"tadchem" wrote in message ...
"wavelength" wrote in message
...

snip

If falling "straight in", it will impact. Otherwise it will achieve an
orbit that is a conic section with one focus at the common center of mass
and tangent to its current velocity.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Actually, I think you'll find that Descartes was right: That all of
the matter in the universe is spirally gravitating toward common
centers of mass; at rates that are inversely proportional to their
masses and their distance from the common center of mass:

That is lighter less massive particles and bodies are traveling faster
than heavier more massive bodies; at rates which increase dramatically
as they get closer to their common centers of mass.

It is inevitable that the nucleus _around_ a common center of mass;
which acts as the sink for the vortex surrounding it will gradually
become so vast; eccentric, and unstable that it will eventually
burst to smithereens.

What we call entropy is the accumulation of matter into these nuclei,
which upon becomming unstable burst upon the scene creating a whole
lot of new radiation which then starts a new cyle disrupting the
status quo and forming a new beginning for another cycle of
accumulation.

Well something like that anyways(;^)

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

Actually, I think you'll find that Descartes was right: That all of
the matter in the universe is spirally gravitating toward common
centers of mass; at rates that are inversely proportional to their
masses and their distance from the common center of mass:


Sigh!

o Newton's Laws
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...wtonsLaws.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html

Idiot. Learn how to spell English words.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...
"tadchem" wrote in message
...
"wavelength" wrote in message
...

snip

If falling "straight in", it will impact. Otherwise it will achieve an
orbit that is a conic section with one focus at the common center of
mass
and tangent to its current velocity.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Actually, I think you'll find that Descartes was right: That all of
the matter in the universe is spirally gravitating toward common
centers of mass; at rates that are inversely proportional to their
masses and their distance from the common center of mass:

That is lighter less massive particles and bodies are traveling faster
than heavier more massive bodies; at rates which increase dramatically
as they get closer to their common centers of mass.

It is inevitable that the nucleus _around_ a common center of mass;
which acts as the sink for the vortex surrounding it will gradually
become so vast; eccentric, and unstable that it will eventually
burst to smithereens.

What we call entropy is the accumulation of matter into these nuclei,
which upon becomming unstable burst upon the scene creating a whole
lot of new radiation which then starts a new cyle disrupting the
status quo and forming a new beginning for another cycle of
accumulation.

Well something like that anyways(;^)

c

Why is c the speed limit?

Is it because the mass of a particle and its waviness increases as it
approaches c?

Is Cerenkov radiation ever faster than c? It's just faster than light
when light is slowed, nearer to c.

Two point light sources coincidentally start emission at the same time
towards each other. Does not each photon hurtle at c thus that their
relative velocity is 2c? The sources disappear and the photons
remain, why is not one at rest and the other moving at 2c? The
visible universe has many light sources.

How would you define a tachyon, and what are its properties?

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

It's kind of like c is 1, and massy particle obeying Newton's inertia
law speed is infinitesimal, and tachyon speed infinite, and particle
and tachyon speed are reciprocal.

Regards,

Ross F.

A couple months ago there was launched that satellite that contains
the microgravity experiment to work on some experimental results
verifying special relativity. Some of its parts were among the most
precisely machined of anything in human existence. How's that going?
A query of their web site has the scientific work soon to begin.

In the geometric algebras, for example Clifford's algebra, there can
be so named the space-like, time-like, and light-like vector bases,
with e_s^2= 1, e_t^2= 0, and e_l^2= -1.

So I got to thinking to myself "how can a wave-particle photon move
relative to another", with an implied distance metric on a point-set
topology. (- Nonsense.)

So anyways, recently I've "worked out" ways to get infinity to equate
zero, and also negative one, and variously one. Might that change
your perception?

Where I'm coming from with the "how anything is not a clump or speck
or the root probabilistic flaw" is basically a
multiple-worlds-interpretation or perhaps a mirror zone, per se.

This is where I say the universe is infinite and as well at some
"infinite distance past its extent* that it is surrounded, as a near
empty vacuum, by an infinite shell of infinitely dense mass and
energy. Anything is n-dimensionally infinite, it's the complex ones
that I would very much like to understand, foundationally.

Yo ho ho, and a bottle of rum.

I speak in a variety of English language accents.

Regards,

Ross F.
"Here the interruption came from three or four points at once."

(Ross A. Finlayson) wrote in message . com...
Why is c the speed limit?

Is it because the mass of a particle and its waviness increases as it
approaches c?

Is Cerenkov radiation ever faster than c? It's just faster than light
when light is slowed, nearer to c.

Two point light sources coincidentally start emission at the same time
towards each other. Does not each photon hurtle at c thus that their
relative velocity is 2c?

Yes ... that's corect, and two physical bodies can have a relative
closing velocity as seen by a third observer as arbitrarily close to
2c. I can also prearrange to have a long line of flash bulbs go off
at 10c. So?

The sources disappear and the photons
remain, why is not one at rest and the other moving at 2c?

