Some of my questions have reached dead ends.

Suppose it is time for me to conclude that no one has answers to these Qs
and I have to find answers for them myself.

Researcher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
==========================================
Very interesting.
This is precisely what I like to disagree with.
Because you traveled at some light years speed you find yourself amidst an
older state of the world.

Just be logical : You only traveled and nothing happened to the rest of the
universe. The stone which was left in your cupboard those many years back is
still there and not in the new location. How do you see it in two different
places at the same time.

It is just that you might go at that speed to catch up with the picture of
the older view of the place from where you traveled. That is the light
which had started years back as you are supposed to have overtaken them.
Well its just light in whatever deteriorated form. No substance at all. And
you think you are living in an older age.

This is exactly the 'first point' I would like to tell those who get carried
away with 'Time Travel'

Researcher
==================================
Ok, some bit answer to some bits of comments.

Yes, I agree that no one has claimed absolute knowledge about everything.
But some fight for 'ether' some for 'relativity' etc or their own pet theory
and claim that they know that for sure. That is what I meant.

When I said we don't know how to measure accurately I meant :
Let's say we want to measure length. Suppose we use a foot scale we don't
necessarily correct everytime for the temperature variation of the reference
scale.
Suppose we want to measure mass [which can't be measured] we use a standard
weight and balance it against item being measured while the gravity acts on
both the pans of the balance. We expect Gravity to act uniformly though.
Let us look at this experiment : take two identical metallic balls one at
room Temperature and other heated to +300 K or something like that. I am
sure both will weigh same on the scale but the higher temp has the higher
mass because it has higher energy content and E = MC^2.
My guess is Gravity will not affect or be able to act upon and pull down
light or energy in certain forms and therefore both balls will weigh same.
This gives you an idea what I meant. Of course I grant it there must be
more scientific and precise ways of correcting such errors but I did not
mean them but the methods which are commonly available.
Well, in any case I am not fortunate enough to be with an assignment to do
scientific experiments myself and gaze at the stars elaborately to expand my
thinking.

Researcher
=================================================
Hi,

Thanks.

You really seem to be making sense to me.

I have always been wondering on these lines.

I may have to eliminate my own misconception about anything say, Light ,
energy,temperature,atomic structure [is it the same what we think to be -
how a covalence occurs practically?],particle [is there any in physics
though it could be in meta-physics],ether etc. among others.

Sure, light is not a wave. But except pure energy like the laser, it doesn't
generate in constant continuity and strength.

The generator of light has a lot to define on its abilities.

A practical light emitter produces wavy light while oscillating to its
controlling power source, being unable to produce a continuous spurt of
light in uniform strength and therefore exhibits wavy and sinusoidal
patterns such as Newton Rings etc.

Giving too much recognition to Hubble's redshift etc. and conclude on
certain things is not acceptable to me.

When the pleasant light [moonlight] or entertaining light in its multi color
turns hostile and laser in its strength it goes through objects which it
side-stepped before, and as the intensity increases nothing is beyond its
perforation.

Is there Ether between nucleus and orbiting electrons?
A moot point, though I am still to accept any of these --trons.

Researcher
===============================================
What exactly is magnetism?

Particularly :

Why does it affect iron and not lead or speaking of its partiality among
ever metals ?

So, is it an 'electron' or 'electromagnet'

Researcher
===============================================




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Researcher wrote:
Some of my questions have reached dead ends.

Suppose it is time for me to conclude that no one has answers to these Qs
and I have to find answers for them myself.

Try a quantum mechanics textbook.

[...]

Researcher wrote:
Some of my questions have reached dead ends.

Suppose it is time for me to conclude that no one has answers to these Qs
and I have to find answers for them myself.

Whether your conclusions are right or wrong, finding the answers for
yourself won't kill you, especially if you are not interested in the
answers you have received.

In any case I am not fortunate enough to be with an assignment to do
scientific experiments myself and gaze at the stars elaborately to expand my
thinking.

