Physics Banter

C1 isometric embedding of the hyperbolic plane.

Gerard Westendorp — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:59:22 GMT

I attempted to make a computer graphical rendering C1 isometric
embedding of the hyperbolic plane.
I am not sure if the result really is a C1 embedding, but the pictures
are cool:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~westy31/Geomet...try.html#Embed

Gerard

Friction on a rotating object suspended by magnetic levitation

Doug Wedel — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:04:00 GMT

I just saw this cool demo of a supermagnet rotating in air, suspended
between two plates of graphite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOaBnJpIRzM

It is very interesting to watch the short periods when they start the
cube rotating. Presumably the only force preventing such an
object from rotating forever is the friction of the air. Is it fair to
say, however, that the rotation of such an object suspended
in magnetic levitation offers the absolute lowest frictional
resistance that it is possible to achieve? Would the supermagnet
rotate forever if it was suspended in a vaccuum?

Double Slit Redux

Bill Miller — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:32:51 GMT

This time, Bill walks to the wall, whisks out a cigarette (though he does
not smoke) lights it and grips it between his lips. He removes a bandanna
from his hip pocket and ties it around his eyes.

He takes a deep breath. "Ready! Aim! Fire!" he shouts.

He hears a multitude of CLICKS. Puzzled, he removes the blindfold and
watches as the firing squad begins dis-assembling their weapons, obviously
looking for some universal flaw.

He tosses the unsmoked cigarette on the ground and walks away.
*************************************************

A few weeks ago, I suggested that the Double Slit experiment may have been
misinterpreted.

(You know. This is the experiment done first by Young in the 19th Century.
It "proved" the wave nature of light. It also led the way to a puzzling
phenomenon wherein light and maybe dumptrucks became waves AND developed sentience by apparently
"knowing" about the existence of a second slit even though they were passing
nowhere near it.> It's the experiment from which the statistical nature of
light etc. led us to Quantum Mechanics.)

My suggested alternate explanation was that the slits were simply acting as
slot antennas and were coupling EM energy from one to the other.

Dumb idea. That was the opinion of many. (But not all.)

So... I hopped onto Google Scholar and started looking for construction
details of slits. That way, I could make some back-of-an-envelope
calculations to see if anything I suggested might vaguely fit

What I found exceeded all my expectations.

Here is the abstract from a January 2005 paper published in the Physical
Review Letters entitled "Plasmon-Assisted Two-Slit Transmission: Young's
Experiment Revisited"

Here is the abstract:

"We present an experimental and theoretical study of the optical
transmission of a thin metal screen perforated by two subwavelength slits,
separated by many optical wavelengths. The total intensity of the far-field
double-slit pattern is shown to be reduced or enhanced as a function of the
wavelength of the incident light beam. This modulation is attributed to an
interference phenomenon at each of the slits, instead of at the detector.
The interference arises as a consequence of the excitation of surface
plasmons propagating from one slit to the other."
In other words, something different is happening from what is suggested by
Quantum theory. And that difference appears to be much more consistent with
Classical EM than with playing dice with the universe. In the paper, the
performance of the experiment seems very similar to what I had suggested in
my earlier posting.

Here is a link to the paper:

http://download.antennex.com/listarc...it_Plasmon.pdf

You will have to register (FREE) in order to see it unless you are
previously registered.

Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean to
the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?

Bill

General Relativity Passes Another Test

߃-- �� — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:19:23 GMT

According to the Relativeist;
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07...-another-test/

߃��

Re: The problems with a "constant" speed

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:18:45 GMT

On Jul 4, 6:40*pm, "Spaceman" >
wrote:
> The speed of light is simply a speed.
> It is 186,000 miles per second.
> How can any speed be not a relative speed?
> What makes 186,000 miles per second immune
> to relative motion?
> The speed of light can not be constant to all
> unless it is immune to relative motion.
> And if it is immune to relative motion, then
> it is not a "speed" at all.
>
> Speed can not be "non" relative.
> :)
>
> Relativists have created a parodox as the base
> of thier church foundation.
> :)
>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

ok, you accelerate a particle to over lightspeed and document it, and
we'll all snap to attention.

Re: The problems with a "constant" speed

zzbunker@netscape.net — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:18:11 GMT

On Jul 4, 6:40*pm, "Spaceman" >
wrote:
> The speed of light is simply a speed.
> It is 186,000 miles per second.
> How can any speed be not a relative speed?

