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.

"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

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

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