You are fortunate enough to live in an age when the information you
seek is readily available for the price of only the time and effort
needed to find and understand it.

"Researcher" wrote in message
.. .
| Some of my questions have reached dead ends.
|
| Suppose it is time for me to conclude that no one has answers to these Qs
| and I have to find answers for them myself.


Go ahead. Guess all you want.

Don't guess, the answers to your questions are rigorously derived by
applying the rules of dimensional analysis to simple physically realizeable
thought experiments. See
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm.

"Researcher" wrote in message
.. .
Some of my questions have reached dead ends.

Suppose it is time for me to conclude that no one has answers to these Qs
and I have to find answers for them myself.

Researcher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
==========================================
Very interesting.
This is precisely what I like to disagree with.
Because you traveled at some light years speed you find yourself amidst an
older state of the world.

Just be logical : You only traveled and nothing happened to the rest of
the
universe. The stone which was left in your cupboard those many years back
is
still there and not in the new location. How do you see it in two
different
places at the same time.

It is just that you might go at that speed to catch up with the picture of
the older view of the place from where you traveled. That is the light
which had started years back as you are supposed to have overtaken them.
Well its just light in whatever deteriorated form. No substance at all.
And
you think you are living in an older age.

This is exactly the 'first point' I would like to tell those who get
carried
away with 'Time Travel'

Researcher
==================================
Ok, some bit answer to some bits of comments.

Yes, I agree that no one has claimed absolute knowledge about everything.
But some fight for 'ether' some for 'relativity' etc or their own pet
theory
and claim that they know that for sure. That is what I meant.

When I said we don't know how to measure accurately I meant :
Let's say we want to measure length. Suppose we use a foot scale we don't
necessarily correct everytime for the temperature variation of the
reference
scale.
Suppose we want to measure mass [which can't be measured] we use a
standard
weight and balance it against item being measured while the gravity acts
on
both the pans of the balance. We expect Gravity to act uniformly though.
Let us look at this experiment : take two identical metallic balls one at
room Temperature and other heated to +300 K or something like that. I am
sure both will weigh same on the scale but the higher temp has the higher
mass because it has higher energy content and E = MC^2.
My guess is Gravity will not affect or be able to act upon and pull down
light or energy in certain forms and therefore both balls will weigh same.
This gives you an idea what I meant. Of course I grant it there must be
more scientific and precise ways of correcting such errors but I did not
mean them but the methods which are commonly available.
Well, in any case I am not fortunate enough to be with an assignment to do
scientific experiments myself and gaze at the stars elaborately to expand
my
thinking.

Researcher
=================================================
Hi,

Thanks.

You really seem to be making sense to me.

I have always been wondering on these lines.

I may have to eliminate my own misconception about anything say, Light ,
energy,temperature,atomic structure [is it the same what we think to be -
how a covalence occurs practically?],particle [is there any in physics
though it could be in meta-physics],ether etc. among others.

Sure, light is not a wave. But except pure energy like the laser, it
doesn't
generate in constant continuity and strength.

The generator of light has a lot to define on its abilities.

A practical light emitter produces wavy light while oscillating to its
controlling power source, being unable to produce a continuous spurt of
light in uniform strength and therefore exhibits wavy and sinusoidal
patterns such as Newton Rings etc.

Giving too much recognition to Hubble's redshift etc. and conclude on
certain things is not acceptable to me.

When the pleasant light [moonlight] or entertaining light in its multi
color
turns hostile and laser in its strength it goes through objects which it
side-stepped before, and as the intensity increases nothing is beyond its
perforation.

Is there Ether between nucleus and orbiting electrons?
A moot point, though I am still to accept any of these --trons.

Researcher
===============================================
What exactly is magnetism?

Particularly :

Why does it affect iron and not lead or speaking of its partiality among
ever metals ?

So, is it an 'electron' or 'electromagnet'

Researcher
===============================================




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com