 |
 | 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 / June 2008Feynman on Physics Mythology
"By the way, what I have just outlined is what I call a "physics history of physics," which is never correct. What I am telling you is sort of conventional myth-story that the physicists tell to their students, and those students tell to their students, and is not necessarily related to the actural historical development, which I do not really know!" - Riichard P. Feynman in his book "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". This is what I have been trying to tell you guys about the mythology in physics textbooks! Feynman states it perfectly, even at the expense of discrediting his own presentation. Double-A Double-A You reading up on Feynman's "Quantum Electrodynamics(QED) can answer some questions for us Is it a quantum field theory? Does it fit well with Einstein's SR ? How much difference is QCD from QED ? I know QCD is a quantum field theory of gluons and quarks. Like Einstein's macro space geometry I've tried to train my thinking of physics to incorporate tiny microscopic stuff found only in the micro realm(QM). ":My spin is in theory" I use to show how it effects become the heart of QM,and how we feel and detect these great effects in our macro realm. Bert > Double-A You reading up on Feynman's "Quantum Electrodynamics(QED) can > answer some questions for us Is it a quantum field theory? Does it fit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the heart of QM,and how we feel and detect these great effects in our > macro realm. Bert Yes, it is a quantum field theory about the interaction of light with matter. What I have gotton so far is that Feynman thinks light is particles, and the fact that it fits wave theory so well is a coincidence. He would replace it with a statistical way of describing the behavior of photons. He thinks Newton was right in thinking light is particles, but that he arived at the right conclusion through erroneous logic. But lucky he did because he gives it thoughtful analysis as a particle. However Newton had a thoery involving light particles making waves as they pass through glass, which is interesting close to some of my speculations. Haven't read up on QCD yet. You know, if light makes waves (in the aether?), then it will lose energy over distance. It will become red shifted. Distant galaxies will appear red. Seems that's exedty hove they appear! But then there would be no need to interpret this as universal expansion. Double-A > You know, if > light makes waves... then it will lose energy over > distance. It will become red shifted. Distant galaxies will appear > red. Seems that's exactly how they appear! Kee-ripes, that's the dog-eared old 'tired light' theory of which there've been many iterations and variations. > But then there would be > no need to interpret this as universal expansion. The Hubble Constant is well established as correlating the observed redshift with cosmological expansion. But there's one 'fly in the ointment'. With the advent of the Hubble Space Telescope, the most distant 'standard candles' of luminosity, 1a supernovae, were appearing dimmer than they 'should be' at a given redshift. This was interpreted as evidence of "ever-accelerating expansion" of the universe, which became dogma virtually overnight. "Dark energy" was invented to explain what powers the perceived acceleration. But then there's this guy, Prof Senovilla, a 'maverik' mainstreamer who sees "dark energy" and accelerating expansion as a crock and has an alternative explanation : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml Senovilla sees the clock rate as slowing down since the BB, which would account for the most ancient light losing amplitude over time. This correlates perfectly with the CBB model's *cosmological density gradient*, in which the pressure/density of the spatial medium itself drops precipitously from the instant of the BB. http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/page2.html (last two paragraphs). However Prof Senovilla et al are Void Spacers and thus have no concept of the PDT gradient which would explain the slowing clock rate and concomitant dimming of the most ancient light. Their conclusion that time will eventually stop is impossible in the real universe. > > You know, if > > light makes waves... then it will lose energy over [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > concomitant dimming of the most ancient light. Their conclusion that > time will eventually stop is impossible in the real universe. Why? It seems to stop at black holes! An accelerating expanding universe is really a lot to swallow when you think about it. There have to be less incredible theories around. Perhaps the PDT gradient, or as I was suggesting, maybe the old tired light theory should be given one of the new energy drinks to get it back up and running! Double-A > On May 25, 7:47 am, oldcoot <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why? It seems to stop at black holes! Time at the BH *appears* to stop to us 'out