Color of the Universe is silverywhite like the element plutonium(JohnsHopkins)

(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:

refractors and robots are the key to success in science, not chemists.

I guess you didn't like the "color of Plutonium" metaphor very much, did
you? Well, I understood it fine, it's just that Plutonium-addled Luddite
who's used it to run amuck.

John Schutkeker wrote in message .. .

I do not think I can teach you a fact, but will try nonetheless. Did
you know that the complexity of a single plutonium atom in the
Shrodinger Equation is so complex that if the entire planet Earth were
a chain of supercomputers that they would be unable to compute simple
physical parameters for any length of time. Just the number of
Coulombic Interactions of the 94 protons to 94 electrons is of the
order of 10^188 or another math person says 232!/2 which is vastly
larger than the total number of elementary particles alleged to exist.
So, quite definitely, one with an open mind (not your closed mind) can
see that there is more going on inside one atom than what is going on
in the entire macroworld.

Here's some advice for you: take an MIT level, introductory quantum physics
class and call me in the morning, junior. Until then, you're plonked.

Well, if you look at the night sky, the universe appears to be black.
Which indicates that the universe must in fact be one giant Carbon
atom.

John Schutkeker wrote in message . ..
(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:

refractors and robots are the key to success in science, not chemists.

I guess you didn't like the "color of Plutonium" metaphor very much, did
you? Well, I understood it fine, it's just that Plutonium-addled Luddite
who's used it to run amuck.

I understand just fine that processed Plutonium
has a color, and that the only color that
Plutonium in the Earth's core has is none.

in article , John Schutkeker at
wrote on 3/29/04 5:27 AM:

Sigh... Well, nobody can say that I didn't try to light a single candle,
before I set about cursing the darkness.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:
snip

In the past, when I was paying for downloads by time on the ISP as well as
my internal clock, I kill filed quacky pluto. With dsl, I amuse myself
ocasionaly by reading his nonsense. At least he is not as offensive as some
similar posters who use profanity when you call them on their
incapapabilities. Bushbadee and Darkmatter are two of them who come to mind.

Bill

(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:

I understand just fine that processed Plutonium
has a color, and that the only color that
Plutonium in the Earth's core has is none.


You've been plonked, too.

Repeating Rifle wrote in
:

I amuse myself
ocasionaly by reading his nonsense. At least he is not as offensive as
some similar posters who use profanity when you call them on their
incapapabilities. Bushbadee and Darkmatter are two of them who come to
mind.


I've noticed that there are a *lot* of quack postings in this group. I
don't know if it's a majority or just a large minority, but they certainly
do damage the local environment.

I still haven't given up on this forum as a meeting place for professional
minds. The professional thing to do was to try to teach him a little
physics. That sure blew up in my face.

In sci.physics, John Schutkeker

wrote
on Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:37:30 GMT
:
Repeating Rifle wrote in
:

I amuse myself
ocasionaly by reading his nonsense. At least he is not as offensive as
some similar posters who use profanity when you call them on their
incapapabilities. Bushbadee and Darkmatter are two of them who come to
mind.


I've noticed that there are a *lot* of quack postings in this group. I
don't know if it's a majority or just a large minority, but they certainly
do damage the local environment.

I still haven't given up on this forum as a meeting place for professional
minds. The professional thing to do was to try to teach him a little
physics. That sure blew up in my face.

"Quacks" is admittedly a nice way of putting it. :-) Of course I'm
not entirely sure regarding some of the issues of relativity -- hence
satellites such as Gravity Probe B:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

to test what appears to be a key Einstein hypothesis. (*45* years?)

This apparently is to test whether the Earth's rotation will
drag space-time along with it. An odd but logical phenomenon,
if it occurs -- but the obvious question is whether the anomalies
will be because of the Earth rotating, or because of local
gravitational issues on the surface thereof.

Of course this is the essence of science: propose a theory, then
test it.

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
Of course this is the essence of science: propose a theory, then
test it.

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

Right Ghost, and here's my theory eh!

"ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE VELOCITY OF
THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER
THE CLOCKS ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION"

I want to see this theory checked by the very simple proceedure
of taking a couple of clocks up to the International Space Station on
separate flights. This is a good experimental technique because this
way both clocks have been subjected to virtually idendical accelerations,
yet,according to relativity theory, they will differ by an unmistakable
25 microseconds per day.

There has only been one attempt to measure the claimed SR time dilations
using ADJACENT clocks, and this failed! I know of course that Mssrs
Hafele and Keating did claim their experiment as a success for SR, but
if you read Dr.Kelly's "Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on
Airborne Claocks", Published by The Institution of Engineers of Ireland,
February 1996,(ISNB 1 787012 22 9), then you would see that this was
only acheived by flagrantly massaging their results, in a totally
unscientific manner.

Please don't anyone tell me about the 'GPS'. Those clocks being compared
on GPS tests are 20,000 km apart. That's a long way from 'ADJACENT'!

Also the GPS time dilations are in the opposite sense to the predictions
of SR. Yes i do know how you claim they are as predicted by GR, but
that's not the point. I want to see the 'SR time dilations' on adjacent
clocks. You relativists keep claiming that in principle it is possible
to send one twin on a journey, and on his/her return discover that
he/she is years younger than his/her stay at home brother/sister. Yet no
one has been able to show me an experiment which confirms even a few
microseconds of 'SR' time dilation' on 'ADJACENT' clocks, even though it
should be very easy to demonstrate this 'SR twin effect', on the
International Space Station, for example.
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ke...&site=group s

Yeah, he's been around forever and whoever the guy is just feel sorry for him.
One of these days he will either start taking his meds or leave us alone.

