 / G is NOT mathematically related to GR G_uv.!! The NEWTON c^4 / G is NOT mathematically related to GR T_uv.!! PROFOUNDLY, GR's G_uv = T_uv is NOT "RELATED" to Newton's G.!! brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > If you are really interested, then the study of Einstein's > Principle of Equivalence (which is described in the link above). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Joe Fischer. EXHiBiT VELOCiTY & SPEED of light ..for DiFFERENT particle COUNTs.!! EXHiBiT ERROR-BARs for ALL "in-vacu" PARTiCLE-COUNTs, Cracked-pot.!! Many DiFFERENT particle-COUNTs *NOT* different SiTUATiONs, Dimwit.!! Counter... ...productive. -Mark Martin |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.