It has to do with inertia, for the people who can't think.
Since the original paper claimed *constant in interial reference
frames*, not *constant*.
And Einstein himself stated in several places that that assumption
was also based on Mach's Principle,
not Newton anything.
So, you can also state it as, "maybe it's why A.I. works and wanks
like Lawyers don't".
And also maybe as, "it's why lasers shine, and crank chemists only
do Vegas"..
And also as "robotics is a very productive field of study", but
evolutionists are just
idgit robots.
And also as "Computers actually COMPUTE in the fiber optics band,
but stooge
Physicists only do Greeks and Gammas".

> What makes 186,000 miles per second immune
> to relative motion?
> The speed of light can not be constant to all
> unless it is immune to relative motion.
> And if it is immune to relative motion, then
> it is not a "speed" at all.
>
> Speed can not be "non" relative.
> :)
>
> Relativists have created a parodox as the base
> of thier church foundation.
> :)
>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

Universal vacuum diagnostic

Uncle Al — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:12:13 GMT

One can in principle assay *all* interactive vacuum contents as the
Earth spins about its axis and falls around the sun - to remarkably
high sensitivity and with an internal check,

HK Moffat, "Six lectures on general fluid dynamics and two on
hydromagnetic dynamo theory", pp. 175-6 in R Balian & J-L Peube (eds),
Fluid Dynamics (Gordon and Breach,1977)

3.5 megabytes; pdf pp. 25-27, "calculation of the chiral case"

Craft two solid spheres of cultured single crystal quartz, one each in
enantiomorphic space groups P3(2)21 (right-handed) and P2(2)21
(left-handed). Niobium plate their surfaces. Cool to Type I
superconductivity Tg = 9.3 K, Meissner levitate in hard vacuum, and
look. If they start spinning in *opposite* directions you have vacuum
propellers. Theorists can sweat the rest.

If a Type II supercon is satisfactory, niobium stannide Tg = 18.3 K
and you can levitate much larger radius, heavier balls given the much
larger upper critical field of 25 tesla. If you are feeling studly,
sputtered niobium germanide with 23.2 K and 29 tesla (at 4.2 K).

It isn't quite simple but it is much simpler than looking for a
periodic signal, and with surpassing sensitivity for not being limited
by thermal noise. An array of paired balls gives you counting
statistics and deep internal validation with a single run.

Somebody should look.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

2057

Pandaeatsbamboo — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:12:04 GMT

2057 - The City
http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.com/2008/05/2057.html

2057 - The World
http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.com/...057-world.html

2057 - The Body
http://pandaeatsbamboo.blogspot.com/...2057-body.html

Re: Cosmic Inflation and Dark Energy:

Uncle Al — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:39:01 GMT

Paul Stelzner wrote:
>
> Current hot big-bang cosmology includes an unknown particle or
> field called an inflaton, producing a negative pressure vacuum, that
> brings about an exponential ( superluminal) expansion of the nascent
> universe. I propose that this inflation was in fact produced by the
> inchoate universe being originally constituted with photons, then
> undergoing a phase change to less energetic, more matter like substance.

1) Conservation of baryon number, isospin, hypercharge, quark color.
2) Empirical preponderence of matter over antimatter.
3) Bull****

> There's no need to explain with exotic conditions and forces when a
> simple solution using current models is available; a reassessment of
> parameters, not a total revision appealing to unknown aspects! That's
> more magic than science.

(1) plus (2) then (3).

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Theory of Relativity Passes Another Test

߃-- �� — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:08:41 GMT

That is according to the Relativitists:
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07...-another-test/

߃--��

Re: Les photons passent � c�t� des miroirs.(Pseudo ind�terminisme quantique)

Yanick Toutain[_2_] — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:50:47 GMT

