Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

Presume our airplane has equal moments of
inertial in all 3 axes, to unitized the momentum.
I can maintain a Pitch=0, and Roll at twice the
rate of Yaw, meaning I can Roll 720 degs for a
Yaw of 360 degs.
It appears to me that Yaw/Roll =1/2 and I suggest
that is an intrinsic scalar.

To prove that, let's employ (Maxwell's 2nd set),
(a property of asymmetric tensors),

A23,1 + A13,2 + A21,3 = 0

(Pitch + Roll + Yaw , rates of change).

Let's use integers "n" for "rates of change",

n1 * A23 + n2 * A13 + n3 * A21 = 0,

so in the above example, n1=0, n2=2, n3=1,
with "intrinsic spin" being n3/n2 = 1/2.

A question arises as to why the assumption
of using "n" as an integer value is reasonable.
Suppose "n" is in units of action which can
be equated to units of angular momentum,
and spin, and the equation evolves to,

n1*h * A23 + n2*h * A13 + n3*h * A21 = 0,

in a clearer presentation, to permit,

h * (n1 + n2 + n3) = 0

by using the above assumption of equal moments
of inertial to allow unitizing A23 , A13 and A21.

Let n1=0 , n2 =2 , n3 = -1 then

n2/n2 + n3/n2 = 0 = 1 - 1/2 = 1/2

which is a scalar invariant.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Please allow the other posters to reply
before you do, thanks.

On Apr 8, 2:44*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

*Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

This is relativistic angular momentum per unit mass. Pitch/yaw/roll
are angles. The list of things you know nothing about continues to
grow larger every day.

You are merely an advanced version of Koobee Wublee - no
understanding, just a larger database of words and formulae.

[snip remaining due to idiocy]

On Apr 8, 8:17*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 8, 2:44*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

*Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

This is relativistic angular momentum per unit mass. Pitch/yaw/roll
are angles. The list of things you know nothing about continues to
grow larger every day.

You are merely an advanced version of Koobee Wublee - no
understanding, just a larger database of words and formulae.

[snip remaining due to idiocy]

xxein: Did he say anything about mass? Did he mention a mass
velocity?

On Apr 8, 6:44*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

*Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

Presume our airplane has equal moments of
inertial in all 3 axes, to unitized the momentum.
I can maintain a Pitch=0, and Roll at twice the
rate of Yaw, meaning I can Roll 720 degs for a
Yaw of 360 degs.
It appears to me that Yaw/Roll =1/2 and I suggest
that is an intrinsic scalar.

To prove that, let's employ (Maxwell's 2nd set),
(a property of asymmetric tensors),

A23,1 + A13,2 + A21,3 = 0

(Pitch + Roll + Yaw *, rates of change).

Let's use integers "n" for "rates of change",

n1 * A23 + n2 * A13 + n3 * A21 = 0,

so in the above example, n1=0, n2=2, n3=1,
with "intrinsic spin" being n3/n2 = 1/2.

A question arises as to why the assumption
of using "n" as an integer value is reasonable.
Suppose "n" is in units of action which can
be equated to units of angular momentum,
and spin, and the equation evolves to,

n1*h * A23 + n2*h * A13 + n3*h * A21 = 0,

in a clearer presentation, to permit,

h * (n1 + n2 + n3) = 0

by using the above assumption of equal moments
of inertial to allow unitizing A23 , A13 and A21.

Let n1=0 , *n2 =2 , *n3 = -1 then

n2/n2 + n3/n2 = 0 = 1 - 1/2 = 1/2

which is a scalar invariant.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Please allow the other posters to reply
before you do, thanks.

xxein: You already know that I am not a mathematician (Hey! I
spelled it correctly).

What concerns me are the preconditions. Why should P, Y and R have
any interger n?

I might think that n is only available through (relative) velocity of
the whole and interaction (Mach).

By what standard can it be measured? Is there a standard that can
stand alone?

On Apr 8, 6:06*pm, xxein wrote:
On Apr 8, 6:44*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:





Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

*Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

Presume our airplane has equal moments of
inertial in all 3 axes, to unitized the momentum.
I can maintain a Pitch=0, and Roll at twice the
rate of Yaw, meaning I can Roll 720 degs for a
Yaw of 360 degs.
It appears to me that Yaw/Roll =1/2 and I suggest
that is an intrinsic scalar.