here' in out our local frame while 'there' at the event horizon, the clock still runs at the normal rate. But Senovilla et al are speaking of time stoppage in an entirely different context that doesn't involve BHs at all. They're extrapolating out to the far future where they surmise the clock rate simply "runs down to zero", period. They have no concept of the CBB model's continuous-creation process maintaining the pressure/density (or PDT value) of space. > An accelerating expanding universe is really a lot to swallow when you > think about it. Har! Understatement of the year. A singular, 'one-shot' BB into an ever-accelerating, open-ended expansion unto entropic heat death is neither a rational nor elegant proposition. > > There have to be less incredible theories around. > Perhaps the PDT gradient, or as I was suggesting, maybe the old tired > light theory should be given one of the new energy drinks to get it > back up and running! Well, all 'tired light' theories are predicated on the space-as-void premise and thus have no concept of the cosmological PDT gradient. So if you're a Void Spacer, give it a go. You might fare better than the others (tongue firmly in cheek of course). :-) > On May 25, 12:30 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:> On May 25, 7:47 am, oldcoot <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > extrapolating out to the far future where they surmise the clock rate > simply "runs down to zero", period. Of course, if all processes ceased due to heat death, time would in a sense stop. >They have no concept of the CBB > model's continuous-creation process maintaining the pressure/density [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > if you're a Void Spacer, give it a go. You might fare better than the > others (tongue firmly in cheek of course). :-) My new theorizing is not void space, but that photons as particles passing through aether make waves which depleats their energy eventually and causes red shift. Double-A > > Well, all 'tired light' theories are predicated on the space-as-void > > premise and thus have no concept of the cosmological PDT gradient. So [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > passing through aether make waves which depleats their energy > eventually and causes red shift. Well that IS a new twist on 'tired light'. Your operative term is "particles passing through the medium" like projectiles. But photons are not "particles" (popular consensus notwithstanding). They are wave packets. Waves propagate through their carrier medium at a velocity dependant on the medium's pressure/density/'Temp'(PDT). They don't "shoot through" it like a projectile, generating a bow wave and wake. If the medium undergoes a drop in its PDT value at deep cosmological distances, then the most ancient light, having originated in denser, 'hotter' space, will naturally lose amplitude as it propagates into our less-dense, 'cooler' space.. just as is observed in the anomalous SN1a dimming. And just as Senovilla postulates, the clock rate will slow concomitantly with the PDT drop. And as Wolter observed, 'c-dilation' will also occur concomitantly with the drop. His 'c-dilation' is _as observed from the 'outside' referance frame_. But from here 'inside', we observe only artifacts such as the SN1a dimming. No 'tired light' or "dark energy" needed unless you're a Void Spacer. :-) > > > Well, all 'tired light' theories are predicated on the space-as-void > > > premise and thus have no concept of the cosmological PDT gradient. So [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "particles passing through the medium" like projectiles. But photons > are not "particles" (popular consensus notwithstanding). Feynman says they are. > They are wave > packets. Waves propagate through their carrier medium at a velocity > dependant on the medium's pressure/density/'Temp'(PDT). They don't > "shoot through" it like a projectile, generating a bow wave and > wake. But then again, they might! > If the medium undergoes a drop in its PDT value at > deep cosmological distances, then the most ancient light, having [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > such as the SN1a dimming. No 'tired light' or "dark energy" needed > unless you're a Void Spacer. :-) Assuming light IS a particle travelling though the aether, where does all the energy from tired light go? Keep Stockholm on speed dial. This could be huge! Double-A > > > > Well, all 'tired light' theories are predicated on the space-as-void > > > > premise and thus have no concept of the cosmological PDT gradient. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Feynman says they are. Feynman was wrong, AA. The simplest of observations are evidence that even x rays and gamma rays, while behaving more like particles than longer wavelength EM radiation, are still quanta, tiny wave packets of EM radiation. > > They are wave > > packets. Waves propagate through their carrier medium at a velocity [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But then again, they might! And where's the evidence of this? > > If the medium undergoes a drop in its PDT value at > > deep cosmological distances, then the most ancient light, having [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Double-A Light waves and other EM radiation *modulate* the hypershort-wavelength, high-grade energy of the sub-Planck energy domain. The energy density of the SPED determines the speed of EM propagation. It is the SPED's subquantum-wavelength nature that ensures that light only "tires" as a function of the inverse-square law. The fact that the inverse-square law also applies to the spatial energy that enters matter and causes gravitation is not a coincidence. And calling the SPED an aether might be compelling to the maverickest of rebels, but it is a misnomer. And this is because every, single ether or aether theory, whether based on materialism or energy, has depicted space-time as a background, a nothing void container in which the matter or energy existed separately and independently from "empty space". Even Einstein avoided the term as much as possible, in his later years using "aether" only to describe the untenable existence in classical mechanics of some form of matter that was assumed to be everywhere. The SPED does not fill space like all the "ethers" and "aethers" did... The SPED *is* space (space-time). happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)... http://painellsworth.net http://savethechildren.org http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com > > > > > Well, all 'tired light' theories are predicated on the space-as-void > > > > > premise and thus have no concept of the cosmological PDT gradient. [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > http://savethechildren.org > http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com Panius, Newton thought light was a particle (corpuscle). Eintstein thought light was a particle (quanta). And Feynman thought light was a particle. How is light taht different than any other particle? Light has a wave nature associated with it, but so does every other particle. Certainly it has been shown in the double-slit and other experiments that the electron and other particles have wave characteristics. That the rest mass of the photon has not been measurable is no surprise, as only recently was the neutrino's mass confirmed. Fenman may have been right or wrong about a lot of things, but his strong assertion of the particle nature of the photon is certainly food for more thought. Double-A >> Light waves and other EM radiation *modulate* >> the hypershort-wavelength, high-grade energy of [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Double-A First, a "quantum" is not a "particle". It's a "bundle of energy" that, depending upon the experiment, will sometimes act like a particle and sometimes like a wave. Moreover, the shorter the wavelength of the many "quanta" (plural of "quantum") of radiation, the more each quantum behaves like a particle. Light radiation behaves more like waves than, say, x-ray radiation, and x-ray quanta behave more particle-like than light quanta, and so forth. The interesting thing for me is that neither light nor any other radiation will behave both like a particle and like a wave at the same time. Nobody's ever been able to set up an experiment that makes light act both like a particle and a wave at the same time. While there is no question that light quanta (also called "photons") exist, as shown by Einstein's Nobel winning photoelectric effect, the only reason science expanded the photon's particle-like behavior is to show that light, say from a star, was able to travel through the void, empty space as a particle, so it did not need an aether in order to have "something to wave". Now that i've been introduced to the sub-Planck energy domain, the SPED, as the medium comprising space-time, there is no reason to continue the silly idea that light photons are particles. They are just exactly what Einstein showed them to be... bundles of energy that will sometimes behave a little like particles behave. There is no longer any reason to see photons as needing to be particles in order to travel through space-time. Light waves modulate the SPED. The SPED is the carrier frequency that electromagnetic radiation "waves". happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)... http://painellsworth.net http://savethechildren.org http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com > Now that i've been introduced to the sub-Planck > energy domain, the SPED,... Actually you were the coiner of the term. >...as the medium comprising > space-time, there is no reason to continue the silly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > see photons as needing to be particles in order to > travel through space-time. Actually once the reality of the SPED is recognized, the term 'space- time' can be dispensed with. It was after all invented to accomodate the 'no medium' doctrine. It was a surrogate or euphamism for the 'Something' whose existance had to be denied (the 'Something that is yet Nothing'). Same goes for '4-D fields' etc. which served that same surrogacy. > Light waves modulate > the SPED. The SPED is the carrier frequency that > electromagnetic radiation "waves". Yep, the SPED *is* that carrier medium, the profoundly self-evident 'Something' whose energy density (aka PDT value) fixes the speed of light and handily carries EM radiation at amplitudes having no perceptible upper limit. >> Now that i've been introduced to the sub-Planck >> energy domain, the SPED,... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >light and handily carries EM radiation at amplitudes having no >perceptible upper limit. I can easily image BS here in a poorly ventilated classroom in front of a green chalkboard (a real one, not those whiteboard fakes) droning on and on and on about "SPED", "self-evident", "carrier medium", "Wolter", "void-space paradim" etc., while the students are all plugged into iPods, texting each other about going for pizza, or sound asleep. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen > >> Light waves and other EM radiation *modulate* > >> the hypershort-wavelength, high-grade energy of [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > Indelibly yours, > Paine You are right that there is no need for a photon to be a particle in order to travel thourgh a medium. Yet, the presence of a medium doesn't prevent it from being a particle eather. Feynman felt they have moved beyond the dual nature, wave-packet era with QED and its particle description of light. Thinking of the photon as a particle answers some questions, such as why light gets tired. Like Bert says, it all fits! Double-A Double_A I never liked the theory photons get tired going through space. Tired means less energy. Tired does not mean they move slower like me "an old man" Photons are new and all gamma coming out of the fusion core of the Sun,but after being absorbed and emitted over and over for 200,000 years they come to us as a mixture of long and short waves,and that makes them appear "white" The longest weakest photons are radio,and that does not mean radio photons are older than gamma photons. If the photon source(galaxy is moving away from us very fast we will see weaker red photons. The Adronoma galaxy because it is spinning has photons both red shifted,and blue shifted. They are both the same age. Never think of light getting old. Never think of old hydrogen gas. Old diamonds are not cheaper than a new diamond Go figure Bert > Double_A I never liked the theory photons get tired going through > space. Tired means less energy. Tired does not mean they move slower [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > hydrogen gas. Old diamonds are not cheaper than a new diamond Go > figure Bert As photons plow through the aether, they gradually lose energy. Energy loss is slow because aether offers very littlle friction. They move slower, but by too small amount for us to measure, but we do notice the loss of relativistic momentum, which displays itself as a shorter associated wave length. Photons behave like any other particle. It all fits, Bert! Double-A AA wrote thus : > As photons plow through the aether, > they gradually lose energy. Energy loss > is slow because aether offers very littlle > friction. They move slower, but by too > small amount for us to measure, but we > do notice the loss of relativistic > momentum, which displays itself as a > shorter associated wave length. > Photons behave like any other particle. Yikes. Are you sure you don't wanta reconsider all of this, AA? :-) > AA wrote thus : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yikes. Are you sure you don't wanta reconsider all of this, AA? :-) I am always reconsidering, Bill. That is the fun of keeping an open mind. Double-A Double-A What fits is their source is a large star coming to us from a large galaxy. That pulls on the photons,but instead of slowing them down it lengthens their wave Bert > Double-A What fits is their source is a large star coming to us from a > large galaxy. That pulls on the photons,but instead of slowing them down > it lengthens their wave Bert Perhaps it does both. Double-A Double-A Only changes their wave length Trust me on this Bert > Double-A Only changes their wave length Trust me on this Bert Trust you? Sounds like foreplay. Double-A Double-A Gravity of our galaxy can and does shorten the length of photons coming into it. That is another reason I have a theory that just about doubles what Google will give as the universe's size Go figure Bert >> Double_A I never liked the theory photons get tired going through >> space. Tired means less energy. Tired does not mean they move slower [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Double-A It is all rot, Herr Doktors Planck, Doppler, and Einstein are now rolling over in their graves: Photon mass = 0 Photon speed = photon wavelength * photon frequency = c = constant Photon energy = h * photon frequency Photon momentum = h / photon wavelength Photon relativistic momentum = nonsense No experimental evidence of "aether" No experimental