I'm very impressed by your “ derivations � of General Relativity;
but, in Sci.Physics.*, who else is doing it ( and doing it right ) ?

" =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?=
?= wrote in message
...
I'm very impressed by your " derivations " of General Relativity;
but, in Sci.Physics.*, who else is doing it ( and doing it right ) ?

Nobody. Most people who posts in forums are far too afraid of making a
mistake.

Pete

jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00 am, John Kennaugh
wrote:


One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.


A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.
A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without
having even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won'
neither is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits
neither the properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.

PD overestimated your ability to extract the point from his example.
Try this. A US quarter "gives an impeccable impression" of being a
picture of a president,


so using Kennaugh "logic" it's impossible, or at least exceedingly
difficult, for it to "give an impeccable impression" of being a picture
of an eagle too.

It has a picture of a president on one side and a picture of an eagle on
the other. If it was cubic it could have six pictures one on each side.
A 'picture' is not fundamentally different to another 'picture'
physically they are built up using the same technique of raised bits of
metal. They differ only in which bits of metal are raised and by how
much and what is done on one side in no way puts constraints on what is
done on the other and you cannot distort "Kennaugh's logic" to imply
that it says it does.

A wave on the other hand is a function of continuous fields and a photon
is definitely not continuous.

Now if you watch a film it looks to be a continuously moving picture but
you know that it is made up of a series of fixed images. It doesn't mean
we have to accept that it IS a continuously moving picture and IS also a
series of fixed images. It IS a series of fixed images which give an
impeccable impression of being a moving picture.

Light is not both waves AND photons - although it might be neither. The
most promising approach is that light IS made up of photons which
together give an impeccable impression of being waves. Just as we
understand how a series of fixed images can give rise to an impression
of continuously moving pictures it might be possible to understand how
photons can give the impression that they are waves.

R.A.Waldron has suggested [1] a structural model of a photon with which
explains the wavelike properties of light but physics doctrine has
declared that a photon has no internal structure which is rather
limiting. Like trying to explain how one gets the impression of detailed
moving pictures from a series of blank frames rather than assuming that
something in the nature of the frames gives rise to the impression of
detailed moving pictures.

[1] "The Spinning Photon" R.A.Waldron 1983 - Speculations in Science and
Technology Vol6 No2

--
John Kennaugh

PD wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:23*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:

One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.

A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.

A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having
even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither
is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the
properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.

Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it
also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle.

In redefining itself physics has declared that the only thing which
matters is prediction. If you have imprecise knowledge, for good
fundamental reasons, as to where an electron is and what its speed is
your prediction of where it will be a given time later is also
imprecise. The mathematics dealing with the statistics involved is well
established.

As is the modern trend physics takes the mathematics as being more
important than what it is describing and with no justification has
transposed our lack of knowledge as to where the electron is as being
that the electron itself is imprecise.

If you stop an electron then you know exactly where it is and in theory
you can find out how fast it was travelling and from what direction.
Retrospectively you can calculate exactly where it was previously. There
is every reason to believe that an electron is a precise object which
travels from exactly point A to exactly point B. Retrospective
measurement is dismissed on the grounds that physics is only concerned
with prediction - what is going to happen, not in what happened in the
past. There is nothing vague about the trace in a cloud chamber nor the
images produced by an electron microscope. I see no reason to believe
that an electron is other than a precise particle.

In the Schrodinger's cat experiment the only thing which changes when
the box is opened is our knowledge - and possibly the smell in the room.
It is perfectly possible to redesign the experiment with monitoring
equipment in the box which, when the box is opened with tell you
precisely when the cat died - but physics is about prediction and
retrospective measurement doesn't count so as far as physics is
concerned the cat is both alive and dead until the moment the box is
opened just as light is both waves and particles.


--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray

On Apr 23, 12:29*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:23*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:

One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently.

A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.

A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having
even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither
is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the
properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.

Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it
also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle.

* In redefining itself physics has declared that the only thing which
matters is prediction. If you have imprecise knowledge, for good
fundamental reasons, as to where an electron is and what its speed is
your prediction of where it will be a given time later is also
imprecise. The mathematics dealing with the statistics involved is well
established.

As is the modern trend physics takes the mathematics as being more
important than what it is describing and with no justification has
transposed our lack of knowledge as to where the electron is as being
that the electron itself is imprecise.

