|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
UNIVERSAL EQUATION OF FIELD PARTICLE
peter wrote:
Enistein also one time did not pass exams but he continue and become a lecture.You can not real tell why genius do not pass exams .Because they normally disaprove the fact being use and if genius for get and apply it in exams they are marked wrong Yet they are correct that is the problem. How does one "become a lecture?" I can tell why you do not pass eams: You are an idiot. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Acceleration of light a=c*f =10^23 , Dv=speed of light , F=ma ,P=F/A
"Magnus Nyborg" wrote in message ...
"Antonio Alfonso-Faus" wrote in message om... "Magnus Nyborg" wrote in message ... "Antonio Alfonso-Faus" wrote in message om... [...] If c = 1/t , as I stated, then light has no constant velocity and Incorrect, what you claim is that light throughout the universe has one constant velocity for every moment of time, but that this constant is decreasing. Unless there is one global time in the universe, this theory can not work, and do you know why ? Of course there is one global time in the Universe. You may consider the first "tic" as Planck´s time, about10^(-44)secods. Now,at our present age,we are at the 10^61 tics everywhere. The theory works indeed. Time-dilation of gravitational fields once and for all remove the possibility of a universal time, any time meaured will always be local. Since I doubt there is a scorekeeper around (God?!), there is noone left to keep track of this universal time... The COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE allows to define a universal time. This is an idealized homogeneous and isotropic cosmological model. clearly its speed is decelerated, decreases with time. Obviously this Ponder all you wan't, but can you prove any of this? You have the proof at http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics...02/0302058.pdf Sorry, but that is not proof - speculations, or coincidences, are not proof. Never have been, never will. Being able to post on the internet is not proof either... Well....I am a scientist and this is meant to be a scientific paper. It may be speculative, as any theory has been born. is the opposite to Peter´s statement that light has a constant velocity yet a non-zero acceleration. Opposite statements have In what way do you consider your statements opposite to Peter's? Aren't they unrelated? Sorry. With all respect,no offence meant, I think that obvious logic has no obvious explanation. Obvious lack of logic begs the question - aren't your theories in fact unrelated? I talked about CONCLUSIONS of the theories, not the theories themselves. something to do, at least to think about it. There are many scientific explanations for the "anomalous" Pioneer acceleration, someones better than the others, but there is no general agreement yet. In my opinion it is still anomalous. It is only anomalous if there all possible explanations can be ruled out, and new physics are required to explain it. Is there? Yes. For example new physics with variable physical constants is one way to explain it. I am saying that there are others but none yet I didn't say that new physics are impossible, I said it does not seem to be needed. There may be a 1000 or even millions of different ways of describing the decelleration of Pioneer, were one, or a combination of a few, being the correct ones. But there is no lack of possbile explanations within accepted theory, and there certainly is no need for any new physics. As a 'proof' for new physics is absolutely worthless... generally accepted. I propose you ponder upon the possibility for a global universal timekeeper, since that is a real breaker for your theory. No global timekeeper - no global time! Possibly also a cause why others don't accepting your theory. See "Gravitation and Cosmology" by Steve Winberg for the definition of this global time. Unless you make predictions that contradicts accepted theory, and that can be tested and validated, then your theory is no better than any kook theory. Regardless of the possibility that you would be correct! The Pioneer 10 acceleration could have been a prediction. Thank you for your suggestions, I will look for more if there are any. Antonio Alfonso-Faus |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Acceleration of light a=c*f =10^23 , Dv=speed of light , F=ma ,P=F/A
In message , peter
writes rest photon are accelerated to a particular type of photon based on there frequency this all process occur inside matter(an electron). This acceleration elevates rest photon in spce to active photon in an orbit inside an electron.when they elevate active photopn are emitted from there oribit they are emitted with constant velocity hence zero acceleration.the acceleeration i am talking about the acceleration by which rest photon are elevated to active photon which occur in side matter "rest photon"? "There frequency" "acceleeration ... acceleration" Plonk. -- "Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with relativity" Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome. Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Acceleration of light a=c*f =10^23 , Dv=speed of light ,F=m...
PETER .. hello, are you there. Peter: On Aug. 5 =A0 you wrote:::: a bunch of stuff and then..... =A0=A0=A0=A0M^2c^2 - M^2v^2 =3D m^2c^2 =A0=A0=A0=A0cancelling out the squares =A0=A0=A0=A0Mc - Mv =3D mc =A0=A0=A0=A0therefore =A0=A0=A0=A0(M - m)c =3D Mv =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0You called this EQUATION 1 My question relates to....this special mathematics... that you have obviously developed on you own... Can you explain the part where you say ... "cancelling out the squares" ?? how does this work?? If I have a math problem like =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0A^2 - B^2 =3D C^2 can I cancel out the squares and have =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0A - B =3D C or does this only work for you, when your developing an equation that can never, ever be disputed, or ever, ever proven wrong, ...like you said in one of your previous posts. And God forbid...if equation 1 turned out to be wrong... would this throw a kink in any of the following equations?? I know it's hard to be a genius...well, I think it is. Also, did you ever take a Physics class ?... and how about an Astronomy class? How about LSD class? Did you ever come down? I believe you must have had a very special math teacher... or did you learn it on your own like Physics. If you keep up the hard work, those three Nobel prizes you expect to win... will be just around the corner... well, maybe down the block, over the hill, through a math book or two... and around the corner. And, you should consider the great conspiracy of scientists in the world...that are preventing (super minds) some of the other posters here, from getting the recognition that they deserve, (and funding). =A0 Peter , we haven't heard from you in a while??? ...i know being a genius must take a lot of your time...signing autographs, and getting ready to rule the world... but please explain this new mathematical system for solving equations. Do you have other short cuts, so you don't have to factor quadratic equations, or use calculus to solve problems involving derivatives? I sure would like to know. I believe you were getting pretty famous..right here... though maybe not like you think. Please, answer a poor math deficent ex-student. It's not everyday we get to hear from someone whose mind works a Thousnd times faster than regular people...a true GENIUS.... in his own mind!!!! = your humble servant billy bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hans Moravec's Original Rotovator Paper | James Bowery | Policy | 0 | July 6th 04 07:45 AM |
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS | [email protected] \(formerly\) | Astronomy Misc | 273 | December 28th 03 10:42 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |
principle of planetary rotation | Marshall Dudley | Astronomy Misc | 121 | August 5th 03 09:10 PM |
GravityShieldingUpdates1.1 | Stan Byers | Astronomy Misc | 2 | August 1st 03 03:02 PM |