evidence of "friction" No experimental evidence of "energy loss" Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen How odd that I'm talking with an “ urban camper ” ( Double A ) and a ( seemingly ) rich and famous person ( Paine ).. odder still, both are happy, well informed, and fun to read. I had no Internet at home the last two weeks ( I've tons of access on campus, but chose not to use it much ), all I had was talk radio ( including N.P.R. and P.R.I. ).. Boring ! Re: Feynman on Physics Mythology, Randomness is ignorance, nothing is acausal.. so, to the extent that one can predict a laser, it's a hyperfield ( 4-D ), static, imponderable, and motionless ( in 4-D ). Yet, for a black body at room temperature with a meter^2 surface area, a photon in the visible range appears every thousand years or so. Planck's law is semi-random; quoting WikiPedia: “ Although Planck's formula predicts that a black body will radiate energy at all frequencies, the formula is only practically applicable when many photons are being measured. ”. Nature is unaffected by how much one does or doesn't know about it; so intrinsically, innately, everything is a hyperfield ( 4-D ). "Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_Relf@.Invalid> wrote... > How odd that I'm talking with an â?o urban camper â? ( Double A ) > and a ( seemingly ) rich and famous person ( Paine ).. > odder still, both are happy, well informed, and fun to read. Thank you, Jeff! You are wise beyond your ears. <g> > I had no Internet at home the last two weeks > ( I've tons of access on campus, but chose not to use it much ), [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Nature is unaffected by how much one does or doesn't know about it; > so intrinsically, innately, everything is a hyperfield ( 4-D ). Sorry, Jeff, but history shoots down that last statement. Nature is very much affected by our presence, and the less we know about Nature, the more we affect it in very negative ways. Hopefully, the more we learn about it, the better we will treat Nature, and the better Nature will treat us! Earth might be just a tiny insignificant dustball, but it's OUR dustball (and presently the only dustball we have)! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)... http://painellsworth.net http://savethechildren.org http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com My head is “ wise beyond [ its ] ears. <g> ” ? Thanks, I've often thought I might be an idiot savant, not just an ordinary idiot. Anywho.. as I said, Nature is sure to be unaffected by whatever information might lay between one's ears.. unless and until one takes action, of course. 'tis nature ( including us ) that rules us, not vice versa. I was watching journey of a bright green caterpillar the other day, amid powerful gusts, light rain and sparkling sun breaks. It passed a tiny mite and some ants as it climbed a short wall, rising up on it's hind legs to sniff the air after reaching the top. “ That's me ”, I thought, “ I'm like this worm, or a plant, but with more ‘ action ’. ”. Humanity is like a tsunami, no less causal; we're part of Nature's physics, not divorced from it. > Humanity is like a tsunami, no less causal; > we're part of Nature's physics, not divorced from it. From the 'big picture' perspective, how true! The human presence is no different than another asteroid strike. Life is a battery of “ stored motion ” ( capacitors ) flashing “ lighting bolts ” at “ random ” times. ( “ Randomess ” is ignorance, nothing is acausal ) jeff Both battery and human body are chemical. Both can produce electricity,and possibly our neurons can act like a capacitor. It fits Best to keep in mind our nerves conduct electricity and that is why our heart beats Bert I'm sure you remember me talking about my friend “ Patinha ” ( 103 Lbs ) and her dog “ Whimpels ”.. here's a recent picture: “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/PatinhaWhimpels.JPG ”. She's in St. Petersburg, FL these days, pregnant and married. In Brazil, “ Patinha ” means “ Rubber Duckie ”, see: www.TranExp.COM:2000/InterTran?url=http://&type=text&text=patinha&from=pob&to=eng > jeff Both battery and human body are chemical. Both can produce > electricity,and possibly our neurons can act like a capacitor. It fits > Best to keep in mind our nerves conduct electricity and that is why our > heart beats Bert That's cause for pause! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Human body like a lemon produces electrical energy. A very large lemon can bring the voltage up. This begs the question "IF 1,000 people are holding hands does this bring the voltage up? Go figure If there were free electrons in space would the shuttle act like a capacitor? Bert > Human body like a lemon produces electrical energy. A very large lemon > can bring the voltage up. No. You have to have a lot of lemons to put in series to bring the voltage up. > This begs the question "IF 1,000 people are > holding hands does this bring the voltage up? Maybe, if they have eaten lots of lemons, and are holding zinc and copper terminals in their acidicly perspiring hands. > Go figure If there > were free electrons in space would the shuttle act like a capacitor? > Bert There are free electron is space. But there are also free protons. Yet there might be a scheme for building a device that could get a charge from them. Double-A Double-A Nice response. OK how about one huge lemon and very big cooper,and zinc lances? How about those 1,000 people standing bare feet in salt water.? How about if they stood on each others shoulders on a high hill during a lightning storm? Bert > Double-A Nice response. OK how about one huge lemon and very big > copper, and zinc lances? That would simply increase the amperage (current) capability, Bert. To increase the voltage, you have to put the lemom "cells" in series, as AA said. oc My post was not meANT TO BE TAKEN to seriously I was trying to be cute. I'm to old to be cute. However I might like the idea of a very big lemon and lances to give you a big shock?? I do know a battery's voltage depends on the metals that are used in its electrodes. To go with plates in a series I know that a car battery contains plates of lead oxide and lead metal immersed in a sulfuric acid electrolyte As the battery produces current both kinds of plate change to lead sulfate, That also means reversing this action (Current going into battery) it reverses the chemical reaction. Interesting oc is the fastest electric car ran on 10,000 1.5 AA batteries Bert > Human body like a lemon produces electrical energy. A very large lemon > can bring the voltage up. This begs the question "IF 1,000 people are > holding hands does this bring the voltage up? Go figure If there > were free electrons in space would the shuttle act like a capacitor? > Bert From _Isaac Asimov On Physics_, p. 137... "A human being . . . is delivering (in the form of heat eventually) about . . . 120 watts. Next time you're at a crowded cocktail party (or on a crowded subway train or a crowded theater audience) on a hot evening in August, think of that as each individual person walks in. Each entrance is equivalent to turning on another 120 watt electric bulb. It will make you feel a lot hotter and help you appreciate the new light of understanding that science brings." There *are* free electrons in space, Bert. Electrons are a major part of cosmic rays emanating both from the Sun and from outside the Solar System. They're a major reason why we cannot shield well enough yet to send a manned mission to Mars. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius Cosmic rays as shown by this guy Hess using a "electroscope showed radiation hitting Earth's atmosphere. These were great energetic "charged particles",and composed mostly of "PROTONS" Read these protons were part of the shock waves created by super nova explosions. Here you see Painius where they got all that speed and energy from. I also read this cosmic rays can and do give us cancer. Still Painius I have not read about free electrons flowing around in the ether of space. I have always had the idea they would find a home so very easy. After all they are negative,and not like photons or neutrinos that have no charge Bert > Painius Cosmic rays as shown by this guy Hess using a "electroscope > showed radiation hitting Earth's atmosphere. These were great energetic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > always had the idea they would find a home so very easy. After all they > are negative,and not like photons or neutrinos that have no charge Hey Bert Even though you're totally averse to Googling, just for once try going to the 'Search' box on your Webbie rig and type in 'Space tether'. You'll get the story from back in '96 on the 12-mile- long wire that was reeled out from the Shuttle to generate electric current from being dragged through the Earth's magnetic field. Turns out it worked 'too well', and the current melted the cable and severed it loose from the Shuttle. There's also a video of it on YouTube, which the Webbie rig won't play. oc Know about the long conducting cable;. Never knew that it melted down. Only read nasa COULD NOT UNRAVEL IT I'm talking deep space. I can't go to Google because of the promised to my lATE FRIEND JOE. Bert Why'd you promise Joe you'd never use Google ? ! Jeff Joe and I grew up together. He got his electrical engineering degree from MIT,and I had little education. still he liked when I could come up with ideas,and helped my low ego by saying "I was clever" a very original thinker,and to think out the mysteries of nature on my own. He said you can always find a theory in a book on them but said "Best you look for reality with your brain" This I have done. I hope my posts over the years prove this? I hope my free thinking is interesting? I know my thinking out of the box rubs some people the wrong way,but I can never be called a google brain,or a parrot. I have read many books I make sure I understand what I have read. My grammar stinks,but I know the meaning of words. At 80 my posting days have a dim future. I hope you and all the virtual friends I have made