Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

sci.physics.foundations

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
t7c1@hotmail.com - 09 Feb 2007 22:36 GMT
The news group sci.physics.foundations will be created 12 Feb 1007
FrediFizzx - 10 Feb 2007 04:13 GMT
> The news group sci.physics.foundations will be created 12 Feb 1007

That is when the control message will be sent out.  It might take awhile
for newsgroup servers to add to their list of groups but keep checking.
We also still have to get the moderation software setup so I don't think
it will be "live" on Monday.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge.
Ross A. Finlayson - 10 Feb 2007 17:23 GMT
> > The news group sci.physics.foundations will be created 12 Feb 1007
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com
> The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge.

Well, what is there expected to be in the foundations?  I figure it's
all standard with the relativity and the quantum mechanics and so on,
those theories not having had many or any experimental invalidations
of the mathematical model(s).  Then, there's the standard model and so
on, central dogma etcetera.  With conservation, there is import of the
Newtonian and classical, etcetera.

Then something along the lines of what you discuss there is somewhat
less standard.

Ross
physicsajay - 12 Feb 2007 16:42 GMT
 E=mc2 is generalized to ΔE=Ac2Δm , details at www.ajayonline.us

In view of  existing experimental facts  such energy
emitted in Chemical reactions, nuclear explosions,
typical nuclear reactions and astrophysical reactions etc.
E=mc2 extended to ΔE=Ac2Δm

If value of A (coefficient of proportionality) is 1, then
ΔE=Ac2Δm and E=mc2 are the same.
If A is not 1, then results are different.
All aspects are discussed with simplicity at

www.ajayonline.us

Ajay Sharma

>> > The news group sci.physics.foundations will be created 12 Feb 1007
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Ross
Ross A. Finlayson - 15 Feb 2007 00:21 GMT
> E=mc2 is generalized to ΔE=Ac2Δm , details at www.ajayonline.us
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Message posted via NatScience.com
> http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/particle/200702/1

Well I've attempted to post to sci.physics.foundations but it did not
go through, using Google.

The contents of the message were not saved.

Your text acknowledgement of the equations is dropping some critical
accents.

As I stated before, I think the status quo is right in many matters.
Thus, the standard model and everything is still exactly the same.
Consider, for example, the convenience of standard units.  Everything
basically works perfectly, the equations line up, in standard units.
So modern foundations is all the volumes on the library shelves that
describe it, Copenhagen and so on.

Here on sci.physics.particle, I describe in terms of the ghost pilot
wave with the emitter and so on: phase.  You see:  the speed of light
is constant, the c in the e = mc^2 is a constant.  So, integrate over
them.  (That's where the parastatistics is used.)

Uncle Al, over on sci.physics, describes it in quite detail, physics,
as is known in the universe.  Luckily, it is not necessary to rely on
Uncle Al for that information.  For example, consider other casual
posters to sci.physics.particle.  I think they should feed the
abstracts right by, maybe an abstracts newsgroup of finished papers.
They have that already, Greg Kuperberg posts it to sci.math.research
and sci.physics.research etcetera.  Is that right?

Me, I post on sci.logic, explaining A theory.  It's the letter A, A
theory.

Warm regards,

Ross F.

--
Ross Finlayson
Finlayson Consulting
 
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.