If you stop an electron then you know exactly where it is and in theory
you can find out how fast it was travelling and from what direction.
Retrospectively you can calculate exactly where it was previously. There
is every reason to believe that an electron is a precise object which
travels from exactly point A to exactly point B. Retrospective
measurement is dismissed on the grounds that physics is only concerned
with prediction - what is going to happen, not in what happened in the
past. There is nothing vague about the trace in a cloud chamber nor the
images produced by an electron microscope. I see no reason to believe
that an electron is other than a precise particle.

* In the Schrodinger's cat experiment the only thing which changes when
the box is opened is our knowledge - and possibly the smell in the room.
It is perfectly possible to redesign the experiment with monitoring
equipment in the box which, when the box is opened with tell you
precisely when the cat died - but physics is about prediction and
retrospective measurement doesn't count so as far as physics is
concerned the cat is both alive and dead until the moment the box is
opened just as light is both waves and particles.

--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." *Dr Scott Murray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Light is a Unified force.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

[1] Length can be graduated by Plancklengths.

[2] The precise position of graduations is indeterminate. The
graduations can slide back and forth.

[3] Therefore length is probabilistic, and _any_ length contained in
R
can exist in space, despite Plancklength.

[4] You will then have two possible cases for length.
[a] points are existentially indeterminate (space is
everywhere discrete)
[b] points are not existentially indeterminate (space is
everywhere continuous)

[5] Whether you have case [a] or case [b] is indeterminate,
therefore
you have wave particle duality.

[6] You can now model randomness as if it were a fluid embedded in
length, which gives _tremendous_freedom_ to model spacebending.


However - "as everyone knows"....something either exists or
it does not. There is no "in between".

HAH !

The fact is that existential indeterminacy works just fine. Example:


L = |--------------------| + |~ ~ ~|


L' = |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|


L is a chunk of length with some random length attatched to an
endpoint.

L' is a length where to each point in L' we assign a probability that
the point exists.

The "expected values" or "expected length" which result from L and L'
are identical.


It would make sense to speak of a product-sum duality.

I give you a number - say 8. And that is all I will tell you. Then I
ask -


.....is it [a] a product, or is it [b] a sum ?


Well ? Is the number 8 a product or a sum ? It is BOTH.

AHOY !! Ye Dumbasses


[1] Length can be graduated by Plancklengths.


[2] The precise position of graduations is indeterminate. The
graduations can slide back and forth.


[3] Therefore length is probabilistic, and _any_ length contained in
R
can exist in space, despite Plancklength.


[4] You will then have two possible cases for length.
[a] points are existentially indeterminate (space is
everywhere discrete)
[b] points are not existentially indeterminate (space is
everywhere continuous)


[5] Whether you have case [a] or case [b] is indeterminate,
therefore
you have wave particle duality.


[6] You can now model randomness as if it were a fluid embedded in
length, which gives _tremendous_freedom_ to model spacebending.


However - "as everyone knows"....something either exists or
it does not. There is no "in between".


HAH !


The fact is that existential indeterminacy works just fine. Example:


L = |--------------------| + |~ ~ ~|


L' = |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|


L is a chunk of length with some random length attatched to an
endpoint.


L' is a length where to each point in L' we assign a probability that
the point exists.


The "expected values" or "expected length" which result from L and L'
are identical.


It would make sense to speak of a product-sum duality.


I give you a number - say 8. And that is all I will tell you. Then I
ask -


.....is it [a] a product, or is it [b] a sum ?


Well ? Is the number 8 a product or a sum ? It is BOTH.

"PD" wrote in message
...

The list of "persona no grata" grows weekly. NoEinstein doesn't seem
to find many that he doesn't consider PNGs -- so far his acceptable
list includes Tom Potter with a provisional admission for Jeff Relf.

Congratulations PD!
The list of Bigots grows weekly.

So far the acceptable list includes:
PD
Art Deco
Eric Gisse
with a provisional admission for Uncle Al.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 7:48 pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:18 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:



"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 21, 8:18 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"
?=
wrote in message

.. .

What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
â?o integer units of action â? ? !

He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.

Actually Art Deco understands, and does,
his job very well.

Art works out of the caliballista.org boiler-room,
which is operated by a few Jewish bigots,
and used to intimidate and smear people,
that the bigots target.