Nothing moving at c every defines a proper rest frame... but we soon
start talking in slogans at this rate.

The
visible universe has many light sources.

How would you define a tachyon, and what are its properties?

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

It's kind of like c is 1, and massy particle obeying Newton's inertia
law speed is infinitesimal, and tachyon speed infinite, and particle
and tachyon speed are reciprocal.

Yeah. It's kinda like that. :-)

(Edward Green) wrote in message om...
(Ross A. Finlayson) wrote in message . com...
Why is c the speed limit?

Is it because the mass of a particle and its waviness increases as it
approaches c?

....

How would you define a tachyon, and what are its properties?

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

It's kind of like c is 1, and massy particle obeying Newton's inertia
law speed is infinitesimal, and tachyon speed infinite, and particle
and tachyon speed are reciprocal.

Yeah. It's kinda like that. :-)


Why is that so?

The tachyon is a theoretical lack of particle- and wave-ness that
travels, in a way, at a speed that is basically from c on out to
infinity.

The speed of light, c, reminds of the Planck length, scripty h, and
scripty h slash, the Planck length divided by 2pi. Then there's the
fine structure constant and stuff.

There is a lot of utility in the application of the mathematics of
geometric algebras with discussing the space-, time-, and light-like
"vectors", with the 3-1 or 3-2 projections. How many bases does light
get?

A travelling photon has a frequency. It's generally among zillions of
other photons flowing in all directions from the omnidirectional
source, in a cone from the cone light source, or in a single line from
the unidirectional point source. The massy, charged, stream of
photons floods through the cornea and fluids of the eyeball to the
sensitive photorecepting rods and cones of the eye, there converted to
electrical signals, carried by chemical messengers from endpoint to
endpoint of the neurons of the thick cable of the optic nerve directly
into the visual cortex, a clump of a biological network (neural
network) that is interpreted when visual from the upside-down image
focussed on the retina to what is then interpreted by the brain as a
continuously variable image, because natural light is not coherent.

The photon, with charge measured in "electron Volts", eV's, has about
the same charge as an electron, a difficult kind of subatomic
particle.

The standard model of physics has the elements being those masses of
atoms with equal atomic numbers, the atomic number is the number of
"protons", or comparatively massy to the "negative" "orbiting"
electrons composites of, here I got lost, something about "hadrons" or
"muons" or "leptons", quarks and quarks of the standard model, which
follow some proportional constants of multiples of three in
diminishing "mass".

At some point in time the mass diminishes so much that the sum
energy/mass of the "particle" demands that its "frequency" rise where
the mass and energy present in that "continuous" section of the
coordinate space equate to represent the charged, oscillating,
inertial potential or actuality of the "non-empty space."

So as the mass goes to zero, of the particle with mass and oscillating
frequency, the frequency goes to infinity, with fixed energy. As the
particle goes to c, mass goes to infinity.

What is "local frequency adjustment zone."

The "neutron" is often found within the "nucleus" of the atom, in some
respects the neutron is a proton infinitely compacted with an
electron, but the mass and "charge" of the proton and electron don't
_sum_ to exactly that of the neutron. In some forms of "radioactive
decay" the neutron decomposes to an electron and proton pair, changing
the atom from being one element to another, in increasing the atomic
number, but not atomic mass, of the atom.

Within the standard model there are various considerations of gravity,
strong and weak, and other forces that act upon the mass/energy that
fill the infinite three-dimensional space that characterizes the
observable universe.

I guess I don't yet understand why there are any boundaries like the
Planck length, or rather, what physical effect occurs at those
boundaries. Can not light vary continuously in frequency from one to
the next?


Regards,

Ross F.

Is not the frequency of light infinitely variable?

About the Planck length, h, and h-bar, (h-slash): h/2pi, I got to
thinking about some things that are 2pi. The area of a circle with
radius sqrt(2) is 2pi. The circumference of a circle with radius one
is 2pi. The isosceles triangles with a unit hypotenuse has the equal
sides with length of 2^ -1/2.

So then I get to wondering in what conditions to use h-bar instead of
h.

I'd really be happy if some mathematical formula that I derived could
be used to predict something in the physical world, like geometric
algebras predicted the existence of some subatomic particles and their
existence and behavior, and the existence of the flag dipole spinors
purely mathematically enabling the prediction of otherwise
unprecedented event observations.

My belief is that the integral of the function f(x)=1 over the
naturals evaluates to equal two. That's about the continuous reals as
points and so on and so forth. I want to figure out a physical analog
that is best explained if and only if that is true. Please review the
thread "Points on a Line, Infinity", with various geometric mutations.

There are a variety of models of infinitesimals, with various purposes
and characteristics. They might be not interchangeable but they can
at least be consistent. Classical analysis is verified in
non-standard analysis.

A cursory review has "semi-infinite" synonymous with "infinite", yet
specifically that other term is used, in its broad context of
analysis. The other day Ullrich wrote to sci.math to admit that there
are various methods to size infinite sets. Here's to his steep
learning curve.

Good luck, regards,

Ross F.