Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:45:30 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

{Big snippo...]

It might be technobabble or it might not. The main difference between
that ``technobabble'' and your ``technobabble'', is that I can ask someone
who studies the compactified dimension ``technobabble'' what it all means
and get an answer in terms of physical quantities that relate to the
real universe. Do you have some criteria on originality that renders
ideas unoriginal if the idea can be used to do calculations?

Of course not. All that is required to be original is,

adjective: being or productive of something fresh and unusual;
or being as first made or thought of
(Example: "A truly original approach")

Which of course mean that one must show that they are the first to think
of it. Like, for example, in the SI system,
_______
/ --
1 / / z
q = --- / h / --
2pi \/ \/ 3u

where q = Elemental Charge
h = Planck's Constant
z = Premitivitty
u = Permeability
m = electron's mass

(and because I don't use those stupid back-slashes) pi = 3.1415926...

We've already gone over this before and I provided you with an expression
which gave a better answer using numerology, too.

Give the definition and connection of dimensionful expression to numerology...
Then go for it, show us a dimensionful expression that matches WITHOUT using
an arbitrary dimensionless number 'to make it fit'. I'll be waiting to see
your 'originality'.

this expression. And of course you know that the Magnetic Moment Anomalous
amount is already accounted for in this expession. Thus we don't need it,
we simply use,

_______
/ --
1 / 3 / z
------ / h / --
m8pi^2 \/ \/ 3u

To define the electron's magnetic moment!



this expression. And of course you know that the Magnetic Moment Anomalous
amount is already accounted for in this expession.

No, it isn't. We've already gone over that, too.

Yes, it is. Go back a show references where you say anything but superficial
BILGE on this!

[...]

Well you might think I'm full of **** but I do get rather unique expressions
from that **** that DO match observation. Don't think so, do the math and
tell us the value of the above!

Now show me some of your unique physical expressions...

Seriously? I can make up a few real quick that match the data better
than the ones you made up.

Make'em up WITHOUT arbitrary fudge factors. Show your stuff...

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:

{Big snippo...]

[...]

We've already gone over this before and I provided you with an expression
which gave a better answer using numerology, too.

Give the definition and connection of dimensionful expression to
numerology... Then go for it, show us a dimensionful expression
that matches WITHOUT using an arbitrary dimensionless number 'to
make it fit'. I'll be waiting to see your 'originality'.

We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.

[...]

No, it isn't. We've already gone over that, too.

Yes, it is. Go back a show references where you say anything but
superficial BILGE on this!

There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.

[...]

Seriously? I can make up a few real quick that match the data better
than the ones you made up.

Make'em up WITHOUT arbitrary fudge factors. Show your stuff...

I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:

{Big snippo...]

[...]

We've already gone over this before and I provided you with an expression
which gave a better answer using numerology, too.

Give the definition and connection of dimensionful expression to
numerology... Then go for it, show us a dimensionful expression
that matches WITHOUT using an arbitrary dimensionless number 'to
make it fit'. I'll be waiting to see your 'originality'.

We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.

[...]

No, it isn't. We've already gone over that, too.

Yes, it is. Go back a show references where you say anything but
superficial BILGE on this!

There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.

[...]

Seriously? I can make up a few real quick that match the data better
than the ones you made up.

Make'em up WITHOUT arbitrary fudge factors. Show your stuff...

I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:59:01 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:

{Big snippo...]

[...]

We've already gone over this before and I provided you with an expression
which gave a better answer using numerology, too.

Give the definition and connection of dimensionful expression to
numerology... Then go for it, show us a dimensionful expression
that matches WITHOUT using an arbitrary dimensionless number 'to
make it fit'. I'll be waiting to see your 'originality'.

We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.

This, is your originality???

Fact

- numerology has NOTHING to with dimensional relationships
- You made, & still make, a empty claim
- I never recall seeing ANYHING close to ...

"an expression which gave a better answer using
numerology, too ..."

and I HAVE gone back & looked through the archive. These are some
examples of you Bilge


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bu...rlin.de&rnum=3

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...-al.net&rnum=4

[...]