here will let me know if my thinking went senile. I will take that as an act of kindness. I have still a good memory. Still I'm scared Bert > Jeff Joe and I grew up together. He got his electrical engineering > degree from MIT,and I had little education. still he liked when I could [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > thinking went senile. I will take that as an act of kindness. I have > still a good memory. Still I'm scared Bert I know this might sound like a silly question to some people, Bert, but what are you scared of? Be exact. You do have friends here. And they're all scared of something. You are a thinker. And as you say all the time, you like to think "outside the box". So go with your feelings. Think about what you're scared of, and think about it outside the box. And study it well. You may be tested on this. <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius Fears I have,and not just rats and being off the ground(height) When you live alone at 80 you relate to no one. I have no one to let me know how I'm doing. I could be talking in circles and not realize it. By the way I'm talking to myself more and more Hmmm I;m trying to curb that by taking science to Rudy. I keep hearing more and more about alltimers desease hitting old people,and there younger than me. II'm sleeping less and dreaming less. My biggest fear is this Painius What it I lose my marbles and don't realize it?? Well so far so good I can still find my car in a Wal-Mart parking lot. I still know I'm alive when I wake up. I'm posting What If again,and please tell me if I'm repeating the same stuff Bert > Painius Fears I have,and not just rats and being off the ground(height) > When you live alone at 80 you relate to no one. I have no one to let me [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > know I'm alive when I wake up. I'm posting What If again,and please > tell me if I'm repeating the same stuff Bert Some things you say *bear* repeating, Bert. You are not alone in your fear of losing your good mental health. People see it all the time. My mother-in-law is a prime example. One day she's the top dog at Red Lobster, and the next day she's down with alzheimers... "a progressive form of presenile dementia that is similar to senile dementia except that it usually starts in the 40s or 50s; first symptoms are impaired memory which is followed by impaired thought and speech and finally complete helplessness" To watch this happen to someone close to you is one of the most hurtful and fearful things in the Universe! To know as much as you can about the thing you fear is the first step to fearlessness, Bert. Usually, the more we fear something, the more we tend to make it happen. Have you ever read Napoleon Hill's _THINK AND GROW RICH_? If not, get yourself a copy and go right to the chapter, "How to Outwit the Six Ghosts of Fear". Your worst fear that you confided above is one of these six major fears: The fear of I L L H E A L T H. This fear is usually at the bottom of most of one's worries when we get on in age. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or an astronaut to feel courage, Bert. All it takes is your powerful mind thinking, feeling, visioning yourself fearless. Specially "feeling". See it in your mind and feel it everywhere. As Roosevelt long ago reminded us, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself!" Everybody talks to themselves, Bert. The important thing is to break any habits you have of saying negative things to yourself. Nature gave us total dominion, absolute control over but one thing, and that is... T H O U G H T The human mind can only think of one thing at a time. Just make sure that each and every moment of your day, you allow only the good and helpful thoughts to enter your mind. Powerful and mighty is the human mind! It builds, or it destroys. Whichever of these you choose to do, just know that there will always be people who read your written words, and who are inspired by them. Repeat over and over as often as possible,... "Today is the first day of the BEST of my life!" SignaturePainius Thinking only happy thoughts ( instead of being realistic ) will make you bi-polar.. up one day and down the next. It's like drinking coffee ( or Bud Light ) to feel happy; later, you feel even worse. I eat to feel better, which is just as bad ( if not worse ). “ Rest homes ” are expensive and depressing, Bert didn't just lose a wife, he lost a million dollars ! sh.t like that has killed better men than Bert, I asure you. Bert should rent a tiny room in a rooming house ( slum ), as I do. Nice homes are for mothers and their ( grand ) kids. Painius Well when I talk to myself I never argue,and always agree no matter what I say. Days are hot and boring. Each day is a clone of yesterday. I do social work by fighting Severn Trent Mafia. People that can't pay their fraudulent monthly bills call me,and I give them my advice. I'm their elder statesman,or Robin Hood I do have my hobbies photography and love to build,and fix stuff. Still since Sunbeam and I called it quites