|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#171
October 21st 03, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message
... "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... The generator electromagnetic oscillations always is nonlinear system, since this one converses one sort of energy in other. For example - resistor. The voltage is what tries to restore the quiescent conditions and is linearly related to the current hence in normal terminology it is linear. But in "exact" terminology it is nonlinear. ;-) The accurate terminology in English is "linear", the conventions may be different in your first language but it seems unlikely. I'll snip the rest, sorry to disappoint you but I have too many other demands on my time. I am already spending more effort than I intended on the discussion with Jim Greenfield but cosmology is my primary interest and a considerably more relevant topic for sci.astro. " But cosmology is my primary interest " also. Dear George, Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my astrophysical article from point of view of a scientific methodology: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com As an article, you note empirical relatinships which could be taken as evidence for interactions between the orbiting bodies producing locked periods. THE GRAVITATIONAL MASS is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given enough elementarily prime EMPIRICAL THEORY. I have eliminated SPACE and TIME from mine enough elementarily prime THEORY of a GRAVITATION. ;^) However, it is always possible to express any value as a ratio of integers given sufficiently wide bounds. You skip SYMMETRY joining all set of the ratios in uniform and monolithic whole. Why? "it is _NOT_ always possible to express any value as a ratio of integers given sufficiently _narrow_ ( NOT wide ) bounds." If you penetrate into a methodology of measuring of quantities of planetary masses more deep, you will experience stunning disbelieving to these measurings. It's brought to the surface a much wider controversy. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com The considered ratioes are optimal from a point of view of influence of values of absolute errors in values of planetary masses on outcomes of evaluations, since the planetary masses, closest on values, enter in these ratioes. I have shown, that statistically significant correspondence (fit) can be made for masses of planets utillizing the elementary OF THE SAME TYPE RATIOS of quantities of planetary masses. All ratioes consist of three quantities of planetary masses: 1.2. Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the planetary masses It is impossible to choose *many* different combinations of ratios by random which - lie close to a whole number; - obey to boundaries of measurement errors of quantities of planetary masses; - are continuous sequence of the least values of the ratioes: 3,5,7(*),8,10,13,24,33,39... ; - have PHYSICAL chiral SIMMETRY; - have all indicated properties simultaneously. ================================================== =============== It is impossible to choose *any* different combinations of ratios by random which - have Unparalleled CLASS linear combinations of triple nearest planetary system masses. ================================================== =============== If you can deny my statements, please you should primely point other concrete class of the ratios possessing even by part of the properties, indicated by me. To show that these ratios are meaningful, you need to show that they will be stable for a significantly longer period than would occur if the had these values at the moment by chance if you want it to be considered scientific. As it stands, it is only numerology. The precision gravitational measurings are executed only in limits of the Solar system. Outside the Solar system the gravitational measurings have extremely speculative character, therefore these abstract _so-called_ measurings (evaluations) can not be a basis for really scientific examinations and scientific deductions. ************************************************** ******** Outside the Solar system the gravitational measurings have extremely speculative estimated character. They are the INFERIOR grade of a NUMEROLOGY. ************************************************** ******** http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com The modern theories of motion of planets are a pure numerology. The theorists Astronomers (Celestial mechanics), proceeding from political interests, carefully hide from a public, that " the most exact modern theories of motion of planets " are a pure numerology. The problems of construction of the precision theories of motion of planets are so difficult, that some theorists come to ideas of chaos, i.e. they deny possibility of construction of the precision analytical theory of motion of planets. Now there are very many numerical theories of motion of planets, but theory giving exact co-ordinates of planets for large time intervals does not exist. These theories use various sets " of the most exact fundamental astronomical parameters of a solar system ", but we have not the precision theory of motion of planets till now. 1. Here SPACE and TIME are eliminated from the given EMPIRICAL THEORY. 2. THE GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given EMPIRICAL THEORY. 3. The given EMPIRICAL THEORY demonstrates EXPERIMENTALLY QUANTIZATION of a GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE. I couldn't see any theory, just specific examples. What can you say about the Kepler's laws, about thorough examinations of Balmer and Bohr? Perhaps you could express the method you use indepently of the results so that it could be applied to extrasolar planets. You need state the rules governing the relationships now when there are few systems with multiple planets known so that the predictions can be checked as results come in. That would qualify as an empirical law, basically a refinement of Bodes Law. However, what you posted is not a theory. You do not give a model for gravitation or show how your empirical law could be derived from it. If you could give the equations for your "quantised gravtitational charge" and how to apply then and show how to derive say an equivalent for the inverse square law then you would have at least a start on a theory. For the first time I have pointed a concrete natural phenomenon of a QUANTUM GRAVITATION. IT IS DISCOVERY HAVING a FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE for the subsequent development of the genuine QUANTUM THEORY of a GRAVITATION. Once again, what can you say about the Kepler's laws, about thorough examinations of Balmer and Bohr? George 