No, it isn't. We've already gone over that, too.

Yes, it is. Go back a show references where you say anything but
superficial BILGE on this!

There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.

You're brain dead! I asked you to "go back a show references where you
say anything but superficial BILGE on this!". I didn't ask you to write
MORE Bilge.

I just provided a couple of examples above.

[...]


Seriously? I can make up a few real quick that match the data better
than the ones you made up.

Make'em up WITHOUT arbitrary fudge factors. Show your stuff...

I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.

Bull... I've never seem it, searched the archives, and it's as far as I
can tell, its not there. If you had, you'd have ZERO problem re-writing
it. Now put up, or shut up!!! What I expect to see from you is more
whining Bilge.

Paul Stowe

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:59:01 -0000, (Bilge)
wrote:

Paul Stowe:
(Bilge) wrote:

{Big snippo...]

[...]

We've already gone over this before and I provided you with an expression
which gave a better answer using numerology, too.

Give the definition and connection of dimensionful expression to
numerology... Then go for it, show us a dimensionful expression
that matches WITHOUT using an arbitrary dimensionless number 'to
make it fit'. I'll be waiting to see your 'originality'.

We've already had this conversation. Go find it on google.

This, is your originality???

Fact

- numerology has NOTHING to with dimensional relationships
- You made, & still make, a empty claim
- I never recall seeing ANYHING close to ...

"an expression which gave a better answer using
numerology, too ..."

and I HAVE gone back & looked through the archive. These are some
examples of you Bilge


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bu...rlin.de&rnum=3

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...-al.net&rnum=4

[...]


No, it isn't. We've already gone over that, too.

Yes, it is. Go back a show references where you say anything but
superficial BILGE on this!

There is nothing anyone can write that you won't call superficial,
unless the person agrees with your numerology.

You're brain dead! I asked you to "go back a show references where you
say anything but superficial BILGE on this!". I didn't ask you to write
MORE Bilge.

I just provided a couple of examples above.

[...]


Seriously? I can make up a few real quick that match the data better
than the ones you made up.

Make'em up WITHOUT arbitrary fudge factors. Show your stuff...

I already did that at least once, paul. You simply aren't interested
in physics.

Bull... I've never seem it, searched the archives, and it's as far as I
can tell, its not there. If you had, you'd have ZERO problem re-writing
it. Now put up, or shut up!!! What I expect to see from you is more
whining Bilge.

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:59:01 -0000,
(Bilge)
| wrote:
|
| Paul Stowe:
| (Bilge) wrote:
|
| {Big snippo...]

[snip]
|
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...-al.net&rnum=4

Well, since you brought this up I have put all the correct conversion
factors in your chart except for temperature. And fixed magnetic field,
etc.

Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)

Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) tesla^2 kg/m^3
Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) tesla^-2 m-sec^2/kg
Charge [Q] (Coulomb) tesla kg/sec
Current [i] (Amp) tesla kg/sec^2
Electric Field [E] (V/m) tesla^-1 m/sec
Potential [V] (Voltage) tesla^-1 m^2/sec
Displacement [D] (coul/m^2) tesla kg/m^2-sec
Resistance [R] (Ohms) tesla^-2 m^2-sec/kg
Capacitance [farad] tesla^2 kg/m^2
Magnetic ? [H] (amp/m) tesla (m^2?? should be
kg/m-sec^2)
Magnetic Flux (weber) tesla^-1 m^2
Magnetic Field [b] (tesla) tesla^-1 (none)
Inductance [henry] tesla^-2
m^2-sec^2/kg
Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1??? kg-m/sec^3

Now, what can we glean from this? Other than the magnetic field is
dimensionless. What does that gain for us? In a discussion with Barry, we
did trip across the fact that if you take the strict mechanical definition
of the ampere, it would be mass/time^2. Hmmm.... Seems like we lose some
functionality here. Magnetic Flux is area? Electric field is length/time?

FrediFizzx

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:59:01 -0000,
(Bilge)
| wrote:
|
| Paul Stowe:
| (Bilge) wrote:
|
| {Big snippo...]

