Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

Dear Aleksandr,

I understand your adherence to the theory of integers. I only would
notice, the physics surely cannot be put into that theory. The more
that in the decimal system integers will be one thing, and in any
other - other. For example, if you calculate the angles in radians,
the ratios of pi will be integers. ;-)

Sergey you should know, that at transitions between
miscellaneous number systems with COMMENSURABLE UNITIES
of GAUGES, the INTEGER RATIOES ARE INVARIANT for the
GIVEN CLASS of TRANSITIONS between miscellaneous number
systems, i.e. the INTEGER RATIOES in a concrete number
system remain INTEGER RATIOES in other number system also.


1. If you look narrowly closer at my ratioes, you will see,
that my ratioes do not depend on a choice of a number system.
In any number system my ratioes will be close to integers
of the chosen number system.

2. The quantities of planetary masses in my ratioes are
dimensionless quantities, i.e. my ratioes do not depend
on a choice of units of measurement.

DEDUCTIONS:
1. My ratioes do not depend on a choice of a number system.

2. My ratioes do not depend on a choice of units
of measurement.

3.In any number system my ratioes will be close
to integers of the chosen number system.

================================================== =========
My RATIOES of QUANTITIES of PLANETARY MASSES ARE INVARIANT
and DO NOT DEPEND on a CHOICE of a number SYSTEM.
================================================== =========

Sprouts of New Gravitation Without Mathematical Chimeras
of XX Century:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ailAndNews.com

. THE SYMMETRY INSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Abstract. The empirical law connecting values of planetary masses in the
Solar system is demonstrated and is analyzed. A characteristic property
of this law is the existence of groups consisting from four planets. The
law allows to predict existence and properties of three unknown planets
inside the Solar system. This law can serve the useful tool for a research
of extra-solar planetary systems.

1. Empirical gravitational regularities of a symmetry in the Solar System

1.1. Magic ratios of linear combinations of planetary masses

Table I
Planetary masses and Ratios of linear combinations of masses

Planet Symbol Mass | Ratio Exact Rounded
used for value | considered value ratio
each planet Earth=1 | of the ratio
. |
Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE) = 12.9959 ~ 13
Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.0010 ~ 10
Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.9948 ~ 3
Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24
Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0110 ~ 8
Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39
Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33
Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5

The planetary masses are measured with some errors also.

1.2. Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the planetary masses

When organised graphically, the ratios [2] of linear combinations of
the planetary masses considered, reveal a chain of gravitational
correlations between triples of planets possessing chiral symmetry:

Table II
Chiral symmetry ratios of linear combinations of the planetary masses

10
I-----------|
I 13 |
I==============I
I | I
? 39 I | I
|-----------------I 33 |----------------I 24 | I
| |------------------I |-----------------I
| | I ? | | I 5 | | I 8 | | I 3 | | I
| | I====| | I====| | I====| | I====| | I
| | I | | I | | I | | I | | I
10 9 I 8 7 I 6 5 I 4 3 I 2 1 I
I | | I | | I | | I | | I
I Mercury MarsI Venus EarthI Uran NepI Saturn JupiterI
I I I I I
10+9 8+7 6+5 4+3 2+1
ln(mass)
- - --------------------------------------------------------------

The following symbols here are used in this graphic:

MSA + MJU - 2 + 1; MUR + MNE - 4 + 3;
MVE + MTE - 6 + 5; MME + MMA - 8 + 7;
MJU - 1; MSA - 2; MNE - 3; MUR - 4;
MTE - 5; MVE - 6; MMA - 7; MME - 8;

5
Direct gravitational correlation - ====;
33
Reverse gravitational correlation - ----------


Note: Here it is necessary to understand exclusive importance
of the numbers Fibonacci for gravitational regularities inside
the Solar system in common case:

If you look at direct gravitational connections than you will
see the following numbers: 3, 5, 8, 13.
For the third hypothetical quad there should be now following
numbers accordingly: 21 and 34.

1.3. Formula for pairs of conjugate gravitational correlations.

We shall name "pairs of conjugate gravitational correlations" the
following pairs of values that can be identified on the previous graph:

33,5 39,8 24,3 10,13

We shall now consider relating of sums of those pairs of conjugate
gravitational correlations with squares of natural numbers:

33+5=6^2+2 39+8=7^2-2 24+3=5^2+2 10+13=5^2-2

+2 -2 +2 -2

From these relations, a common formula for the sums of the pairs
of conjugate direct and reverse gravitational correlations can be
established:

(value of reverse correlation)+(value of direct correlation)=n^2 +/- 2

To some extent, this formula is analog to Balmer's formula for
spectral series of the Hydrogen atom. The analysis of the chained series
of conjugate gravitational correlations clearly reveals here a periodic
alternance of the sign before number 2.

1.4. Gravitational correlations for groups of four planets.

For a long time astronomers have been aware of dynamic relations
in celestial bodies in groups of four, in the stable gravitational
system which the Solar System presents us with. On this specific
criterion and on some other dynamic criterions stemming from celestial
mechanics, we can select two groups of four planets in the Solar System.
The planets of the Terrestrial group a Earth, Venus, Mars and
Mercury. The planets of the Jovian group a Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune
and Uranus. The empirical facts discovered here indirectly confirm the
existence of further relations.