|
|
#172
October 21st 03, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... Dear George, Please, give destructive criticism or disapproval of my astrophysical article from point of view of a scientific methodology: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com As an article, you note empirical relatinships which could be taken as evidence for interactions between the orbiting bodies producing locked periods. THE GRAVITATIONAL MASS is ALONE physical VARIABLE in the given enough elementarily prime EMPIRICAL THEORY. I have eliminated SPACE and TIME from mine enough elementarily prime THEORY of a GRAVITATION. ;^) Yes, that is unfortunate. If I release two masses of 1kg each at rest 1m apart in free space, what does your 'theory' predict will be their subsequent motion? snip You skip SYMMETRY joining all set of the ratios in uniform and monolithic whole. Why? Because you asked me to comment on your article "from point of view of a scientific methodology". I was not commenting on your conclusions. snip more of the same To show that these ratios are meaningful, you need to show that they will be stable for a significantly longer period than would occur if the had these values at the moment by chance if you want it to be considered scientific. As it stands, it is only numerology. The precision gravitational measurings are executed only in limits of the Solar system. A point I made a few paragraphs further on. However, you asked for comments on your a scientific methodology and I have pointed out what I consider to be part of the methodology that you have yet to address. Your reply does not relate to my comment. Outside the Solar system the gravitational measurings have extremely speculative character, therefore these abstract _so-called_ measurings (evaluations) can not be a basis for really scientific examinations and scientific deductions. ************************************************** ******** Outside the Solar system the gravitational measurings have extremely speculative estimated character. They are the INFERIOR grade of a NUMEROLOGY. They are measurements since they are derived from actual observation, and they are not "gravitational measurings" they are measurements of orbital _period_. Since noone has attempted to look for ratios since most are known only as single planets per star, no form of numerology is even possible. Do you know what the word means? The theorists Astronomers (Celestial mechanics), proceeding from political interests, carefully hide from a public, that " the most exact modern theories of motion of planets " are a pure numerology. The problems of construction of the precision theories of motion of planets are so difficult, that some theorists come to ideas of chaos, i.e. they deny possibility of construction of the precision analytical theory of motion of planets. Now there are very many numerical theories of motion of planets, but theory giving exact co-ordinates of planets for large time intervals does not exist. These theories use various sets " of the most exact fundamental astronomical parameters of a solar system ", but we have not the precision theory of motion of planets till now. GR is the theory and no observation has ever shown it to be in error. You are confusing specific solutions with a general theory. I couldn't see any theory, just specific examples. What can you say about the Kepler's laws, Kepler's Laws allow me to predict the motion of a single orbiting object without reference to other planets, your method does not (as far as I can see). about thorough examinations of Balmer and Bohr? They lead to theories that can be applied generally. As I said if you think you have a theory, say what it predicts for extra-solar planets _before_ they are found, or more simply the example of two 1kg masses I mention at the top. George
|
|
#173
October 22nd 03, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:mBcjb.80471$gv5.68968@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message m... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:a2zhb.52523$gv5.22053@fed1read05... ... Please David describe your model of absorption of "photon" simultaneously by two VLBI radio telescopes. SourceA)---- (multiple photons) Detector1) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA Most of Earth Detector2) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA Rotate one of the polarizers, and show me it is the same photon following two simultaneous paths. With three antenna-systems online, I'm guessing only the antenna-system on which you rotate the polarizer "drops out". Dear David, I do not perceive your model rather well... The truth as I perceive it... Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth. Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth. 1. What concrete radio telescope will swallow up; devour; absorb; take up; or immerse this "photon"? 2. Other optional versions of your model... Since one telescope *does* absorb all of a photon (based on total absorbed energy), From group of three radio telescopes: the UNIQUE RADIO TELESCOPE has "absorb all" alone concrete "Photon". Whether I have understood you correctly? then signals detected at multiple telescopes must be multiple photons emitted in a "data packet". How many recorded incidents do you have where roughly half a photon (based on energy levels and/or polarization) is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae? " half a photon (based on energy levels and/or polarization) is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae? " What physical interpretation can have this assertion? : " half a photon ... is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae " Mach knew the Universe intrudes in the *here*. Einstein said the inverse, that any body was extended, even through the Universe. The diffraction formula says as much. This is why the wave model works so well for propagation. I do not perceive your model rather well... The fact that the antennae are separated by Earth is just geography. We consider a physical problem, I do not perceive as this one is bound to " just geography ". Please David explain this one more detailed. Good for driving the cost of flights up.