Ed

In sci.physics, Keith Stein

wrote
on Sat, 3 Apr 2004 22:47:42 +0100
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
Of course this is the essence of science: propose a theory, then
test it.

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

Right Ghost, and here's my theory eh!

"ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE VELOCITY OF
THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER
THE CLOCKS ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION"

That is your theory, yes. A corollary which you may not have
thought of, but which is presumably easily testable.

Say one has a reference satellite (GPS satellites being convenient
for this particular experiment). This satellite passes over
your head at a certain time t. If one knows its orbit well enough,
one can measure its clock (with the usual time delays) and, when
it passes over one's head again, one can remeasure and determine
the discrepancy of the measurements. If your theory is correct
the discrepancy, whatever it is, should also be 0.

This presumably is easily testable.


I want to see this theory checked by the very simple proceedure
of taking a couple of clocks up to the International Space Station on
separate flights.

My procedure is far simpler, although it requires some work,
as there are about 24 GPS satellites flying around up there;
one wants to pick the previously used one.

This is a good experimental technique because this
way both clocks have been subjected to virtually idendical accelerations,
yet,according to relativity theory, they will differ by an unmistakable
25 microseconds per day.

There has only been one attempt to measure the claimed SR time dilations
using ADJACENT clocks, and this failed! I know of course that Mssrs
Hafele and Keating did claim their experiment as a success for SR, but
if you read Dr.Kelly's "Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on
Airborne Claocks", Published by The Institution of Engineers of Ireland,
February 1996,(ISNB 1 787012 22 9), then you would see that this was
only acheived by flagrantly massaging their results, in a totally
unscientific manner.

They did have to massage their results, yes. I'm not sure regarding
the "unscientific" part, but apparently they hadn't figured on
cesium-beam QM irregularities.

I'm not sure if the experiment has been re-performed or not,
although I for one suspect that the GPS system had some
proofing flights. (Indeed, one of the satellites had a
switchable filter of some sort.)


Please don't anyone tell me about the 'GPS'. Those clocks being compared
on GPS tests are 20,000 km apart. That's a long way from 'ADJACENT'!

As long as the reference satellite passes over one's head in the
same position, it doesn't matter. The beam from the satellite
has to travel through the same conditions to get to your head
(or the receiver next thereto, more likely).

Admittedly, I don't know how much atmospheric density irregularities
(the same ones that cause stars to twinkle) might affect the results.


Also the GPS time dilations are in the opposite sense to the predictions
of SR. Yes i do know how you claim they are as predicted by GR,

Actually, both.

but that's not the point. I want to see the 'SR time dilations' on
adjacent clocks.

You can't see SR time dilations without accelerating one of the clocks.
Say one had two clocks A and B, both at rest and synchronized.
Now start B moving -- oops, that is now accelerating B. There's
no real good way around it although one can try to move B some
distance away, accelerate it, then have B synchronize itself as
it passes by a known point near to A, and then measure the
discrepancy sometime later in B's path -- but that's not quite
the same as measuring "time dilation", although it may be the best
we can do, and with that method one has to assume that one knows
the speed of light. (Fortunately, we do.)

You relativists keep claiming that in principle it is possible
to send one twin on a journey, and on his/her return discover that
he/she is years younger than his/her stay at home brother/sister. Yet no
one has been able to show me an experiment which confirms even a few
microseconds of 'SR' time dilation' on 'ADJACENT' clocks, even though it
should be very easy to demonstrate this 'SR twin effect', on the
International Space Station, for example.

It would not be easy. The main issue with the "SR twin effect" is
that one would have to exactly mimic the Twin Paradox experiment,
which in principle is doable but would require a certain amount
of rocket fuel. But basically, the experiment is a simple one.

Take two clocks up to A and B -- on the *same* trip -- together
with sufficient rocket fuel and equipment to conduct the
experiment. Have the astronauts synchronize the clocks on
the station. Pack clock B into a rocket, and fire the rocket.
The rocket accelerates, coasts, turns around, decelerates,
reaccelerates, turns around again, decelerates, and ends up
near to the space station again, to be picked up via EVA.
The clock inside is unpacked and the discrepancy checked.

That is an *SR* experiment, as opposed to the somewhat simpler
*GR* experiment that would require clocks A and B be taken up
on different space flights.

It is also an implementable version of the Twin Paradox.
The main problem admittedly is ensuring that the clock is
rugged enough to continue proper operation even under
acceleration (chemical rockets vibrate a lot during
firing). An alternative, which may be smoother, is to
substitute a xenon iondrive engine; this slightly unusual
engine was proven in Deep Space 1 IIRC, and has a gentle
but very long duration thrust. (I have no idea where they
get the xenon, though.)

I'd need some input regarding rocket impulse to do a computation
of the discrepancy for this experiment -- and it depends on
how far out the rocket goes. (The Earth's gravitation also
gets in the way; the ISS is cruising on a geodesic through a
warped space so it's not quite Euclidean, but there's not a
lot we can do about that unless we can get well outside of the
solar system.)

[.sigsnip]

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