 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008AS above SO below.
There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. Re: (PLANCK mass Mp)*lp = {mph}*ls = me*wls = hbar / c = m1*rA / nA Moo Moo*loo hbar G*Mp^2 G*M1*m1 = -- -- -- = -- - -- = ---- = --- -- = -- -- --- -- -- 4*pi*Roo 4*pi c c^2 nA*(n - 1)*v1^2 G*Mp*{mph} m1*rA (h + 2*hbar) k*{e} = -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- = -- -- = -- --- -- -- = -- -- 4*(pi)^2*nA*(n - 1)*v1^2 nA Ra*c 2*pi m1*(wavelength wl) m1*c me*wlc Planck's h eH*loo = -- -- --- -- -- -- = -- - -- = --- -- = -- -- -- -- = -- - -- 2*pi*nL 2*pi*fL 2*pi 2*pi*c 4*pi*c^2. Maxwell's authentic equations applied ONLY between FLAT PLATEs.!! But that doesn't matter for a point-ONLY on a WORLD-line in GR.!! A WORLD-point in SPACE-time has NO iNSiDE, or OUTside, ANYways.!! The SHORTEST GR-geodesic iN the SPACE ON the SURFACE of the POiNT ON a WORLD-line in GR SPACE-time is NOT UNCLE AL's "other, LONGER way round" GR-geodesic. Go go Google GROUP SEARCH My BiGGER bang. >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> Autymn D. C. wrote: > > brian a m stuckless wrote: > > Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: > Hi Sue, mostly agree with you... > > > > > >Sue... wrote: > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > > > > > FrediFizzx wrote: > > > > > > "Jay R. Yablon" > > <jyablon@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:eLScf.67167$Bv6.22934@twister.nyroc.rr.com... > Stop cascading or, if I ever find you, I'll beat your head in. Greek YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo, mu*eps, in SI GUESS= Uo*Eo = 1 / c^2. > > $ 3*VOLUME / AREA, per DURATiON = RADiAL velocity.!! > > Delta VOLUME / surface AREA, per second = RADiAL DiSTANCE / 3*sec. > > Unit TRiAKiSicosa VOLUME / (surf AREA*sec) is TiP-to-TiP / 6*sec. > > Unit SPHERiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*sec) is, DiAMETER / 6*sec. > > Unit CUBiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*second) = EDGEside / 6*sec. > > GRAViTATiONAL impulse per VOLUME; iNERTiAL impulse, per AREA. > > No, they're not. You need more subscripts. You should also read > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health). > > > > > > The force between two charges and the force between > > > > > two masses represents no energy exchange. Since "force" x DiSTANCE = "energy exchange" ("force" isn't "energy exchange" EVEN if "viewed with a CAUTiON", MAY be WHY Sue said SO). The GUESS iSS SERiAL index of OBSERVED scale-invariance, follows... The NEW SI GUESS iSS STATiSTiCAL system of SCALE-invariance: (h + 2*hbar) (pi + 1) (X + 2*Y) -- -- -- -- = -- --- = -- -- -- = STATiSTiCAL *tensors* ; h pi X nL*(h + nA*hbar) nL*(2*pi + nA) nL*(X + nA*Y) -- -- -- -- -- = -- -- --- -- = -- --- -- -- = nL*Ni. h 2*pi X Planck scale ; LOCAL scale ; Each WAY, and BEYOND.!! So, NATURE doesn't CARE, if we have COHERENT SI STANDARDs.!! Therefore, AS per WiTH the BOHR Atom, "AS above SO below".!! G*{mph)*Mp 4*(pi)^2*{mph}*ls^3 2*pi*ls -- ---- -- = -- -- -- - -- -- -- = me*(-- --- --)^2*wls .!! (n - 1) ts^2 ts brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > no caution > > -Aut. > There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. > SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. A physical constant is a contradiction in terms. Our fundamental constants all evolve over time. By the same underlying mechanism as life. We need to look to the most complex the universe has to offer...life...to understand the physical universe. Not the other way around. Physics is plagued by a simple frame of reference mistake. Universality is only found in the whole, not in the parts. Evolution gives us the answers to the fine tuning and coincidence problems in cosmology. A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy Paul J. Steinhardt Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA FINE-TUNING, COSMIC COINCIDENCE, AND THE QUINTESSENTIAL SOLUTION Whatever form the dark energy takes, two new cosmological problems arise. First, the component must have a tiny energy density today, roughly 10^-47 GeV^4 How does this small value arise from a microphysical theory. We will refer to the puzzle of explaining this tiny energy as the fine-tuning problem." A second problem arises when the cosmological model is extrapolated back in time to the very early universe, at the end of in inflation, say. The quintessence energy density decreases at a different rate than the matter density, and the ratio shrinks by many orders of magnitude as we extrapolate back in time. The observations are telling us that, somehow, the ratio was set initially just right so that now, fifteen billion years later, the ratio is of order unity. Accounting for the special ratio in the early universe will be referred to as the coincidence problem" http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf Department of Physics Princeton University http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/ > Re: (PLANCK mass Mp)*lp = {mph}*ls = me*wls = hbar / c = m1*rA / nA > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > > no caution > > -Aut. >> There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. >> SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. > >A physical constant is a contradiction in terms. Our fundamental >constants all evolve over time. Evidence please. For instance, there's good evidence that the fine structure constant is _not_ changing <http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/04/18_deep2.shtml> > >> There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. > >> SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > structure constant is _not_ changing > <http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/04/18_deep2.shtml> Didn't I post a paper with the above post? From the head of the Princeton physics dept, and a founder of inflationary theory? One of the most respected cosmologists in the world? Yes I did, I just checked. Did you read it? I guess not. Jonathan s >> >> There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. >> >> SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Yes I did, I just checked. Did you read it? I read it, but it's well outside my field of expertise so you'll have to tell me where it says anything about changing constants. Dark energy is not a fundamental constant. And it's interesting that you mention inflation, because it's obvious that Steinhardt has moved on. > > >> There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. > > >> SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yes I did, I just checked. Did you read it? I just read your link, didn't notice it the first time. The paper I linked to suggests the difference in observations between the cosmological constant and quintessence is almost negligible. Even if the observations hold I don't think it will change much. We still have to have a model that explains the second acceleration due to dark energy. Which a cosmological constant doesn't do I believe. > I guess not. > > Jonathan > > s > A physical constant is a contradiction in terms. That can be true only if you use a definition of the terms "physical" and "constant" that defies the dictionary. [How did we get this particular cross-pollination of groups going?] > > A physical constant is a contradiction in terms. > > That can be true only if you use a definition of the terms "physical" > and "constant" that defies the dictionary. Nothing in the universe in constant, except for change. This statement is easy to refute with only one example of something that never changes. You have the entire universe to use for a counter-example. Jonathan s > [How did we get this particular cross-pollination of groups going?] >> > A physical constant is a contradiction in terms. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of something that never changes. You have the entire >universe to use for a counter-example. Mathematical constants such as pi and e. I've already given an example of a physical constant that shows no sign of change, and most people think that c is another. But there's no reason why constants _should_ change. >> [How did we get this particular cross-pollination of groups going?] Blame Brian Stuckless :-) jonathan <maatschj@bellsouth.net> writes: >Nothing in the universe in constant, except for change. > >This statement is easy to refute with only one example >of something that never changes. You have the entire >universe to use for a counter-example. Planck's constant. Evidence abounds that it has always had the value it has now. Actually, no, the value changes every CODATA iteration, and with greater and greater precision. > >> > A physical constant is a contradiction in terms. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mathematical constants such as pi and e. Those are defined as unchanging. It doesn't quality as a proper response. Such things are self consistent only not consistent with reality. I'm talking about the natural world, not platonic. > I've already given an example of a physical constant that shows no sign > of change, and most people think that c is another. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Blame Brian Stuckless :-) >> >> > A physical constant is a contradiction in terms. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >not consistent with reality. I'm talking about the >natural world, not platonic. You said "one example" without qualification, and I gave you one :-) Actually, though pi is defined, the property it describes (the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle) depends on the properties of the universe, and those could change. There was a Usenet discussion about this a few years ago <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.astronomy/browse_thread/thread/4f0 7ae3c97dd465d/f6b7e94b7badda7c?lnk=st&q=%22inside+an+atomic+nucleus%22+pi &rnum=1&hl=en#f6b7e94b7badda7c> But your basic argument is just _wrong_. Life evolves because it's a self-replicating system with a small degree of error in the replication, and it's subject to selection pressure. None of those things apply to physical constants. $ BellSouth Internet Group CONFiRMs VARiABLE c of LiGHT.!! VELOCiTY c VARiED "by the same underlying mechanism as life." Light VELOCiTY v increases iNVERSELY as PATH particle COUNT. brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> jonathan wrote: > > "brian a m stuckless" <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:4380AA63.362E@nf.sympatico.ca... There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. > A physical constant is a contradiction in terms. Our fundamental > constants all evolve over time. -- insert ..see top of PAGE, dipstick.!! > -- By the same underlying mechanism as life. We need to look to the > most complex the universe has to offer...life...to understand the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Princeton University > http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/ ..as POSTED: There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now. SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol. Re: (PLANCK mass Mp)*lp = {mph}*ls = me*wls = hbar / c = m1*rA / nA Moo Moo*loo hbar G*Mp^2 G*M1*m1 = -- -- -- = -- - -- = ---- = --- -- = -- -- --- -- -- 4*pi*Roo 4*pi c c^2 nA*(n - 1)*v1^2 G*Mp*{mph} m1*rA (h + 2*hbar) k*{e} = -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- = -- -- = -- --- -- -- = -- -- 4*(pi)^2*nA*(n - 1)*v1^2 nA Ra*c 2*pi m1*(wavelength wl) m1*c me*wlc Planck's h eH*loo = -- -- --- -- -- -- = -- - -- = --- -- = -- -- -- -- = -- - -- 2*pi*nL 2*pi*fL 2*pi 2*pi*c 4*pi*c^2. Maxwell's authentic equations applied ONLY between FLAT PLATEs.!! But that doesn't matter for a point-ONLY on a WORLD-line in GR.!! A WORLD-point in SPACE-time has NO iNSiDE, or OUTside, ANYways.!! The SHORTEST GR-geodesic iN the SPACE ON the SURFACE of the POiNT ON a WORLD-line in GR SPACE-time is NOT UNCLE AL's "other, LONGER way round" GR-geodesic. Go go Google GROUP SEARCH My BiGGER bang. >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> Autymn D. C. wrote: > > brian a m stuckless wrote: > > Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: > Hi Sue, mostly agree with you... > > > > > >Sue... wrote: > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > > > > > > FrediFizzx wrote: > > > > > > "Jay R. Yablon" > > <jyablon@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:eLScf.67167$Bv6.22934@twister.nyroc.rr.com... > Stop cascading or, if I ever find you, I'll beat your head in. Greek YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo, mu*eps, in SI GUESS= Uo*Eo = 1 / c^2. > > $ 3*VOLUME / AREA, per DURATiON = RADiAL velocity.!! > > Delta VOLUME / surface AREA, per second = RADiAL DiSTANCE / 3*sec. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > > The force between two charges and the force between > > > > > two masses represents no energy exchange. Since "force" x DiSTANCE = "energy exchange" ("force" isn't "energy exchange" EVEN if "viewed with a CAUTiON", MAY be WHY Sue said SO). The GUESS iSS SERiAL index of OBSERVED scale-invariance, follows... The NEW SI GUESS iSS STATiSTiCAL system of SCALE-invariance: (h + 2*hbar) (pi + 1) (X + 2*Y) -- -- -- -- = -- --- = -- -- -- = STATiSTiCAL *tensors* ; h pi X nL*(h + nA*hbar) nL*(2*pi + nA) nL*(X + nA*Y) -- -- -- -- -- = -- -- --- -- = -- --- -- -- = nL*Ni. h 2*pi X Planck scale ; LOCAL scale ; Each WAY, and BEYOND.!! So, NATURE doesn't CARE, if we have COHERENT SI STANDARDs.!! Therefore, AS per WiTH the BOHR Atom, "AS above SO below".!! G*{mph)*Mp 4*(pi)^2*{mph}*ls^3 2*pi*ls -- ---- -- = -- -- -- - -- -- -- = me*(-- --- --)^2*wls .!! (n - 1) ts^2 ts brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > no caution > > -Aut. Re: AS above SO below. On Jul 6, 1:00 pm, gb <gb6...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 12:55 pm, gb <gb6...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Blender > Man. Europe will separate from the Washington Agenda because of human crimes, separate like East European countries did from the CCCP. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.