Art's job is not to engage in rational, intelligent, moral
discussions to arrive at fundamental truths,

but his job is to smear folks, and obscure threads
on issues that his handlers don't want to have
the public exposed to.

Art does his job in several ways.

1. He ****es out posters,
and gets them off the issue,
and into a ****ing war.

2. He tries to link his victims
with negative images, negative ideas,
and negative people.

3. He appends alt.usenet.kook
to threads he wants to disrupt
in order to instigate a flame war between
the poster, the caliballista, boiler-rook bigots,
and the young boys and sociopaths
who hang out in alt.usenet.kook.

Art does a pretty good job
directing the activities of a few race/religion motivated bigots,
and in exploiting inferiority complexes in a few
sociopaths and young boys,
who tend to boost their egos by demeaning folks.
( Note that Art also exploits the inferiority complexes
of young boys and sociopaths in the serious newsgroups,
and gets some of them to append alt.usenet.kook to posts.

The Republican Party,
and now the Clinton gang
use the same tactics
used by the calaballista.org race motivated bigots,
and the tactic must work,
as they spend millions of dollars
trying to divert the attention of people
from facts and details.

I dare say that if Obama becomes president,
the masses will begin to turn aggressively on the
bigots, media, and politicians who use
smear as a weapon to promote their agenda,
which could not be promote successfully
using logic, intelligence and facts.

Hopefully, when the public gets sick of the
smear tactics, laws will be passed that make
it easy for folks smeared by Institutionalized Bigotry
to collect damages from the individuals and
organization that effected the smears.

The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from
his
own."

To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo...

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

-- Dear Tom: If Obama becomes President, the USA is probably doomed...

Considering that - NoEinstein -
is making Einstein look good,

and considering that he is opposed to Obama,
the only candidate for president
that is not totally controlled by the Jewish lobby,

one has to wonder if - NoEinstein -
is a shill,

working for the Einstein Cult,
and the War-for-Profit Gang.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo...

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Obama is a "minority" candidate supported by "minority"
Jews. TIME-Warner and CNN network are hugely biased toward Obama.
The publishers of science texts are mostly controlled by Jews; and
those love the fact that they make so much money trying to "explain"
Einstein. Einstein was a Jew, and Jews get their egos boosted by
letting him remain unchallenged. So, you could rightly say that Jews
are the primary reason my Einstein disproofs haven't gotten to the
front pages. Do you agree? :-) - NoEinstein -

-- Bingo! Another sociopath finally takes off the mask and speaks his
-- mind in foamy-lipped candor!

It is interesting to see that PD,
does not comprehend

that when billions of folks
separated in time and space
make correlations that agree,
and they speak their minds with "candor",

this does not make these folks "sociopaths".

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"hanson" wrote in message
news:4fvPj.3420$nb4.2236@trnddc08...
------======== AHAHAHA... ahaha.... AHAHAHA ==========
"Tom Potter" wrote on Hitler's Birthday
in message ... or
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/383de2ed2f7be3b1
something that has eerie undertones of similarity between 9/11
and the Kristallnacht. It shows troubling analogs between the
Weimar Republic and the recent and current State of the USA.

Let's hope that Potter's analysis turns out to be wrong and that
history will not necessarily repeat itself. But given the responses
that Potter receives from the blinded & brainwashed gyoim in
these NGs.... the prospects that the US goyim does unwittingly
create a self-fulfilling prophesy in analog to the history and fate
of "Potter's most moral, intelligent and productive people the
world has ever known", that possilibility can not be so easily
discarded...

Myself, I give a **** about the outcome since I make a great
living no matter who or what is in charge. I have always done so
in any culture I have worked with. You gotta accept that in any
tribe you do find some 90+% decent people & 2-3% of fanatical
assholes. The 2-3% you regard as such do think that you are the
same... Long-term peace is just not the cards, Potter... ahahaha.

The question is,
"Is there intelligent life on Earth?"

If there is,
and if that life is hardwired to
seek pleasure and avoid pain,
and if they are social beings,

one would think that they would tend
to construct societies that

make the integral of the
summation of all pleasure
minus the
summation of all pain
for all beings
over all time and space,

as high as possible.

But perhaps hanson is right.
Perhaps there is no intelligent life on Earth.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **