|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#211
November 4th 03, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
Let us look at what is going on here. I explained the QM interpretation of the VLBI interferometer by carefully explaining that the world consists neither of particles or waves, just quantum stuff that indeterministically changes state when you observe it. In response to this Aleksandr Timofeev wrote: '1. Thus we have fixed experimentally established fact, that you can not give explanation of a self-interference of a "photon" in a VLBI interferometer.' Because no reasoning was attached to this assertion I replied: 'Assertions must be based on reasons. You have provided none.' Naturally I would expect Aleksandr to give the exact reasoning for his assertion. However he does no such thing. Instead of addressing that issue what does he do? In response to my statement: 'And it does hit one and only one - but not the same one. The one it hits is not determined uniquely by the experiment - remember the really weird property of quantum stuff - it is not deterministic - when you observe it it instantaneously jumps into another state that is not predetermined - all we can predict is probabilities.' He replies: 'Assertions must be based on reasons. You have provided none.' Now I have explained my reasoning carefully. It is that when quantum stuff is observed it jumps indeterministically into another state. It is this indeterminism and lack of a 'destiny' of a particular photon that resolves the self interference issue. Sometimes it will be found at one telescope, sometimes at another depending on the square of the wave function. These issues were examined in great detail at the birth of QM. They cumulated in the great Einstein - Bohr debates where, despite the fact that Einstein did not like the interpretation he was forced to admit it was consistent - and maintained that position forever afterward (eg see the forward he wrote to Bohms book on QM). Now when discussing an issue with someone who shows no interest in reasoning or discussing things properly you have no choice but to say - fine - it is obvious we will never agree. Thus I must stop this discourse. People have read what I wrote, people have read what you wrote and can form their own view. Having observed the way Aleksandr works I predict he will do one of 3 things: 1. Claim he has won because I was not able to meet his refutation - even though he provided none. 2. Claim I was the one with faulty reasoning - that is of course up to you the reader to decide. 3. Simply rant and rave with his silly statements like 'Already for a long time there is a classic wave explanation. All other interpretations are easily refuted chimaera' without any reasons. Of course now that I have stated what I think he will do he may do something completely different - it will be interesting to see exactly what he does. Stay tuned for a laugh. For detection of a LATENT Logic Error of ORTHODOX PHYSICS in interpretation of an interference PHENOMENON we shall conduct the comparative analysis of principles of operation of a VLBI interferometer (Matveenko Leonid Ivanovich interferometer USSR 1962) and Michelson interferometer. ---- THE FIRST TAP (STEP) ;o) In any interferometer there are two separate physical devices: THE PHYSICAL DEVICE I. At any rate, two spatially of remote from each other directional RECEIVERS of electromagnetic radiation. As an example: the opaque screen with two slots can serve. THE PHYSICAL DEVICE II. Device for ADDITION of SIGNALS from spatially remote from each other directional RECEIVERS of electromagnetic radiation. As an example: posed behind of the opaque screen with two slots, the mat screen can serve. ----- Thus, each of viewed physical devices realizes the relevant INDEPENDENT PHYSICAL PROCESS. THE FIRST INDEPENDENT PHYSICAL PROCESS is SIMULTANEOUS RECEPTION of a SIGNAL of electromagnetic radiation from a SOURCE at any rate by two spatially remote from each other directional RECEIVERS of electromagnetic radiation. THE SECOND INDEPENDENT PHYSICAL PROCESS is SIMULTANEOUS addition of SIGNALS of electromagnetic radiation from, at any rate, two spatially remote from each other directional RECEIVERS of electromagnetic radiation. The relevant KEY NOTE: the MOMENT of RECEPTION of electromagnetic radiation does not coincide the MOMENT of ADDITION of the RELEVANT electromagnetic radiation, ================================================== === i.e. always has a place a DELAY of time between the MOMENT of RECEPTION and MOMENT of ADDITION. ================================================== === Now my lovely friend Bill Hobba, please, point any physical errors in the given text. ;^))) Thanks AT 
|
|
#212
November 4th 03, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Sasha, we just have uploaded the promised paper. Please see
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ents3.html#c2a It will answer the questions of which I said recently. Kind regards, Serezha.
|
|
#213
November 6th 03, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
[snip] The contract I am currently working on controls the motion of a vehicle and has an on-board accelerometer so resonances will have an effect on noise characteristics. However, the system is poorly characterised so there is no information to allow detailed modelling. I am aware of the subject but cannot make use of your work, that's all. You can include a pair or more accelerometers utillizing a _destructive interference_ in relation to noise. [snip] Best regards Aleksandr
|
|
#214
November 6th 03, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... [snip] The contract I am currently working on controls the motion of a vehicle and has an on-board accelerometer so resonances will have an effect on noise characteristics. However, the system is poorly characterised so there is no information to allow detailed modelling. I am aware of the subject but cannot make use of your work, that's all. You can include a pair or more accelerometers utillizing a _destructive interference_ in relation to noise. Since it is mechanical noise and the accelerometers would be on a common mounting, they would both measure the same motion. Don't worry about it, we can handle the situation, I just wanted you to know I am very much aware of the effect. best regards George
|
|
#215
November 6th 03, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
|
|
#216
November 8th 03, 11:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
Apparently Google rejects large posts. Here is the same post with the trailing table abridged. CM (Aleksandr Timofeev) writes: Craig Markwardt wrote in message ... Dear Craig Markwardt please make more detailed explanation vague for me of places in your message: ... Thus, it is not surprising that -- by random chance -- you were able to choose one set that was within 0.04 of an integer. There are in fact 36 such combinations. Please point out all these ratios. I am not sure why I should do your homework for you. I ask: don't you have any responsibility to investigate your own theory? See end of post. You are alone of set of the skilled astrophysicists, who is severe has analyzed a problem and who was not afraid of a heavy transactions of evaluations. I give thanks to you very much. There are five ratios which give values close to 3, Please point out all these ratios. two that give ratios close to eight, three near 10. Please point out all these ratios. Again, why should I do your homework for you? It is relatively straightforward to calculate them, why haven't you? I require a feedback with the scientists. You have done a routine scientific procedure of checkout of another's scientific examinations. I give thanks to you very much. Thus even your choice of ratios that yield a given value are not unique. - But they obey to boundaries of measurement errors ??? ... ;^ Well, no, but neither do yours. Here is a list of the ratios which are near integral values, with their errors computed by standard error propagation formulae. Please note: (1) how there are many ratios with a value near 3, 8, 10, 17, or 23. This makes your numbering system far less unique and far more arbitrary; and (2) that all of the ratios below 80, including your "chosen" ones, have measurement errors which exclude the nearest integer with very high statistical confidence. Therefore your claim that the ratios are consistent with an integer value is false. I insist on my point of view, my claim that the ratios are consistent with an integer value is awful & unvarnished truth. See comments below. MSA/(MNE+MUR) = 3.0037508 +/- 1.5918659e-05 Has minimum difference from an integer and minimum error of measurings. The relevant ratio. (MSA+MME)/(MNE+MUR) = 3.0054951 +/- 0.00012575113 Indeterminacy of the ratio MSA/MME - 0.16067, this ratio has not physical sense. (MSA+MMA)/(MNE+MUR) = 3.0071415 +/- 1.8173051e-05 (MSA+MVE)/(MNE+MUR) = 3.0294698 +/- 1.6061123e-05 (MSA+MTE)/(MNE+MUR) = 3.0353079 +/- 1.6104009e-05 These ratios have more considerable difference from an integer and more considerable error of measurings The irrelevant ratios. ----- MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0085819 +/- 7.1265521e-05 Has minimum difference from an integer. The relevant ratio. ----- MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0095053 +/- 1.0563216e-05 Has minimum difference from an integer and minimum error of measurings. The relevant ratio. (MUR+MME)/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0399591 +/- 0.00033385423 Indeterminacy of the ratio MUR/MME - 0.02252, this ratio has not physical sense. ----- MJU/(MNE+MUR) = 10.031821 +/- 1.4840174e-05 Has minimum difference from an integer and minimum error of measurings. The relevant ratio. (MJU+MME)/(MNE+MUR) = 10.033566 +/- 0.00041669172 Indeterminacy of the ratio MJU/MME - 0.48618, this ratio has not physical sense. (MJU+MMA)/(MNE+MUR) = 10.035212 +/- 3.2709417e-05 This ratio have more considerable difference from an integer and more considerable error of measurings. The irrelevant ratio. ----- (MJU+MSA)/(MNE+MUR) = 13.035572 +/- 6.9797102e-05 Has minimum difference from an integer. The relevant ratio. ----- (MNE+MVE)/(MTE+MME) = 17.025295 +/- 5.1217730e-05 Indeterminacy of the ratio MNE/MME - 0.027036, this ratio has not physical sense. (Mne+Mve)/(Mte+Mme) = 16.82913826 ????? The irrelevant ratio. ----- (MNE+MVE)/MTE = 17.966344 +/- 3.7388725e-05 (Mne+Mve)/Mte = 17.74804274 ?????? The irrelevant ratio. (MUR+MMA)/MVE = 17.968979 +/- 5.7312562e-05 Couples: Mne-Mur; Mma-Mme; Mte-Mve It is the interesting ratio, but All three bodies from different pairs of bodies. ???? ----- (MTE+MMA)/MME = 20.035727 +/- 0.00083360012 (Mte+Mma)/Mme = 20.25825703 ???? The irrelevant ratio. ----- (MJU+MNE)/(MUR+MME) = 22.960103 +/- 5.8792390e-05 The irrelevant ratio. Indeterminacy of the ratio MJU/MME - 0.48618, Indeterminacy of the ratio MUR/MME - 0.022520, Indeterminacy of the ratio MNE/MME - 0.027036, this ratio has not physical sense. (MJU+MSA)/(MNE+MVE) = 22.991812 +/- 0.00012787599 It is the interesting ratio, but here four bodies not three participate. Couples: Mju+Msa; Mne-Mur; Mma-Mme; Mte-Mve MNE & MVE are bodies from different pairs of bodies. ----- (MJU+MSA)/(MNE+MME) = 24.006970 +/- 0.00013431176 Indeterminacy of the ratio MJU/MME - 0.48618, Indeterminacy of the ratio MSA/MME - 0.16067, Indeterminacy of the ratio MNE/MME - 0.027036, this ratio has not physical sense. ----- (MNE+MUR)/(MTE+MME) = 30.028784 +/- 9.8429642e-05 Indeterminacy of the ratio MNE/MME - 0.027036, Indeterminacy of the ratio MUR/MME - 0.022520, this ratio has not physical sense. ----- If the ratio has major value, then given ratio is less trusty. Principle 5. Only main terms of the ratios are chosen. When the significant ratioes satisfying to Principles 1,2,3 and 4 are sorted in ascending order, the following sequence of natural numbers are obtained: 3,5,7(*),8,10,13,24,33,39... Only these terms (except for number 7) are main in gravitational interaction between planets of the Solar System. These terms represent the main nonlinear process of the Solar System. The remaining ratioes are the causal corollary of the main terms, therefore they are excluded from the analysis in the given paper. The irrelevant ratios with very major values exceeding 39 further are given: (MSA+MME)/(MTE+MMA) = 85.999514 +/- 0.0035967395 (MSA+MVE)/(MTE+MME) = 90.971295 +/- 0.00050882926 (MSA+MVE)/MTE = 95.999606 +/- 0.00049479975 (MSA+MUR)/(MTE+MME) = 103.97478 +/- 0.00059710088 (MSA+MTE)/MVE = 118.01820 +/- 0.00060828765 (MJU+MVE)/(MTE+MME) = 302.01571 +/- 0.00070101550 (MJU+MUR)/(MTE+MME) = 315.01920 +/- 0.00083831854 (MJU+MMA)/MTE = 318.00165 +/- 0.00095836587 (MJU+MSA)/(MTE+MMA) = 373.00106 +/- 0.0019451647 (MJU+MUR)/(MVE+MME) = 381.98581 +/- 0.0011628107 (MJU+MNE)/(MVE+MME) = 384.98959 +/- 0.0013223027 (MSA+MVE)/(MMA+MME) = 589.96688 +/- 0.0089265748 (MSA+MMA)/MME = 1724.0067 +/- 0.072273733 (MJU+MUR)/(MMA+MME) = 2042.9619 +/- 0.029231712 (MJU+MNE)/(MMA+MME) = 2059.0270 +/- 0.029643064 (MJU+MVE)/MME = 5766.0295 +/- 0.23935197 Furthermore, as I previously showed, two of your given ratios, .../MME and .../MVE, are very far from an integer (N.88, N.84) when appropriate masses are used. But they have PHYSICAL chiral SIMMETRY, But they obey to boundaries of measurement errors ... Your ordering of 3,5,7,... is purely a product of your own mind, and therefore is hardly unique. In very humble circumstances, It seems to me that my ordering of 3,5,7(*),8,10,13,24,33,39... is purely a product of Nature, in essence an honest of The True Gravitational Nature. Your ordering is purely a product of your own imagination of chiral symmetry. One can search the "On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences" and find thousands of sequences which are more meaningful than your arbitrary ordering. For example, the arrangement arrangement, 3,5,8,10,13,17,... has two hits in the database. The fact that you gratuitously inserted "7" in your sequence makes