On 7 juil, 22:26, " > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 10:24*am, Yanick Toutain > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://monsyte.blogspot.com/2008/07/...-ct-des-miroir...
>
> > (les dessins et graphiques sont sur le blog)
>
> > lire aussihttp://monsyte.blogspot.com/2008/06/pseudo-indterminisme-quantique.html
> > et sur le groupe sci.physicshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/fff37...
> > =========
>
> > Les photons passent � c�t� des miroirs.
> > En cours d'�dition
> > (l'image du dispositif est un scan d'une photocopie NB de la revue La
> > recherche avril 2008)
>
> > Les adversaires de Newton sont t�tus et ignorants : Ils refusent le
> > vide absolu, le vide objectif. Ils refusent les vitesses absolues, les
> > vitesses objectives.
>
> > Dans le dispositif de Anton Zeilinger et Markus Aspelmeyer, ni le
> > dessin ni l'article n'indiquent la largeur des miroirs utilis�s.
>
> > On retrouve l'erreur de Michelson que j'avais d�j� d�masqu�e : des
> > petits miroirs rendent absurde sa pr�tendue exp�rience. (Idem pour
> > Morley et Miller)
>
> > LARGEUR DES MIROIRS
>
> > Il suffit de prendre comme hypoth�se de travail l'hypoth�se A�n Al
> > Rami, de consid�rer que le vecteur translation objective appartient au
> > plan de leur dispositif et on peut calculer � quelle distance du
> > centre des miroirs auront lieu les impacts des photons.
>
> > Sur le graphique ci-dessous, on voit qu'� 85�, le graphique indique 7
> > centim�tres.
> > LongA (couleur bleue sur le graphique) est la longueur entre le centre
> > du premier miroir et le point d'impact du photon gauche.
>
> > Cela se comprend ainsi : � une vitesse objective de 5011 km/s, et un
> > dispositif mesurant 3 m�tres de c�t�, si ce dispositif est orient� de
> > 85� par rapport � la translation g�n�rale, le photon de gauche
> > heurtera le premier miroir � 7.2 centim�tres du centre de ce miroir..
> > LongB (couleur mauve) indique que ce m�me photon heurtera le deuxi�me
> > miroir � 6.6 centim�tres du centre du deuxi�me miroir.
> > Et longD (couleur jaune) nous montre le troisi�me miroir �tre impact�
> > � 13.8 centim�tres du centre.
>
> > N'importe qui peut comprendre que l'usage de miroirs mesurant moins de
> > 13.8 centim�tres laissera passer ce photon � c�t� du troisi�me miroir.
>
> > Le deuxi�me graphique est identique au premier non sign� : on a la
> > valeur absolue de l'�cart entre les centres des miroirs et les lieux
> > des impacts de photons : � 200 degr�s, par exemple, c'est le deuxi�me
> > miroir (donn�es en couleur mauve) qui laisse le plus passer de
> > photons.
>
> > Toutes les conclusions philosophiques de Anton Zeilinger et Markus
> > Aspelmeyer sont nulles et non avenues et issues d'un dispositif qui
> > nie l'existence de ce qu'ils pr�tendent r�cuser : une "anti-
> > tautologie" aussi absurde que les d�monstrations du charlatan Cantor.
> > Les relativistes doivent publier leurs donn�es brutes et cesser de
> > reprocher � Einstein un r�alisme qu'il n'affirma d'ailleurs jamais :
> > ce cr�tin de Einstein croyait avoir la possibilit� d'inventer
> > librement des "lois" issues de son cerveau personnel.
>
> > Nous, mat�rialistes, disciples de Newton, nous trouverons les
> > v�ritables lois de la mati�re, simples reflet des lois causales
> > objectives de la mati�re en-soi.
>
> > YT 02/07/08 18:05
>
> > Libell�s : Albert Einstein, dispositif, exp�rience, Isaac Newton,
> > physique, protocole, relativit�, sciences, Anton Zeilinger, Markus
> > Aspelmeyer,
>
> French friend it would be well advised for you to post in your choice
> of English, German or Latin if you expect a response.
>
> Harry C.- Masquer le texte des messages pr�c�dents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages pr�c�dents -

You're right !
Sorry.

You will find my favorite automatic translator here
(
My SFR web 3G connection is broken then

It is forbidden to use it from the library were I am actually :
perhaps they don t want the student to use automatic translator : it
is strange)
I cannot give you the english version of my text

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=babelfish&meta=

http://www.systran.fr/

"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"

Dlo — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:24:05 GMT

"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"

The Einsteinhoax Website was setup to counter an intellectual "fast
shuffle" which used Dr. Einstein's Special Relativity (which is easily seen
to be a mathematical copy of the earlier Lorentz Transformations Aether
Theory) to propagate the idea that our physical reality was too subtle to be
understood by mortal men and could only be dealt with using sophisticated
mathematics. This ploy served the academic community very well. The quote
was made that Dr. Einstein's principle contribution was not Special
Relativity but rather the showing that mathematics could used to make
advances in the physical sciences and "it was no longer necessary to wait
for "the few great minds that arise in each century" to make progress. Since
the availability of such intelligent men could not be expanded but
mathematics can be taught to anyone, the approach not only made the physical
sciences more mysterious, but allowed an unlimited expansion of the
contributing scientific community.