[snip]
|
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...-al.net&rnum=4

Well, since you brought this up I have put all the correct conversion
factors in your chart except for temperature. And fixed magnetic field,
etc.

Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)

Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) tesla^2 kg/m^3
Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) tesla^-2 m-sec^2/kg
Charge [Q] (Coulomb) tesla kg/sec
Current [i] (Amp) tesla kg/sec^2
Electric Field [E] (V/m) tesla^-1 m/sec
Potential [V] (Voltage) tesla^-1 m^2/sec
Displacement [D] (coul/m^2) tesla kg/m^2-sec
Resistance [R] (Ohms) tesla^-2 m^2-sec/kg
Capacitance [farad] tesla^2 kg/m^2
Magnetic ? [H] (amp/m) tesla (m^2?? should be
kg/m-sec^2)
Magnetic Flux (weber) tesla^-1 m^2
Magnetic Field [b] (tesla) tesla^-1 (none)
Inductance [henry] tesla^-2
m^2-sec^2/kg
Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1??? kg-m/sec^3

Now, what can we glean from this? Other than the magnetic field is
dimensionless. What does that gain for us? In a discussion with Barry, we
did trip across the fact that if you take the strict mechanical definition
of the ampere, it would be mass/time^2. Hmmm.... Seems like we lose some
functionality here. Magnetic Flux is area? Electric field is length/time?

FrediFizzx

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:34:27 -0700, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
[i]
"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:59:01 -0000,
(Bilge)
| wrote:
|
| Paul Stowe:
| (Bilge) wrote:
|
| {Big snippo...]

[snip]
|
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...-al.net&rnum=4

Well, since you brought this up I have put all the correct conversion
factors in your chart except for temperature. And fixed magnetic field,
etc.

Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)

Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) tesla^2 kg/m^3
Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) tesla^-2 m-sec^2/kg
Charge [Q] (Coulomb) tesla kg/sec
Current (Amp) tesla kg/sec^2
Electric Field [E] (V/m) tesla^-1 m/sec
Potential [V] (Voltage) tesla^-1 m^2/sec
Displacement [D] (coul/m^2) tesla kg/m^2-sec
Resistance [R] (Ohms) tesla^-2 m^2-sec/kg
Capacitance [farad] tesla^2 kg/m^2
Magnetic Intensity (Weber/m^2) tesla Dimensionless **
Magnetic Field (weber) tesla^-1 m^2
Inductance [henry] tesla^-2 kg-m^2
Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1??? kg-m/sec^3

??? A Tesla is, in my clarified system of SI, is dimensionless. It is has
dimensions of Weber/m^2 (See: http://www.teslasociety.com/teslaunit.htm).
A weber is a Volt-second (See: http://www.bartleby.com/65/we/weber.html).

Now, what can we glean from this? Other than the magnetic field is
dimensionless.

The magnetic 'intensity' is a indication of the 'linear' effect that the
circulation (Curl) has at that point in space. It is definitely
dimensionless. For example,

F = q(v X B)

Since q is the ean magnitude of the cyclic field flow (Div) pointing
to (or from) a point and B represents the circulation around that point
in a plane. We also know that,

F = qE

And then we should discern that we can equate,

E = (v X B)

Does this not tell us that the E field is just a manifestation of a velocity
field (v) interacting with B's (Curl) circulation???

What does that gain for us? In a discussion with Barry, we did trip across
the fact that if you take the strict mechanical definition of the ampere,
it would be mass/time^2. Hmmm....

I've known that for a very long time. Think about the mechanical example
of a LHO. Such as,
__
1 /
====== (Kg/sec) = --- / Km
2pi \/
\\| __________
\\| | |
\\| |\ \ \ | |
\\|- \ \(K)\ |-| (m) |
\\| \ \ \| | |
\\| |__________|
\\|______________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Now, define the actual velocity of m wrt to displacement. It certainly
isn't constant or linear. Thus the momentum of m wrt displacement isn't
constant (mv) but is a function of the displacement distance m. Work it
out and solve the above LHO equation... You'll get a definite value for
kg/sec^2. I think you'll find the exercise interesting.