it all the more arbitrary. By the way, what do you know about the Boltzmann? What do you know about historical destiny of discoveries of Balmer or Kepler and personal destiny of the Balmer or Kepler? It is very instructive histories. CM Below are all possible ratios of the form A/(B+C), (A+B)/C and (A+B)/(C+D). There are a total of 756 combinations, MJU/(MSA+MNE) MJU/(MSA+MUR) MJU/(MSA+MTE) MJU/(MSA+MVE) MJU/(MSA+MMA) MJU/(MSA+MME) MJU/(MNE+MUR) MJU/(MNE+MTE) MJU/(MNE+MVE) MJU/(MNE+MMA) [ ... abridged .... ] (MMA+MME)/(MUR+MTE) (MMA+MME)/(MUR+MVE) (MMA+MME)/(MTE+MVE) The nonlinear addition of frequencies in a radiophysics served a guiding star in my tentative examinations of gravitational processes in the Solar SYSTEM. You can apply more complete set of linear combinations of quantities of planetary masses: 8 SUMM Ai*Mi i=1 Ai = -1,0,+1 There are a total of ~ 40000 combinations... I have found unordinary restricted set from eight unique ratioes of quantities of planetary masses, which one have surprising GRAVITATIONAL SYMMETRY and are bound to the Fibonacci numbers. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ailAndNews.com Thanks Aleksandr Timofeev
|
|
#217
November 8th 03, 12:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... [snip] The contract I am currently working on controls the motion of a vehicle and has an on-board accelerometer so resonances will have an effect on noise characteristics. However, the system is poorly characterised so there is no information to allow detailed modelling. I am aware of the subject but cannot make use of your work, that's all. You can include a pair or more accelerometers utillizing a _destructive interference_ in relation to noise. Since it is mechanical noise and the accelerometers would be on a common mounting, they would both measure the same motion. Don't worry about it, we can handle the situation, I just wanted you to know I am very much aware of the effect. accelerometer 1 |-------------------O-------------------| | | | mechanical noise | accel.3 O common mounting O accel. 4 | | |------------------O--------------------| accelerometer 2 Through common mounting the mechanical noise acts in phase opposition on accelerometers 1 & 2. ;-) Through common mounting the mechanical noise acts in phase opposition on accelerometers 3 & 4. ;-) It is similar two induction coils, which one are connected sequentially, but which one have the opposite reeled coils. Inductive resistance summarize, but the exterior electromagnetic variation fields cancel themselves. best regards Aleksandr
|
|
#218
November 8th 03, 07:00 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... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... [snip] The contract I am currently working on controls the motion of a vehicle and has an on-board accelerometer so resonances will have an effect on noise characteristics. However, the system is poorly characterised so there is no information to allow detailed modelling. I am aware of the subject but cannot make use of your work, that's all. You can include a pair or more accelerometers utillizing a _destructive interference_ in relation to noise. Since it is mechanical noise and the accelerometers would be on a common mounting, they would both measure the same motion. Don't worry about it, we can handle the situation, I just wanted you to know I am very much aware of the effect. accelerometer 1 |-------------------O-------------------| | | | mechanical noise | accel.3 O common mounting O accel. 4 | | |------------------O--------------------| accelerometer 2 Through common mounting the mechanical noise acts in phase opposition on accelerometers 1 & 2. ;-) Through common mounting the mechanical noise acts in phase opposition on accelerometers 3 & 4. ;-) It is similar two induction coils, which one are connected sequentially, but which one have the opposite reeled coils. Inductive resistance summarize, but the exterior electromagnetic variation fields cancel themselves. +-----+ | a | +=====+ X X =============WWW=============WWW============= X X X X X X === === === === === === O O O O O O Symbols 'X' and 'WWW' are springs with unknown and poorly repeatable characteristics. All have hard limiting and probably little damping. Symbols 'O' are noise sources while '====' indicates large, variable masses. The accelerometer shown as 'a' can only be placed in the box. Adding a second also in the box would not help, it would give precisely the same output as the first (other than sensor noise which is negligible in comparison). Don't worry about it. George