For the group of planets Earth, Venus, Mars and Mercury
((n^2 + 2);(n ^ 2 - 2)) the relationship is established in the
following manner:

( 33 + 5) + (39 + 8) = 6 ^ 2 + 7 ^ 2 = 9 ^ 2 + 2 ^ 2 = 85

For the group of planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus
((n ^ 2 + 2); (n ^ 2 - 2)) the relationship is established in the
following manner:

( 10 + 13) + (24 + 3) = 5 ^ 2 + 5 ^ 2 = 7 ^ 2 + 1 ^ 2 = 50

In each of the groups considered, there is a higher pair
(n ^ 2-2) and lower pair of planets (m ^ 2 + 2). Therefore, a
possibility seems to exist to derivate various combinations of these
pairs to obtain mixed combinations from these two groups of four
planets. In our particular case, only the combination of the two lower
pairs ((n ^ 2 + 2); (m ^ 2 + 2)) Neptune, Uranus, Mars and Mercury,
forming a mixed group, allows a correlation to be determined:

( 33 + 5) + (24 + 3) = 7 ^ 2 + 4 ^ 2 = 8 ^ 2 + 1 ^ 2 = 65

Some conclusions:

The considered relations can be expressed as the following formula:

(sum values of all correlations of the given group) = k^2+l^2=m^2+n^2

What is remarkable in these correlations by groups of four planets, is
that the sum of the pairs of conjugate gravitationnal correlations are
equal in each case to natural numbers (50, 65, 85) which are the first
terms of a sequence of natural numbers, which are the sum of two pairs
of squares of natural numbers. Please look Diophantus's theorem of a
number theory (III, 19). Here is the beginning of this series:

! ! !
number 1 25 50 65 85 100 125 130 145 169 170 185 200 205 221 225 250 260

1 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16
pair 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 0 1 4 2 3 5 0 5 2

2 0 4 5 7 7 8 10 9 9 12 11 11 10 13 11 12 13 14
pair 1 3 5 4 6 6 5 7 8 5 7 8 10 6 10 9 9 8


1.5. Principles of ratio selection

As we examine Table I, we might wonder why these specific ratios were
selected, among the many combinations that are mathematically possible.
Here are the principles that guided the choice of ratios. All these
principles should be fulfilled simultaneously.
From a mathematical point of view, the problem gravitational
interaction between planets of the Solar System is the nonlinear
n-body problem. Principles 1,2,3,4 and 5 are the physical restrictions
superimposed on the mathematical formalism of ratioes of linear
combinations of planetary masses. The given method has analogs in
radiophysical, atomic and molecular spectral researches. The considered
method is not statistical, it leans on properties nonlinear stationary
systems.
Principle 1. The ratios having the least difference in value from
integers are chosen.
Principle 2. The ratios containing only three bodies are chosen
(there is one elemination stipulated by a Principle 4).
Principle 2 leans on existence of the closed solution of the three-body
problem. The three-body problem was solved by Karl Fritiof Sundman [3].
This solution has a very complicated structure and that one does not give
direct tie between coordinates and time, i.e. there is a full analogy to
the solution for the two-body problem.
Principle 3. The ratios containing the planets, closest on masses are
chosen.
These ratios are the most essential and reliable from the physical point
of view. The Principle 3 integrates in a ratio those planets which have
the greatest potential energies of gravitational interaction. The
Principle 3 take into account also that the absolute errors in masses of
large planets can exceed masses of small planets.
Principle 4. The ratios ensuring existence of a symmetry of a high
level are chosen.
For the first time in the world the French mathematician and physicist
Henry Poincare has paid attention to a symmetry of the physical laws [4].
The fundamental physical laws have properties tightly connected with a
symmetry [5]. In the given work the properties of a symmetry of the
Solar System are studied.
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.


Now we are finishing a new paper that will clear a little, why I'm so
sceptic as to such theories. But you are right in many other things

And I am right and in this case. :-)

I think, Sasha, it is not worthy to take a pose. ;-) If you want to
confine your understanding to number forms - no problem. But first,
ratios not always remain in scale-to-scale transition - for example,
any ratio in logarithmic and linear scales. This I know, indeed. ;-)
Second, before you yielded your integers, you surely averaged them
all. Real ratios are not integers. Third, it is illegal to make global
conclusions on the basis of one Solar system. You haven't another
statistics and cannot tell, how will your ratios change with changing
mass of star, its rotation speed and so on. This is a complicated
many-parametric problem; Newton and Kepler were more right when sought
PHYSICAL, not ASTROLOGICAL regularities. Third, why not to insert to
your system asteroids and comets? ;-) They are also bodies of Solar
system. Why not to spread your system to Saturn ring? There also
gravity field acts. Should I continue? ;-) And fourth, when I was
young, I "played" a little with integers and know, one having a wish
can find a regularity for any sequence. What I saw in your diagram, is
just the standard technique to fit the sequence in the number theory.
;-) How can it be helpful for gravity theory? Mass quantization? But
in which proportion the mass of your body relates to the mass of
Jupiter? ;-)

I think, you will make much more use doing not taking offence but
simply thinking of deepen insight on physical problems and trying to
answer a simple question: why physics many centuries goes a way of
physical regularities, not number theory? You know, Greeks had this
trend.

Kind regards,

Sergey Karavashkin

Head Laboratory SELF
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/SELFlab/index.html




and I always try to support you, when possible. I think, these matters
will gradually settle. Water will pass, and golden sand will sediment.
;-)


Kind regards,
AT

(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

Newton and Kepler were more right when sought
PHYSICAL, not ASTROLOGICAL regularities.

Sergey see at a well known political Newton’s position to
examinations of
Kepler and Hooke...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...nnrp1.deja.com

1. “ Newton (and his disciples) tried to give the impression
that Kepler's laws essentially are just lucky guesses made by someone
who did not even know the mathematical tools necessary for dealing
with them. “

2. “ I assume that also a lot of others had good reasons to
spread the opinion that "Kepler was a nut". ”

3. “ Newton manages to remain strangely silent about Kepler
throughout Book I and II of the PRINCIPIA, by introducing the Third
Law anonymously as "the phenomenon of 3/2th power" and the First and
Second Laws as "the Copernican hypothesis". Kepler' three laws have
come to be treated as essentially empirical rules. How far removed
this archievement was from his original ambition!" “

“ This passage also shows that modern science believing in the
primacy of empirical data and experiments is based either on ignorance
or on lies.
Only after the new concepts have been created and assimilated, it is
possible to interpret empirical data as a proof of (a theory based on)
them. “ ;^)))

How do you evaluate the following paper?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(beginning of original message)

Subject: Johannes Kepler
From: "z@z"
Date: 2000/01/06
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.history,soc.history.science
: = Nathan Urban
:: = Gregory Greenman

:: If you want a person whose work represents a paradigm shift - then
:: I'd have to vote for Isaac Newton.
:
: Though in no way disparaging Newton, I'd have to vote for Galileo,
for
: the role he played in helping to develop the importance of
experiment
: in scientific (particularly physical) inquiry. He really
popularized
: the notion of actually going out and making quantitative
measurements
: of how things work and then coming up with models to describe them.

The step from Copernicus (1473-1543) or Galilei (1564-1642) to
Kepler is much bigger than the step from Kepler (1571-1630) to
Newton (1643-1727). When Newton presented his Principia, the paradigm
shift had already taken place. If it had not, then (almost) nobody
would have accepted Newton's work. Newton solved (or only declared to
have solved) the mathematical problem of how universal gravitation
can explain Keplers laws. The concrete notions and laws Newton
created or used in order to do that seem rather questionable to me.

Galilei was an excellent writer and his importance lies primarily
in popularizing the Copernican world view and the experimental
method. But if we compare him with Nicolaus Cusanus (1401-1464),
another scientist advocating the experimental method, then Galilei's
world view seems rather archaic. Whereas Cusanus had advocated an
infinite universe where stars are suns, based on the relativity
principle, Galilei still advocated the epicycle gymnastics of the
old greeks and fought the real paradigm shift (introduction of
modern physical laws into astronomy, postulation of universal
gravity) indroduced by Kepler (Kepler's writings precede those of
Galilei).

Kepler also seems to be the first who completely resolved the
puzzle of how the eye works. He even drew the right psychological
conclusions from the fact that the image in the eye is inverted.

He wrote works on optics and mathematics (on infinitesimals and
on logarithms) which, according to Gerald Holton "have direct appeal
for the modern mind".

Newton (and his disciples) tried to give the impression that
Kepler's laws essentially are just lucky guesses made by someone
who did not even know the mathematical tools necessary for dealing
with them.

I assume that also a lot of others had good reasons to spread the
opinion that "Kepler was a nut".

Here a quotation from 'Thematic origins of scientific thought' by
Gerald Holton, Harvard U.Press, 1973, p.76:

"Galilei introduces Kepler's work into his discussion on the
world systems only to scoff at Kepler's notion that the moon
affects the tides, even though Tycho Brahe's data and Kepler's
work based on them had shown that the Copernican scheme which
Galileo was so ardently upholding did not correspond to the
experimental facts of planetary motion. And Newton manages to
remain strangely silent about Kepler throughout Book I and II
of the PRINCIPIA, by introducing the Third Law anonymously as
"the phenomenon of 3/2th power" and the First and Second Laws
as "the Copernican hypothesis". Kepler' three laws have come
to be treated as essentially empirical rules. How far removed
this archievement was from his original ambition!"

This passage also shows that modern science believing in the primacy
of empirical data and experiments is based either on ignorance or on
lies.

Only after the new concepts have been created and assimilated, it is
possible to interpret empirical data as a proof of (a theory based
on) them.

Wolfgang Gottfried G.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html

(end of original message)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[snip]

I think, you will make much more use doing not taking offence but
simply thinking of deepen insight on physical problems and trying to
answer a simple question: why physics many centuries goes a way of
physical regularities, not number theory? You know, Greeks had this
trend.

" You know, Greeks had this trend " ... Copernic, Kepler, Nicolaus
Cusanus,
Galilei and Hooke... also ;^)))

Balmer, Ritz and so on, so-and-so ...

" This passage also shows that modern science believing in the primacy
of empirical data and experiments is based either on ignorance or on
lies.

Only after the new concepts have been created and assimilated, it is
possible to interpret empirical data as a proof of (a theory based
on) them. "

Kind regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(Aleksandr Timofeev) writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
[ ... ]
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.

Your comment is irrelevant. Whether or not it has a "minimum
difference" from an integer, it is still 236 standard deviations from
the integer 3. Thus, it is statistically inconsistent with an integer
ratio.

The experimenters-physicists consider as absolutely accident-sensitive
measuring of physical quantities carried out with usage of the
unalternate physical measurement methods.

1. Are scientists able to measure value of a pure gravitational
planetary mass now?

2. Are scientists able to measure value of a pure inert
planetary mass now?

3. What is difference between a pure inert planetary mass and
a pure gravitational planetary mass?


" Between the devil and the deep sea " ;o)


Now there are two independent methods of measurements of values
of masses of planets of the Solar system basing on two in essence
various experimental techniques:

1. Classical methods of optimum selection of values of masses
of planets for large number of the fixed observations of positions
of planets for many hundreds years;

2. New or modern methods of an evaluation of value of a planetary
mass from measurements of interaction of a planet with artificial
space vehicles sent to a planet from the Earth.


Now International astronomical union officially authorizes values
of masses of planets on the basis of measurements of interaction of
a planet with artificial space vehicles sent to the appropriate planet
from the Earth, i.e. value of masses of planets on the basis of
measurements on a new methods.

***
What can you say about problems of 'The theoretical analysis
of differences of values of masses of a particular planet, which
are obtained as a result of application of in essence
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
distinguishing methods of measurements?'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com



(MSA+MME)/(MNE+MUR) = 3.0054951 +/- 0.00012575113

Indeterminacy of the ratio MSA/MME - 0.16067,
this ratio has not physical sense.

This comment is also irrelevant. The uncertainty in the mass of
Saturn is less than 1% of the full mass of Mercury, thus it is
meaningful to distinguish between MSA and MSA+MME.

MSA/MME =... +/- 0.16067 / 2 !!!!!!!!!!!

(MSA+MME)/(MNE+MUR) =

= MSA /(MNE+MUR) + MME /(MNE+MUR)

MSA = ...*MME +/- 0.0803*MME

Whether there is a sense to dissemble with indeterminacy,
diminishing one by division of a large error by large quantities?

+ MME /(MNE+MUR) ???

(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.

Again, your distinction is is irrelevant. All of these quantities are
highly significantly different from an integer value, as are *all* the
possible ratios below 80 I originally listed. There are *no* ratios
consistent with an integer.

[ ... remainder skipped because comments are the same ... ]

"remainder skipped because" You trust in absolutely
accident-sensitive quantities of planetary masses,
the measurings which one bear on an alone physical
principle:

f = g*m1*m2/r ^ 2.

Please point measurings of quantities of planetary masses,
which one bear on other physical principles.



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.

There is nothing fundamental in this series.

" modern science believing in the primacy of empirical data
and experiments is based either on ignorance or on lies.

Only after the new concepts have been created and assimilated, it is
possible to interpret empirical data as a proof of (a theory based
on) them. "
Wolfgang Gottfried G.


As I pointed out,
thousands of distinct but similar series are well known from other
mathematical analyses. Your missing "7" is particularly arbitrary.

The nonlinear addition of frequencies in a radiophysics
served a guiding star in my tentative examinations of
gravitational processes in the Solar SYSTEM.

The nonlinear terms of higher multiplicities I have neglected,
since they have low "intensity".

You can apply more complete set of linear combinations
of quantities of planetary masses:

8
SUMM Ai*Mi
i=1
---------------- =
8
SUMM Bj*Mj
j=1

Ai = -1,0,+1
Bj = -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

Let me understand, Aleksandr, what for do you write me of Newton,
Kepler, Galileo and others, instead answering to what I wrote you?
This is the axiom of classical physics that we have to seek the
regularities in experimental data. But a simple exhausting of numbers,
attempts to find in one planetary system the regularities for all
systems - you understand, this is not the way. Not because I'm Baba
Yaga which is always against ;-). I suggested you to extend your
calculation to the Saturn ring. Doesn't work? ;-) Just what I'm
saying.

The age of stationary orbits has been "eaten". The last who tasty ate
was Bohr. He ate and repeated, there is not in nature really
stationary orbits, but we will consider them stationary. Supporters
of QM have "mathematised" Bohr's result, having "thought out" the
analogue of wave equation and covering it with different nonsense.
Mandelshtam said of it well. Though he was relativist, he admitted in
his lectures that in distinction from classics, "new" science sees
important not to grasp the essence of physical process but to GUESS
the function by some exterior indirect indications. Seeing these lush
fantasies and downpour of funding, supporters of classical physics
began simply to adapt. Actually, this is so convenient - to think out
the phenomenon on the tip of pen! They even don't understand that,
taking this line of convenience, they say good-bye to classical
physics and pass to relativism, astrology or to profanation. They take
great offence when one shows them, what are their problems. As for
example Henri Wilson. He thought out some model and spent lots of
efforts to create really beautiful outwardly programme, but he didn't
think, what has he put into the phenomenology? In distinction from
him, Newton's works are based on the well-pondered phenomenology, deep
and comprehensive analysis. Not on the strive to be original, to be
the author of something, but on analysis of the very phenomenon.

Such is the reason of my doubt in seeking the relationship between
integers. You hardly can replicate this result if you leave the model
of Sun system, and in the Sun system you hardly explain the
configurations of orbits, neither direction of orbiting - in essence,
you in this way can explain nothing. But having established some
regularity of numbers, you will postulate and "tie" the phenomena to
the appeared dogma: "this is so because this is so". Why so, not
otherwise? ;-) What will happen if one of parameters changes? And so
on, so on.

Whilst actually we have now a task to seek the regularities for
non-stationary orbiting, causes of instability and physical nature of
gravitation. There are the roots! Something we have already dug out,
but it is really very difficult.

Please do understand and don't offend. Perhaps I know even better, how
difficult is this - just because we have already yielded some
solutions well consistent with the experiments, such that cannot be
replicated at the conventional level of approaches and attempts. To
myself I approach much more severe. And my criticism of Relativity and
QM originates not from my character but because the supporters of
these approaches didn't bother to analyse without bias the
difficulties of which so much said the giants on whose shoulders they
have clambered up. Someone grew in career, someone strove to have a
reputation of clever person by any price... differently, but the
result is one. You see, David Smith left us and even didn't
understand, he robbed himself. Do you really think, he didn't read the
web page which I made for him? He has read and everything understood,
so he left us silently. But he didn't think in his arrogance, should
he take not my position but a position of unbiased approach to
analysis - and the competition, who of us is more right, would
immediately dissolve. There would begin just the generation of which
everyone speaks - and fears it. Fears just because arrogance is
helpless here, there are only the phenomena of nature and their strong
analysis. This is an extremely hard way to accept it in your soul, not
in your mind, but this is the only way. This means to bend yourself
strongly to physics, not bending physics to yourself, as most of
colleagues are trying to... They even don't understand, they bear the
fences within themselves.

By the way, your thread mentions Maxwell's electrodynamics. Aren't you
interesting to look though our report "Several experiments studying
dynamic magnetic field" which we just published in our journal,

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ntents3.html#b

Please pay your attention to the subsection 4.4 where we compare the
calculation plots with those experimental, and I'm going to clean my
e-mail boxes from spam, as some "ardent fighters for the idea" here in
the newsgroups began to jam them tightly. Little Prince also had to
clean his volcanoes every day - tedious but necessary work. ;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey.



(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

Newton and Kepler were more right when sought
PHYSICAL, not ASTROLOGICAL regularities.

Sergey see at a well known political Newton’s position to
examinations of
Kepler and Hooke...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...nnrp1.deja.com

1. “ Newton (and his disciples) tried to give the impression
that Kepler's laws essentially are just lucky guesses made by someone
who did not even know the mathematical tools necessary for dealing
with them. “

2. “ I assume that also a lot of others had good reasons to
spread the opinion that "Kepler was a nut". ”

3. “ Newton manages to remain strangely silent about Kepler
throughout Book I and II of the PRINCIPIA, by introducing the Third
Law anonymously as "the phenomenon of 3/2th power" and the First and
Second Laws as "the Copernican hypothesis". Kepler' three laws have
come to be treated as essentially empirical rules. How far removed
this archievement was from his original ambition!" “

“ This passage also shows that modern science believing in the
primacy of empirical data and experiments is based either on ignorance
or on lies.
Only after the new concepts have been created and assimilated, it is
possible to interpret empirical data as a proof of (a theory based on)
them. “ ;^)))

How do you evaluate the following paper?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(beginning of original message)

Subject: Johannes Kepler
From: "z@z"
Date: 2000/01/06
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.history,soc.history.science
: = Nathan Urban
:: = Gregory Greenman

:: If you want a person whose work represents a paradigm shift - then
:: I'd have to vote for Isaac Newton.
:
: Though in no way disparaging Newton, I'd have to vote for Galileo,
for
: the role he played in helping to develop the importance of
experiment
: in scientific (particularly physical) inquiry. He really
popularized
: the notion of actually going out and making quantitative
measurements
: of how things work and then coming up with models to describe them.

The step from Copernicus (1473-1543) or Galilei (1564-1642) to
Kepler is much bigger than the step from Kepler (1571-1630) to
Newton (1643-1727). When Newton presented his Principia, the paradigm
shift had already taken place. If it had not, then (almost) nobody
would have accepted Newton's work. Newton solved (or only declared to
have solved) the mathematical problem of how universal gravitation
can explain Keplers laws. The concrete notions and laws Newton
created or used in order to do that seem rather questionable to me.

Galilei was an excellent writer and his importance lies primarily
in popularizing the Copernican world view and the experimental
method. But if we compare him with Nicolaus Cusanus (1401-1464),
another scientist advocating the experimental method, then Galilei's
world view seems rather archaic. Whereas Cusanus had advocated an
infinite universe where stars are suns, based on the relativity
principle, Galilei still advocated the epicycle gymnastics of the
old greeks and fought the real paradigm shift (introduction of
modern physical laws into astronomy, postulation of universal
gravity) indroduced by Kepler (Kepler's writings precede those of
Galilei).

Kepler also seems to be the first who completely resolved the
puzzle of how the eye works. He even drew the right psychological
conclusions from the fact that the image in the eye is inverted.

He wrote works on optics and mathematics (on infinitesimals and
on logarithms) which, according to Gerald Holton "have direct appeal
for the modern mind".

Newton (and his disciples) tried to give the impression that
Kepler's laws essentially are just lucky guesses made by someone
who did not even know the mathematical tools necessary for dealing
with them.

I assume that also a lot of others had good reasons to spread the
opinion that "Kepler was a nut".

Here a quotation from 'Thematic origins of scientific thought' by
Gerald Holton, Harvard U.Press, 1973, p.76:

"Galilei introduces Kepler's work into his discussion on the
world systems only to scoff at Kepler's notion that the moon
affects the tides, even though Tycho Brahe's data and Kepler's
work based on them had shown that the Copernican scheme which
Galileo was so ardently upholding did not correspond to the
experimental facts of planetary motion. And Newton manages to
remain strangely silent about Kepler throughout Book I and II
of the PRINCIPIA, by introducing the Third Law anonymously as
"the phenomenon of 3/2th power" and the First and Second Laws
as "the Copernican hypothesis". Kepler' three laws have come
to be treated as essentially empirical rules. How far removed
this archievement was from his original ambition!"

This passage also shows that modern science believing in the primacy
of empirical data and experiments is based either on ignorance or on
lies.

Only after the new concepts have been created and assimilated, it is
possible to interpret empirical data as a proof of (a theory based
on) them.

Wolfgang Gottfried G.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html

(end of original message)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[snip]

I think, you will make much more use doing not taking offence but
simply thinking of deepen insight on physical problems and trying to
answer a simple question: why physics many centuries goes a way of
physical regularities, not number theory? You know, Greeks had this
trend.

" You know, Greeks had this trend " ... Copernic, Kepler, Nicolaus
Cusanus,
Galilei and Hooke... also ;^)))

Balmer, Ritz and so on, so-and-so ...

" This passage also shows that modern science believing in the primacy
of empirical data and experiments is based either on ignorance or on
lies.

Only after the new concepts have been created and assimilated, it is
possible to interpret empirical data as a proof of (a theory based
on) them. "

Kind regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev

Sergey Karavashkin:

By the way, your thread mentions Maxwell's electrodynamics. Aren't you
interesting to look though our report "Several experiments studying
dynamic magnetic field" which we just published in our journal,

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ntents3.html#b



Congratulations. You've discovered one of two things:


(1) That ampere's law with maxwell's displacement current is correct
and electromagnetic radiation also occurs, even at low
frequencies, or

(2) magnetic monopoles and that the divergence of B is not zero.


It's hard to tell which you think it is, but I'd say it's #1. On
the other hand, if you're claiming #2, then at least you should
have an easy time getting it published. There are already lots
of papers published for not finding magnetic monopoles. On the
third hand, if you're claiming neither, then there is not third
hand and you're out of options.

(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
Let me understand, Aleksandr, what for do you write me of Newton,
Kepler, Galileo and others, instead answering to what I wrote you?
This is the axiom of classical physics that we have to seek the
regularities in experimental data. But a simple exhausting of numbers,
attempts to find in one planetary system the regularities for all
systems - you understand, this is not the way.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

--------------------------------------------------------------
From: (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
Subject: The detection of "photons" in Bell tests
Date: 11 Apr 2002 05:53:29 -0700

" The reason why the Balmer's formula holds was not understood
in Balmer's lifetime and had to wait until the theoretical work
of Niels Bohr in 1913.

Balmer's formula led to more general formulas for the spectral
lines of other atoms. Others who, basing their ideas on those
of Balmer, were able to achieve such results included Rydberg,
Kayser and Runge.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%...ns/Balmer.html
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%...s/Rydberg.html
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%...ans/Runge.html

Niels Bohr has won the Nobel prize, unfortunately Johann Balmer
the Nobel prize has not won, though he had all legal grounds for
this purpose."
--------------------------------------------------------------

Not because I'm Baba
Yaga which is always against ;-). I suggested you to extend your
calculation to the Saturn ring. Doesn't work? ;-) Just what I'm
saying.

I have forecast existence and dynamic properties of four of unknown
planets (group) in the Solar system.

---
Kind regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
http://www.friends-partners.org/~rus...hem/oldeng.htm

(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

By the way, your thread mentions Maxwell's electrodynamics. Aren't you
interesting to look though our report "Several experiments studying
dynamic magnetic field" which we just published in our journal,

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ntents3.html#b

Please pay your attention to the subsection 4.4 where we compare the
calculation plots with those experimental, and I'm going to clean my
e-mail boxes from spam, as some "ardent fighters for the idea" here in
the newsgroups began to jam them tightly. Little Prince also had to
clean his volcanoes every day - tedious but necessary work. ;-)

Part 1
-------------------------------------------------

http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

===========================================
EDITORIAL Winter 1999-2000
Science: To Be, or Not to Be
Or, How I Discovered the Swindle
of Special Relativity


Index

First Steps
Ampere's Theory of Magnetism
Maxwell's Fraud Summarized
The First Unipolar Machines
Forbidden Words
===========================================

Please, comments



Part 2
-------------------------------------------------

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

The Fermat's least action principle has mystical properties similar
to remote action of Newton's(?) gravitational force between two
bodies:

http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...at/Fermat.html

Whether you have any design ideas or a constructive remarks concerning
this subject?



http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

===========================================
From: (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.ele ctromag,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Why Do You Believe Fermat's Principle?
Date: 1 Aug 2002 02:17:56 -0700

================================================== =====================
Historically meta principles have given birth at study of a particular
limited class of physical tasks, and for this reason the application
of meta principles superimposes limitation on classes of physical
tasks,
for which we are able basically to discover mathematical solutions.