Seems like we lose some functionality here.

Not at all IMO...

Magnetic Flux is area?

Yeah, think about that

Electric field is length/time?

Yes, a velocity term. But you do need to understand the concept of 'drift
velocity' as applied to hydrodynamics.

Paul Stowe

FrediFizzx

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:34:27 -0700, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
[i]
"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:59:01 -0000,
(Bilge)
| wrote:
|
| Paul Stowe:
| (Bilge) wrote:
|
| {Big snippo...]

[snip]
|
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...-al.net&rnum=4

Well, since you brought this up I have put all the correct conversion
factors in your chart except for temperature. And fixed magnetic field,
etc.

Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)

Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) tesla^2 kg/m^3
Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) tesla^-2 m-sec^2/kg
Charge [Q] (Coulomb) tesla kg/sec
Current (Amp) tesla kg/sec^2
Electric Field [E] (V/m) tesla^-1 m/sec
Potential [V] (Voltage) tesla^-1 m^2/sec
Displacement [D] (coul/m^2) tesla kg/m^2-sec
Resistance [R] (Ohms) tesla^-2 m^2-sec/kg
Capacitance [farad] tesla^2 kg/m^2
Magnetic Intensity (Weber/m^2) tesla Dimensionless **
Magnetic Field (weber) tesla^-1 m^2
Inductance [henry] tesla^-2 kg-m^2
Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1??? kg-m/sec^3

??? A Tesla is, in my clarified system of SI, is dimensionless. It is has
dimensions of Weber/m^2 (See: http://www.teslasociety.com/teslaunit.htm).
A weber is a Volt-second (See: http://www.bartleby.com/65/we/weber.html).

Now, what can we glean from this? Other than the magnetic field is
dimensionless.

The magnetic 'intensity' is a indication of the 'linear' effect that the
circulation (Curl) has at that point in space. It is definitely
dimensionless. For example,

F = q(v X B)

Since q is the ean magnitude of the cyclic field flow (Div) pointing
to (or from) a point and B represents the circulation around that point
in a plane. We also know that,

F = qE

And then we should discern that we can equate,

E = (v X B)

Does this not tell us that the E field is just a manifestation of a velocity
field (v) interacting with B's (Curl) circulation???

What does that gain for us? In a discussion with Barry, we did trip across
the fact that if you take the strict mechanical definition of the ampere,
it would be mass/time^2. Hmmm....

I've known that for a very long time. Think about the mechanical example
of a LHO. Such as,
__
1 /
====== (Kg/sec) = --- / Km
2pi \/
\\| __________
\\| | |
\\| |\ \ \ | |
\\|- \ \(K)\ |-| (m) |
\\| \ \ \| | |
\\| |__________|
\\|______________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Now, define the actual velocity of m wrt to displacement. It certainly
isn't constant or linear. Thus the momentum of m wrt displacement isn't
constant (mv) but is a function of the displacement distance m. Work it
out and solve the above LHO equation... You'll get a definite value for
kg/sec^2. I think you'll find the exercise interesting.

Seems like we lose some functionality here.

Not at all IMO...

Magnetic Flux is area?

Yeah, think about that

Electric field is length/time?

Yes, a velocity term. But you do need to understand the concept of 'drift
velocity' as applied to hydrodynamics.

Paul Stowe

FrediFizzx

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:34:27 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:
|
| "Paul Stowe" wrote in message
| .. .
[snip]
|
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=sl...oactivex. leb
esque-al.net&rnum=4
|
| Well, since you brought this up I have put all the correct conversion
| factors in your chart except for temperature. And fixed magnetic field,
| etc.