|
|
#174
October 22nd 03, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:mBcjb.80471$gv5.68968@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message m... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:a2zhb.52523$gv5.22053@fed1read05... ... Please David describe your model of absorption of "photon" simultaneously by two VLBI radio telescopes. SourceA)---- (multiple photons) Detector1) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA Most of Earth Detector2) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA Rotate one of the polarizers, and show me it is the same photon following two simultaneous paths. With three antenna-systems online, I'm guessing only the antenna-system on which you rotate the polarizer "drops out". Dear David, I do not perceive your model rather well... The truth as I perceive it... Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth. Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth. 1. What concrete radio telescope will swallow up; devour; absorb; take up; or immerse this "photon"? 2. Other optional versions of your model... Since one telescope *does* absorb all of a photon (based on total absorbed energy), From group of three radio telescopes: the UNIQUE RADIO TELESCOPE has "absorb all" alone concrete "Photon". Whether I have understood you correctly? I'm going to say yes in a very specific way. A recognized signal is received at three (in this example) antennae. It is assured to be the same signal because of simultaneous arrival at the three antennae (based on the synchronization procedure you previously described). It is further assured to be the same signal because the same energy-per-photon is recorded at each antennae. Yes, multiple photons from a single source. then signals detected at multiple telescopes must be multiple photons emitted in a "data packet". How many recorded incidents do you have where roughly half a photon (based on energy levels and/or polarization) is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae? " half a photon (based on energy levels and/or polarization) is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae? " What physical interpretation can have this assertion? : " half a photon ... is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae " Half a photon (neglecting any QM hackles I have already have raised) would be half the energy, and half the momentum. Of course, this would be a three particle-with-spin interaction, and would also be invalid. Mach knew the Universe intrudes in the *here*. Einstein said the inverse, that any body was extended, even through the Universe. The diffraction formula says as much. This is why the wave model works so well for propagation. I do not perceive your model rather well... Think of the "hair" model I had for particles? Remember, hair extending transverse to the line-of-flight to the "ends" of the Universe? All bodies are comprised of particles. All particles have such "hair". Einstein called it "extended body". Mach had the Universe make the water in the bucket spin. There is no empty space, and a little of each of us is already in the stars. The fact that the antennae are separated by Earth is just geography. We consider a physical problem, I do not perceive as this one is bound to " just geography ". Please David explain this one more detailed. I could write a lot, but I am "only an egg". I only have an inkling, and have insufficient rigor to present a solid case. I cannot convince, I can only suggest what I see. I do wish you'd flip one of the polarizers to be 90° to one of the other antennae, and see if you take out *two* signals, and not one. *That* would be a conundrum! David A. Smith
|
|
#175
October 23rd 03, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:Mxwlb.105676$gv5.24266@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:mBcjb.80471$gv5.68968@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message m... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:a2zhb.52523$gv5.22053@fed1read05... ... Please David describe your model of absorption of "photon" simultaneously by two VLBI radio telescopes. SourceA)---- (multiple photons) Detector1) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA Most of Earth Detector2) ---- (photon)---- (SourceA Rotate one of the polarizers, and show me it is the same photon following two simultaneous paths. With three antenna-systems online, I'm guessing only the antenna-system on which you rotate the polarizer "drops out". Dear David, I do not perceive your model rather well... The truth as I perceive it... Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth. Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth. 1. What concrete radio telescope will swallow up; devour; absorb; take up; or immerse this "photon"? 2. Other optional versions of your model... Since one telescope *does* absorb all of a photon (based on total absorbed energy), From group of three radio telescopes: the UNIQUE RADIO TELESCOPE has "absorb all" alone concrete "Photon". Whether I have understood you correctly? I'm going to say yes in a very specific way. A recognized signal is received at three (in this example) antennae. Dear David I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth. Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth. Please David describe your model of absorption of "single photon" simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". I am not interested in destiny of other "photons". Do not quibble. Thanks Aleksandr It is assured to be the same signal because of simultaneous arrival at the three antennae (based on the synchronization procedure you previously described). It is further assured to be the same signal because the same energy-per-photon is recorded at each antennae. Yes, multiple photons from a single source. then signals detected at multiple telescopes must be multiple photons emitted in a "data packet". How many recorded incidents do you have where roughly half a photon (based on energy levels and/or polarization) is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae? " half a photon (based on energy levels and/or polarization) is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae? " What physical interpretation can have this assertion? : " half a photon ... is absorbed simultaneously at two antennae " Half a photon (neglecting any QM hackles I have already have raised) would be half the energy, and half the momentum. Of course, this would be a three particle-with-spin interaction, and would also be invalid. Mach knew the Universe intrudes in the *here*. Einstein said the inverse, that any body was extended, even through the Universe. The diffraction formula says as much. This is why the wave model works so well for propagation. I do not perceive your model rather well... Think of the "hair" model I had for particles? Remember, hair extending transverse to the line-of-flight to the "ends" of the Universe? All bodies are comprised of particles. All particles have such "hair". Einstein called it "extended body". Mach had the Universe make the water in the bucket spin. There is no empty space, and a little of each of us is already in the stars. The fact that the antennae are separated by Earth is just geography. We consider a physical problem, I do not perceive as this one is bound to " just geography ". Please David explain this one more detailed. I could write a lot, but I am "only an egg". I only have an inkling, and have insufficient rigor to present a solid case. I cannot convince, I can only suggest what I see. I do wish you'd flip one of the polarizers to be 90° to one of the other antennae, and see if you take out *two* signals, and not one. *That* would be a conundrum! David A. Smith