This class of physical tasks limits by area of stable or fixed
(stationary) physical systems, or motion of bodies of neglible small
mass inside fixed physical systems.
================================================== =====================

"-meta- principles" allow to do predictions for an extremely limited
class
of physical tasks!
===========================================


Please, comments


---
Kind regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
http://www.friends-partners.org/~rus...hem/oldeng.htm

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Sergey Karavashkin:

By the way, your thread mentions Maxwell's electrodynamics. Aren't you
interesting to look though our report "Several experiments studying
dynamic magnetic field" which we just published in our journal,

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...ntents3.html#b



Congratulations. You've discovered one of two things:


(1) That ampere's law with maxwell's displacement current is correct
and electromagnetic radiation also occurs, even at low
frequencies, or

(2) magnetic monopoles and that the divergence of B is not zero.


It's hard to tell which you think it is, but I'd say it's #1. On
the other hand, if you're claiming #2, then at least you should
have an easy time getting it published. There are already lots
of papers published for not finding magnetic monopoles. On the
third hand, if you're claiming neither, then there is not third
hand and you're out of options.

Bilge,

Have you ever pondered, why our discussions never are a quiet
discussion? The reason is so simple. You permanently try, by fair
means or foul, to squeeze the physics into Procrustean bed of
relativistic and quantum-photon dogmata. I can recall you without
rancour how you tried to persuade me that the interference is
described by the sum of quadrates of strengths of dynamic electric
field. I showed you mathematically that the standard derivation of
wave physics by way of geometric addition of vectors gives the result
corroborated by all experiments. As opposite, you would never yield
such result adding the quadrates. Would you like to say, you didn't
understand it? I will never believe. But you understood, this is the
end of Bose-Einstein statistics, and consequently of the photon theory
(though this theory has no other scientific substantiation, only
belief of its supporters ;-) ). THIS WAS FOR YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THE TRUTH. This is the principal difficulty.

The same now. Would you like to congratulate me with what I disproved?
He-he. Thank you, of course, only your congratulation is some
strange... ;-)

You are suggesting two versions that could however satisfy the
supporters of photon theory - and, as always, you "don't mention" what
we are really proving.

As the first alternative you palm me off the Ampere law. What concern
has it to EM induction? He-he.

First, Ampere law is "the law determining MECHANICAL force with which
the magnetic field affects the element of ELECTRIC CURRENT having been
put into it" [Physical encyclopaedia, vol. 1, p. 50. Sovetskaya
encyclopedia, 1960 (Russian), selected by mine]. While EM induction is
the process of EXCITATION of electric current in secondary conductor.
Indeed, you don't know the difference... ;-)

Second, Ampere law has been derived for DIRECT currents, while we are
considering in our paper DYNAMIC fields. The same as Ampere force acts
perpendicularly to the field and to element of current - while we are
proving in our paper that the emf is induced between the parallel
elements of circuit and in parallel to the elements of primary
circuit.

Third, what the Maxwell shift can change in Ampere law? This is
inconsistent with the conventional formalism, the more that the
consistence of this change to the experiment has not been proven. We
also don't prove it in our paper and don't consider the mechanical
forces affecting the conductors. Though these forces surely exist,
they need to be separately studied.

Forth, this is a news for you relativists that the radiation does
exist at low frequencies, as the photon would grow up to improbable
size. Ideally, one photon would overlap all the Universe. ;-) We in
our study of longitudinal EM waves have demonstrated the directed
radiation at quite low frequency - 30 kHz, and in lab study - even at
16 kHz. There was no accompanied sound. ;-)

This is not all what I can say concerning your (1), but enough.

As to your (2) in which you would like to attribute me some proof of
magnetic monopole. Thank you, indeed, for your care, but this is not
the case. ;-)

First, magnetic monopole by definition is a fictitious structure of
STATIONARY magnetic field; it was introduced perhaps in 18th century
as a convenient fiction to describe STATIONARY magnetic field. But
even then such representation was stipulated fictitious for the sake,
Coulomb's formulas to be similar for both fields. Only full
unscrupulousness of Dirac's approaches to the modelling could create
Dirac monopole as a "reality". This Dirac monopole is one of bright
examples, how one can indulge in fantasies, if proceeded not from the
natural phenomena but from some abstract image and neglected the
rigour of mathematical proof.

Second, you of course have read in our introduction the following:

With it, when in corresponding conservation laws the non-zero
right-hand part appears, it does not mean the origin of magnetic
monopoles in space where the dynamic field propagates. Dynamic field
itself as a non-stationary process in space, "remains" the dynamic
memory of conditions of its formation, and this space-non-damping
"memory" propagates with the field, creating the effect of virtual
electric and magnetic charges.