Sorry, it was magnetic flux that was fixed, not mag field. I see you have
changed it again. Where are you getting your definitions from? Griffiths
is showing magnetic field to be tesla. And mag flux to be weber. And H to
be amp/meter. Jackson agrees with mag flux and calls it a weber. However,
he calls "mag field", H, amp/meter and tesla, B, "mag induction". It would
be nice if there was some consistancy here. ;-( OK, I suppose we should go
with NIST definitions for SI? They agree with Jackson for mag flux as weber
and magnetic field strength as H, amp/meter. But they call B, tesla,
"magnetic flux density" which looks OK to me since it is weber/m^2. So how
about going with the NIST definitions so we can all be on the same page? Is
magnetic intensity the same as mag flux density? You had the conversion for
mag flux density (intensity?) as a tesla; it has to be tesla^-1 in order for
mag flux density to be dimensionless. Corrections made below.

| Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)
|
| Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
| Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
| Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
| Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
| Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
| Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
| Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) tesla^2 kg/m^3
| Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) tesla^-2 m-sec^2/kg
| Charge [Q] (Coulomb) tesla kg/sec
| Current [i] (Amp) tesla kg/sec^2
| Electric Field [E] (V/m) tesla^-1 m/sec
| Potential [V] (Voltage) tesla^-1 m^2/sec
| Displacement [D] (coul/m^2) tesla kg/m^2-sec
| Resistance [R] (Ohms) tesla^-2 m^2-sec/kg
| Capacitance [farad] tesla^2 kg/m^2
| Magnetic Intensity (Weber/m^2) tesla^-1
Dimensionless **
| Magnetic Flux (weber) tesla^-1 m^2
| Inductance [henry] tesla^-2 kg-m^2
| Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1??? kg-m/sec^3
|
| ??? A Tesla is, in my clarified system of SI, is dimensionless. It is
has
| dimensions of Weber/m^2 (See: http://www.teslasociety.com/teslaunit.htm).
| A weber is a Volt-second (See: http://www.bartleby.com/65/we/weber.html).

Yes, I know. That is why all the conversion factors are in powers of a
tesla (kg/coul-sec). It is interesting that the conversion for E is 1/tesla
while displacement, D, is tesla. This is strange as the conversion from CGS
to your units for E and D would be the same since they have the same units.
???

| Now, what can we glean from this? Other than the magnetic field is
| dimensionless.
|
| The magnetic 'intensity' is a indication of the 'linear' effect that the
| circulation (Curl) has at that point in space. It is definitely
| dimensionless. For example,
|
| F = q(v X B)
|
| Since q is the ean magnitude of the cyclic field flow (Div) pointing
| to (or from) a point and B represents the circulation around that point
| in a plane. We also know that,
|
| F = qE
|
| And then we should discern that we can equate,
|
| E = (v X B)
|
| Does this not tell us that the E field is just a manifestation of a
velocity
| field (v) interacting with B's (Curl) circulation???

Yes, that looks OK.

| What does that gain for us? In a discussion with Barry, we did trip
across
| the fact that if you take the strict mechanical definition of the
ampere,
| it would be mass/time^2. Hmmm....
|
| I've known that for a very long time. Think about the mechanical example
| of a LHO. Such as,
| __
| 1 /
| ====== (Kg/sec) = --- / Km
| 2pi \/
| \\| __________
| \\| | |
| \\| |\ \ \ | |
| \\|- \ \(K)\ |-| (m) |
| \\| \ \ \| | |
| \\| |__________|
| \\|______________________________
| \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
|
| Now, define the actual velocity of m wrt to displacement. It certainly
| isn't constant or linear. Thus the momentum of m wrt displacement isn't
| constant (mv) but is a function of the displacement distance m. Work it
| out and solve the above LHO equation... You'll get a definite value for
| kg/sec^2. I think you'll find the exercise interesting.

Akk! I have get this from google because of the font thing again to
decipher your ascii art. Or you can just work it out if you wish.

| Seems like we lose some functionality here.
|
| Not at all IMO...
|
| Magnetic Flux is area?
|
| Yeah, think about that

Well, there seems to be something missing here. That which is producing
this area?

| Electric field is length/time?
|
| Yes, a velocity term. But you do need to understand the concept of
'drift
| velocity' as applied to hydrodynamics.

Ok, explain it again please.

FrediFizzx