|
|
#176
October 24th 03, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:Mxwlb.105676$gv5.24266@fed1read05... .... From group of three radio telescopes: the UNIQUE RADIO TELESCOPE has "absorb all" alone concrete "Photon". Whether I have understood you correctly? I'm going to say yes in a very specific way. A recognized signal is received at three (in this example) antennae. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth. Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth. Please David describe your model of absorption of "single photon" simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. A single photon is not received simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". I am not interested in destiny of other "photons". Do not quibble. I won't if you will tell me how three detectors that each accurately measure the energy of a photon, and are "tuned" to specific wavelengths of a photon, magnify the total received energy/momentum by three. I'm assuming this is where you are going next. David A. Smith
|
|
#177
October 24th 03, 06:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
|
|
#178
October 24th 03, 09:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:xFZlb.110010$gv5.90273@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:Mxwlb.105676$gv5.24266@fed1read05... ... From group of three radio telescopes: the UNIQUE RADIO TELESCOPE has "absorb all" alone concrete "Photon". Whether I have understood you correctly? I'm going to say yes in a very specific way. A recognized signal is received at three (in this example) antennae. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth. Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth. Please David describe your model of absorption of "single photon" simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. A single photon is not received simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Please David describe your model of absorption of "single photon" by three VLBI radio telescopes. Reminder: I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon", which one is radiated by a very remote source in a direction of the Earth. You should forget about all other details on some time. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". I am not interested in destiny of other "photons". Do not quibble. I won't if you will tell me how three detectors that each accurately measure the energy of a photon, and are "tuned" to specific wavelengths of a photon, magnify the total received energy/momentum by three. I'm assuming this is where you are going next. Please David give me the direct answer to my problem, then I can give answers to thy problems. You should forget about all other details on some time.
|
|
#179
October 24th 03, 10:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
http://www.pwaves.0catch.com/doc/english/e4.htm -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "Aleksandr Timofeev" kirjoitti viestissä m... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:xFZlb.110010$gv5.90273@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:Mxwlb.105676$gv5.24266@fed1read05... ... From group of three radio telescopes: the UNIQUE RADIO TELESCOPE has "absorb all" alone concrete "Photon". Whether I have understood you correctly? I'm going to say yes in a very specific way. A recognized signal is received at three (in this example) antennae. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth. Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth. Please David describe your model of absorption of "single photon" simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. A single photon is not received simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Please David describe your model of absorption of "single photon" by three VLBI radio telescopes. Reminder: I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon", which one is radiated by a very remote source in a direction of the Earth. You should forget about all other details on some time. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". I am not interested in destiny of other "photons". Do not quibble. I won't if you will tell me how three detectors that each accurately measure the energy of a photon, and are "tuned" to specific wavelengths of a photon, magnify the total received energy/momentum by three. I'm assuming this is where you are going next. Please David give me the direct answer to my problem, then I can give answers to thy problems. You should forget about all other details on some time.
|
|
#180
October 24th 03, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message m... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:xFZlb.110010$gv5.90273@fed1read05... Dear Aleksandr Timofeev: "Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:Mxwlb.105676$gv5.24266@fed1read05... ... From group of three radio telescopes: the UNIQUE RADIO TELESCOPE has "absorb all" alone concrete "Photon". Whether I have understood you correctly? I'm going to say yes in a very specific way. A recognized signal is received at three (in this example) antennae. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Let three radio telescopes are on the Earth. Let very remote source emits one "photon" in a direction of the Earth. Please David describe your model of absorption of "single photon" simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. A single photon is not received simultaneously by three VLBI radio telescopes. I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon". Please David describe your model of absorption of "single photon" by three VLBI radio telescopes. Reminder: I ask about destiny of alone/single "photon", which one is radiated by a very remote source in a direction of the Earth. You should forget about all other details on some time. A single photon is not absorbed by three detectors at three telescopes. A single photon will at most be absorbed by a single detector on a single telescope. David A. Smith
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