The phenomena associated with both Special and General Relativity seem,
to a large degree, to be incomprehensible and the conclusions contradictory.
There is a simple reason for this. The explanations which are provided lead
the mind to recognize inherent contradictions which are not apparent in the
mathematics. Since the contradictions do not appear in the mathematics it
was considered obvious that did not exist! These contradictions have led to
the continuous confusion appearing in the Newsgroups and elsewhere. The
reality is that, when an expert(s) cannot explain his(their) knowledge to an
intelligent layman (laymen), there can only be one explanation. The
expert(s) do not actually understand their subject matter. IT IS NOT BECAUSE
OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LAYMEN.

"The Einstein Hoax"

http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm was written to provide an
understanding of our physical reality which is in agreement with all known
physical observations and mathematical logic and , most importantly, pass
the "intelligent layman" test. The chapters of "The Einstein Hoax" are
listed below:

Chapter Titles

1. - Introduction
2. - Historical Background
3. - The Nature of the Einstein Hoax
4. - Does the Aether Exist?
5. - The Resurrection of Absolute Velocity by Quantum Experiments
6. - The Nature of Reality
7. - Applying the Lorentz Transformations Properly
8. - Generating the Gravity Transformations
9. - Dr. Einstein's Error and the Introduction of Curved Space
10. - Gravitational Contraction and Collapse
11. - Gravitational Collapse and the Creation of a Universe
12. - The Space Time Continuum
13. - The Nature of Particles
14. - Adding Quantum Effects to Our Understanding
15. - Changing the Paradigms
16. - What Can We Conclude?

There are 57,000 words and 53 illustrations.

"Gravity"

A correct derivation of gravitational theory described is provided in
"Gravity" at http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity/htm. The test for its validity
is whether it agrees with both the results of observation and the results of
theoretical derivations. The material presented passes this test. It agrees
with the observations which are alleged to have verified General Relativity.
The Sun's gravitational field is about 5 orders of magnitude too weak to
reveal the difference between the two approaches. Observations of strong
gravitational fields, such as around neutron stars, cannot differentiate
between the theories without a close up observations of orbital parameters.
Such a verification must await the availability of Star Trek's Warp Drive.

The advantage of the revised approach is that, among other results, it
reveals the source of gravitational energy (force), allows the total energy
of the Universe to remain constant over time, eliminates the idea of a
singularities (no black holes), and explains the creation of Universes. The
topics covered are:

Chapter Titles

1: - Introduction
2: - Laying the Groundwork
3: - Evaluating the Gravitational Conversion Factors
4: - Comparison with the "Real World"
5: - The Complete Gravitational Field

There are 50,000 words and 22 diagrams.

"Corrections to Errors in Special Relativity"

This text is provided to correct residual errors in Special Relativity
by using the transformations provided by Special Relativity to eliminate the
rather foolish "Right Angle Lever Paradox" and to reveal the nature of
inertial mass.

Summary of "Corrections to Special Relativity"

1.- Introduction
2.- Groundwork of the Discussion
3.- A Comparison of the Velocity Difference Between Velocity
Reference Frames B and C as Observed in Reference Frame B
and as Observed in Reference Frame A
4:- Determination of the Lorentz Transformation for Incremental Mass
and
for Force Between Reference Frames Having Relative Velocity
References
5:- The Balance of Moments Applied to a Right Angled Lever in Velocity
Reference Frame B Moving with Velocity 'V' with Respect to
Velocity
Reference Frame A as Observed in Reverence Frames A and B
6:- The Conventional Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force as
Related to the Right Angle Lever Thought Experiment
7:- The Lorentz Transformation for Parallel and Transverse Force as
Related to a Compressed Spring Thought Experiment

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- . If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"

Dlo — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:23:58 GMT

"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"

Dlo — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:23:47 GMT

"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"

Dlo — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:23:41 GMT