To prove that, let's employ (Maxwell's 2nd set),
(a property of asymmetric tensors),

A23,1 + A13,2 + A21,3 = 0

(Pitch + Roll + Yaw *, rates of change).

Let's use integers "n" for "rates of change",

n1 * A23 + n2 * A13 + n3 * A21 = 0,

so in the above example, n1=0, n2=2, n3=1,
with "intrinsic spin" being n3/n2 = 1/2.

A question arises as to why the assumption
of using "n" as an integer value is reasonable.
Suppose "n" is in units of action which can
be equated to units of angular momentum,
and spin, and the equation evolves to,

n1*h * A23 + n2*h * A13 + n3*h * A21 = 0,

in a clearer presentation, to permit,

h * (n1 + n2 + n3) = 0

by using the above assumption of equal moments
of inertial to allow unitizing A23 , A13 and A21.

Let n1=0 , *n2 =2 , *n3 = -1 then

n2/n2 + n3/n2 = 0 = 1 - 1/2 = 1/2

which is a scalar invariant.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Please allow the other posters to reply
before you do, thanks.

xxein: *You already know that I am not a mathematician (Hey! *I
spelled it correctly).

What concerns me are the preconditions. *Why should P, Y and R have
any interger n?

I might think that n is only available through (relative) velocity of
the whole and interaction (Mach).

By what standard can it be measured? *Is there a standard that can
stand alone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A infinitely small point cannot spin. Even if there is a field
emenating from it. This field would be symmetrical and there would be
no possibility for any spin to be measured. Spin does not exist for
fundamental matter particles.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Apr 8, 10:31*pm, wrote:
On Apr 8, 6:06*pm, xxein wrote:





On Apr 8, 6:44*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

*Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

Presume our airplane has equal moments of
inertial in all 3 axes, to unitized the momentum.
I can maintain a Pitch=0, and Roll at twice the
rate of Yaw, meaning I can Roll 720 degs for a
Yaw of 360 degs.
It appears to me that Yaw/Roll =1/2 and I suggest
that is an intrinsic scalar.

To prove that, let's employ (Maxwell's 2nd set),
(a property of asymmetric tensors),

A23,1 + A13,2 + A21,3 = 0

(Pitch + Roll + Yaw *, rates of change).

Let's use integers "n" for "rates of change",

n1 * A23 + n2 * A13 + n3 * A21 = 0,

so in the above example, n1=0, n2=2, n3=1,
with "intrinsic spin" being n3/n2 = 1/2.

A question arises as to why the assumption
of using "n" as an integer value is reasonable.
Suppose "n" is in units of action which can
be equated to units of angular momentum,
and spin, and the equation evolves to,

n1*h * A23 + n2*h * A13 + n3*h * A21 = 0,

in a clearer presentation, to permit,

h * (n1 + n2 + n3) = 0

by using the above assumption of equal moments
of inertial to allow unitizing A23 , A13 and A21.

Let n1=0 , *n2 =2 , *n3 = -1 then

n2/n2 + n3/n2 = 0 = 1 - 1/2 = 1/2

which is a scalar invariant.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Please allow the other posters to reply
before you do, thanks.

xxein: *You already know that I am not a mathematician (Hey! *I
spelled it correctly).

What concerns me are the preconditions. *Why should P, Y and R have
any interger n?

I might think that n is only available through (relative) velocity of
the whole and interaction (Mach).

By what standard can it be measured? *Is there a standard that can
stand alone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A infinitely small point cannot spin. Even if there is a field
emenating from it. This field would be symmetrical and there would be
no possibility for any spin to be measured. Spin does not exist for
fundamental matter particles.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Then there is no need for the universe to present itself to us.

On Apr 8, 5:42*pm, xxein wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:17*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Apr 8, 2:44*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

*Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

This is relativistic angular momentum per unit mass. Pitch/yaw/roll
are angles. The list of things you know nothing about continues to
grow larger every day.

You are merely an advanced version of Koobee Wublee - no
understanding, just a larger database of words and formulae.

[snip remaining due to idiocy]

xxein: *Did he say anything about mass? *Did he mention a mass
velocity?

No, because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Hi Xxein.