|
|
#219
November 8th 03, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
|
|
#220
November 8th 03, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message m... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... Sergey, sorry for not responding sooner. I'm going to trim a lot since I agree with most and I have too little time to get involved in this. I only intended to send one post and that was weeks ago :-( George, I also was terribly busy, but funny, I tried to write you in most details, thinking, you are involved in vibrations and it is very important for you to be aware of some things I wrote you. The contract I am currently working on controls the motion of a vehicle and has an on-board accelerometer so resonances will have an effect on noise characteristics. However, the system is poorly characterised so there is no information to allow detailed modelling. I am aware of the subject but cannot make use of your work, that's all. I have no doubt in your knowledge, George, but one can make use of our papers only knowing our method. In papers we only showed a scope of problems (far from complete) which this method can solve. Direct substitution is possible only for checking that our solutions are correct and for educational problems. Practical problems are, indeed, more complex, and we have to analyse the nuances individual in each case for correct modelling. Why I'm saying it, you know it without me. ;-) It's just as a car: if one didn't refuel, one will go on his own and carp that the car is bad. ;-) By the way, of cars. This summer I above papers was involved in technology development on diffusion facing of metal surfaces. I have built up and adjusted an original set and solved many practical problems. Now it works and shows staggering results. When the workers faced the crankpins for KAMAZ engines, in some time the mill director asked, how can they chamfer the oil holes if drills cannot bite this facing. ;-) Now such facings are successfully tested on the rolls and passes of metallurgic mills. I mean, we don't forget practice, why not? As long as the results work, it will do for now. Show you get better results or can analyse something beyond our present abilities and your methods will be added to the body of knowledge. Is it little what we have already done?! Take any problem from our papers, http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ver/cover.html Neither you nor any other colleague can solve any with the help of conventional methods. ;-) This is another knowledge. I already suggested to many colleagues in the newsgroups to replicate these solutions. Now they all are running along exterior orbits. ;-) I can notice also, our method automatically adds to the new massive of knowledge, do you acknowledge it or not, as it improves the existing knowledge, broadens the calculation scope and is in perfect agreement with the experiment. Does one want to notice it or not - this is one's matter. One can shut his eyes to anything, only not everyone will appear in the darkness. ;-) I don't have the time to read your paper so I can't say whether it is original or not. If it is, congratulations, but I am not in a position to judge either way. Maybe, I don't understand something in your colleagues approach to solving the problems, but I really don't catch, how can you tell, you don's see any use of our solutions if you didn't see the problems we have solved in our papers? But anyway, thank you very much for your congratulation. This is always pleasant, even if in advance. ;-) And this is far from all ability of our method. Soon you will see our new solutions in cosmology (I think, you have already read our paper "On the nature of red shift of Metagalaxy" http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...s3.html#hubble I avoid angelfire if possible because of banner-ads but I had a quick look. I haven't read it in detail yet but will when I get the chance. Best regards George Recently we have published in our e-journal one more study, on cosmology, http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ents3.html#c2a It lifts a great amount of questions on star structure formation and mangetic fields producing. And there are present resonances, too, and not only they ... ;-) Kind regards, Sergey Karavashkin Head Laboratory SELF http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/SELFlab/index.html
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
