A True Null Theory
Douglas Eagleson, 2005


A single relation theory once again.

I try to keep my physical theory simple.

This is because the simpler the easier it
is to understand.

Except to explain the single relation, often
alot of words in nonstandard english are required.

And this time I will use only the equation to explain.

Meaning the definition and context are left to
future discourse.

So the variable is called a density of quanta.

d- quanta per cm*cubed.

And the dependent variable is the fluence
lost due to time dialation. A speed is implied for
the set of particles. And for the variable
speed, a fluence is altered.

d= dprime*gamma

gamma-equals the fraction of Einstein's Special
Relativity.

And so the apriori is the speed of the quanta
relative to the frame of origin. A point quanta
source defines the origin.

Making the highest density the slowest
dprime.

Making the fluence always the calculated one for
the frame of the quanta.

And so the relation of the apriori fluence to
the calculated one is the final theory.

A speed effect independence is found in experiment.

Yes, the quanta in relation to detector was
the transformation of special relativity.

And for detectors of zero size the fluence
is found always altered.

And this zero is a source relative fluence.

And in retrospect I just removed the transformation.

Making a fine null theory.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:

A True Null Theory
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
[snip crap]

And the dependent variable is the fluence
lost due to time dialation. A speed is implied for
the set of particles. And for the variable
speed, a fluence is altered.

Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Uncle Al wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

A True Null Theory
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
[snip crap]

And the dependent variable is the fluence
lost due to time dialation... And for the
variable speed, a fluence is altered.

Idiot.

I think he meant "flatulence". In which case,
it all makes sense -


--
Rich

In sci.physics, RichD

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 16:48:24 -0700
.com:
Uncle Al wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

A True Null Theory
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
[snip crap]

And the dependent variable is the fluence
lost due to time dialation... And for the
variable speed, a fluence is altered.

Idiot.

I think he meant "flatulence". In which case,
it all makes sense -

Personally, I wish he were more fluent in English. :-)



--
Rich



--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In message , The Ghost In The
Machine writes
In sci.physics, RichD

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 16:48:24 -0700
s.com:
Uncle Al wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

A True Null Theory
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
[snip crap]

And the dependent variable is the fluence
lost due to time dialation... And for the
variable speed, a fluence is altered.

Idiot.

I think he meant "flatulence". In which case,
it all makes sense -

Personally, I wish he were more fluent in English. :-)

Or less.

--
Richard Herring

In sci.physics, Richard Herring
]
wrote
on Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:27:35 +0100
:
In message , The Ghost In The
Machine writes
In sci.physics, RichD

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 16:48:24 -0700
ps.com:
Uncle Al wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

A True Null Theory
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
[snip crap]

And the dependent variable is the fluence
lost due to time dialation... And for the
variable speed, a fluence is altered.

Idiot.

I think he meant "flatulence". In which case,
it all makes sense -

Personally, I wish he were more fluent in English. :-)

Or less.


Hmmm...well, that probably somes it up, more or less. :-)

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.