We especially simplified the description, in order to make the
understanding of process perceptible and to dissociate ourselves from
any fantasies as to "magnetic monopoles".

Third, from which standard representation have you taken that magnetic
monopoles are the divergence of B? We compare in our paper the
experimental results with absolutely non-conventional conception
substantiated only in our papers. Do you question the substantiation
of our experiments? Otherwise, of what do you want to persuade the
authors who have proven these conservation theorems to a few dozens of
acknowledged experts? To persuade us, one should know much further. We
are proving in this paper only what we clearly say in each
substantiation of experiments and in conclusions, nothing more. To
substantiate further, there have to be in future other experiments and
other proofs.

Lest you misinterpret what we meant, it would be logic if you read
what we wrote in the paper, not what you would like to read there. Our
conclusions are quite unambiguous:

We have conducted three sets of experiments with the loops and
single probes and calculated the regularities of inductive emf
variation with respect to the probe location in the core gap. These
experiments have proved the following:
 as opposite to stationary magnetic field, the lines of force
of dynamic magnetic field are open;
 the same, the lines of force of dynamic electric field are
also open;
 the emf induced in the secondary loop results from direct
affection of currents of primary loop in direction parallel and
opposite to these currents;
 the emf induced by some assemblage of primary currents is
determined by the geometric sum of emf induced by each current.
The conducted study has completely experimentally corroborated the
theoretical substantiation made in [1] that the lines of force of
magnetic and electric dynamic fields are open.

All the rest are only your conjectures. The same as to, have we third
way or not. You - haven't, as you haven't even two firsts. As opposite
to you, classical physics is developed from experiment to experiment,
cementing them with the analysis of PHYSICAL REGULARITIES into a
harmonious underpinning of classical physics. So classical physics
doesn't afraid of new discoveries. While the relativism has been built
on mathematisation of what you didn't understand and checked
experimentally. With it, the least change in the knowledge of nature
of phenomena causes your straw hut full destroyed.

Will you want to understand or not - it's your matter. You can confuse
no one except yourself with these maxims. And, judging by your posts,
you have properly confused yourself. ;-) Here will not help even the
paraphrase of my conservation theorem for divergence in dynamic fields
which you made and braved at due time on behalf of yourself, after my
formal publication in the international journal. In the paper you
discussed with Franz Heymann this theorem also has been proven.

To understand the essence of phenomena, one has to be honest with
physics and don't try to squeeze it into the Procrustean bed of one's
fantasies and mercantile interests. I began my post with it - and so I
finish it. Think and act how you want.

Sergey.

Sergey Karavashkin:
(Bilge) wrote:

Bilge,

Have you ever pondered, why our discussions never are a quiet
discussion?

No, not really. I consider you a crackpot. I really don't expect
you to be rational.

The reason is so simple. You permanently try, by fair
means or foul, to squeeze the physics into Procrustean bed of
relativistic and quantum-photon dogmata.

I was using nothing but maxwell's equations. If your lines for
B don't terminate, you have a monopole. Period. End of story.

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:v71nb.118184$gv5.56329@fed1read05...
Dear Bill Hobba:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
David Smith wrote:
No detectable consequences. Determination of self-interference of a
single
photon is not possible. Only for a population of photons is a
statistical
distribution measureable.


Craig Markwardt wrote:
Taken at its face value, this statement is not correct. The very
clever experiment by Grangier et al [ref. 1], first devised a
mechanism to select for single photons using a pair of calcium
transitions and a coincidence window. These "single" photons were
then passed, one at a time, through a Michelson interferometer, and
fringes were produced! I.e., the photon interfered with itself.

The point is that addition of the interferometer introduces
uncertainty over which arm the photon passed through, and is thus
quantum probabilistic arguments play a role.

Interesting effect - thanks for the reference. However I agree with
David -
the results of one photon prove nothing - you need to do the experiment
several times (or equivalently with a number of different photons) to
determine that is taking place.

The experiment he cited actually had a lot of photons emitted and detected,
I think you'll find. But the rate at which they were emitted was such that
there was only "one" in the path at a time. "One" being some number less
than one hundred, most likely.

I think Mr. Markwardt just wanted to patch a hole he (rightly) felt I had
left in the discussion.


Diffraction is a single photon interfering with
itself, a whole host of them.

The self-interference of "photon" is impossible in VLBI physically
on principle, the since each radio telescope is simultaneously both
"slot" and "detector", and VIRTUAL of VLBI an interference is
a corollary of mathematical addition of the information from
video cassettes.

The pattern doesn't change based on intensity,
only particle momentum

It is not change of "moment" of "particle - photon",
and it is quantum change of "moment" of "particle" of "detector"
and electromagnetic field in the complete consent with a Planck
principle.

and "slit" geometry can change the
pattern.

In VLBI the digital computer creates " virtual "slit" geometry ".

The question raised by Alexsandr has now been completely answered, I
hope...

Really answer to my problem is complete and unique:

very strange pseudo particle - photon can exist only in
consciousness of the people

and
================================================== ======
very strange pseudo a particle - photon does not exist
in the NATURE.
================================================== ======

David A. Smith