On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, xxein wrote:
On Apr 8, 6:44 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

Presume our airplane has equal moments of
inertial in all 3 axes, to unitized the momentum.
I can maintain a Pitch=0, and Roll at twice the
rate of Yaw, meaning I can Roll 720 degs for a
Yaw of 360 degs.
It appears to me that Yaw/Roll =1/2 and I suggest
that is an intrinsic scalar.

To prove that, let's employ (Maxwell's 2nd set),
(a property of asymmetric tensors),

A23,1 + A13,2 + A21,3 = 0

(Pitch + Roll + Yaw , rates of change).

Let's use integers "n" for "rates of change",

n1 * A23 + n2 * A13 + n3 * A21 = 0,

so in the above example, n1=0, n2=2, n3=1,
with "intrinsic spin" being n3/n2 = 1/2.

A question arises as to why the assumption
of using "n" as an integer value is reasonable.
Suppose "n" is in units of action which can
be equated to units of angular momentum,
and spin, and the equation evolves to,

n1*h * A23 + n2*h * A13 + n3*h * A21 = 0,

in a clearer presentation, to permit,

h * (n1 + n2 + n3) = 0

by using the above assumption of equal moments
of inertial to allow unitizing A23 , A13 and A21.

Let n1=0 , n2 =2 , n3 = -1 then

n2/n2 + n3/n2 = 0 = 1 - 1/2 = 1/2

which is a scalar invariant.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Please allow the other posters to reply
before you do, thanks.

xxein: You already know that I am not a mathematician (Hey! I
spelled it correctly).

That's ok, I've been told I'm the best
mathematician on the planet, so I can
help you with that, as soon as I figure
it out.

What concerns me are the preconditions. Why should P, Y and R have any interger n?

Spin seems to come in integer quantities,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_constant#Usage

The BIG why, is like asking why is the
fundamental charge constant or the speed
of light constant. We could debate that
if you want, it's in the physical bowels
of the universe.
Spin comes in finite indivisible units.

I might think that n is only available through (relative) velocity of
the whole and interaction (Mach).

By what standard can it be measured?
Is there a standard that can stand alone?

Myself, I regard spin == (charge)^2
== action == h.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Apr 8, 10:33*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hi Xxein.

On Apr 8, 7:06 pm, xxein wrote:



On Apr 8, 6:44 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Let me start by using an airplane,
orientated from tail to nose by using Y axis,
with wings being wings being on the X axis ,
and Z upward.
The Pitch is around X, the Roll around Y and
the Yaw around Z.

Denote Pitch = A23, Roll=A31, Yaw=A12,

where for legalese,

*Auv = x_u dx^v/dt - x_v dx^u/dt.

Presume our airplane has equal moments of
inertial in all 3 axes, to unitized the momentum.
I can maintain a Pitch=0, and Roll at twice the
rate of Yaw, meaning I can Roll 720 degs for a
Yaw of 360 degs.
It appears to me that Yaw/Roll =1/2 and I suggest
that is an intrinsic scalar.

To prove that, let's employ (Maxwell's 2nd set),
(a property of asymmetric tensors),

A23,1 + A13,2 + A21,3 = 0

(Pitch + Roll + Yaw *, rates of change).

Let's use integers "n" for "rates of change",

n1 * A23 + n2 * A13 + n3 * A21 = 0,

so in the above example, n1=0, n2=2, n3=1,
with "intrinsic spin" being n3/n2 = 1/2.

A question arises as to why the assumption
of using "n" as an integer value is reasonable.
Suppose "n" is in units of action which can
be equated to units of angular momentum,
and spin, and the equation evolves to,

n1*h * A23 + n2*h * A13 + n3*h * A21 = 0,

in a clearer presentation, to permit,

h * (n1 + n2 + n3) = 0

by using the above assumption of equal moments
of inertial to allow unitizing A23 , A13 and A21.

Let n1=0 , *n2 =2 , *n3 = -1 then

n2/n2 + n3/n2 = 0 = 1 - 1/2 = 1/2

which is a scalar invariant.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Please allow the other posters to reply
before you do, thanks.

xxein: *You already know that I am not a mathematician (Hey! *I
spelled it correctly).

That's ok, I've been told I'm the best
mathematician on the planet, so I can
help you with that, as soon as I figure
it out.

HAHAHA, were you told this by someone who has any mathematical
ability?

[...]