its no fun living alone I get depressed from time to time (like now) Bert Two pet rats were crawling all over me today, for about 30 minutes. They've deep wood chips to hide in, a three story cage, a three year old girl ( Jada ) to play with, etc. No need to be “ scared ”; although you post a lot, I always enjoy reading it. You're not “ senile ”, not compared to Professor Wormley, Saul or me. For me, Google is great fun, so I don't understand why you wouldn't enjoy it too. This screen shot shows the 16 “ Search PlugIns ” I use, ( “ Google ” is second on the list, after “ Search MSDN ” ): “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/SearchPlugins.PNG ”. I'm using FireFox 3.0, recently released; and, to a lesser extent, I use IE7 ( on Windows Vista ). I love tweaking the code, of course, CSS 3, XML, JavaScript, Visual Basic Scripts ( for apps ), Visual C++, etc. Jeff Thank you for saying you enjoy reading what I post. I think I might be posting to often? I don't have to go to Google it gets thrown at me every day. Bert You're not posting too often; lately, I've been too busy to keep up. You understand what you have read, BEERTbrain? lmao! I seriously DOUBT it! Saul Levy >Jeff Joe and I grew up together. He got his electrical engineering >degree from MIT,and I had little education. still he liked when I could [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >thinking went senile. I will take that as an act of kindness. I have >still a good memory. Still I'm scared Bert > Know about the long conducting cable;. Never knew that it melted > down. Only read nasa COULD NOT UNRAVEL IT I'm talking deep space. I > can't go to Google because of the promised to my lATE FRIEND JOE. Heckamighty, Bert. Here's the skinny on the space tether. http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html You could find it using the 'Search' box on your rig. Wouldn't have to use Google at all. oc Yes thank you I see it clearly now. The cable was acting like a huge antenna going through the "magnetic field of our Earth". It even created drag to slow down the speed of the shuttle. That must have created lots of tension Think NASA engineers would find "if great heat broke the cable" its ends would show clear burn marks(easy to see). Still oc my thoughts have not changed in deep space away from magnetic fields there are few free electrons. NASA should try that tether cable cutting through Jupiter's great magnetic field after all its over 4 gauss (1380% of Earth's) Its tether would be so much shorter(less tension) When we are on are way to Mars our space ship need not tow a cable even it its 500 miles long,and my thinking tells why. Not many free electrons away from those magnetic fields bert > Painius Cosmic rays as shown by this guy Hess using a "electroscope > showed radiation hitting Earth's atmosphere. These were great energetic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are negative,and not like photons or neutrinos that have no charge > Bert Cosmic rays (which are not really "rays", that's a misnomer) are mostly protons, yes. Protons comprise almost 90% of the total particles, and electrons about 1%. But that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of those free electrons, Bert. Just to give you an idea, suppose the total number of particles is one billion. 1% of that number is 10 million, and that's a lot of electrons. The only components of cosmic rays that might cause cancer (and also genetic mutations) are the extremely high energy particles. These are very, very rare, so a person is probably more likely to get struck by a bolt of lightning than to be randomly hit by a cosmic ray particle that is energetic enough to do significant harm. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius Your post(nicely done) begs this question. How come these 10% free electrons are not finding a home with any of those free protons and creating hydrogen atoms? Seems mother nature gave them this job to do. Painius I'm still going with free electrons in the ether of space are very rare,and that is good. Bert > Painius Your post(nicely done) begs this question. How come these 10% > free electrons are not finding a home with any of those free protons and > creating hydrogen atoms? Seems mother nature gave them this job to do. > Painius I'm still going with free electrons in the ether of space are > very rare,and that is good. Bert I'm no expert, Bert, but it might have something to do with the energy levels. If something happens to slow down some of the particles, to absorb a certain amount of the energy in these particles, then there probably is some formation of hydrogen. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius I can live with energy levels bert > > Humanity is like a tsunami, no less causal; > > we're part of Nature's physics, not divorced from it. > > From the 'big picture' perspective, how true! The human presence is no > different than another asteroid strike. And just as damaging? Double-A > How odd that I'm talking with an " urban camper " ( Double A ) > and a ( seemingly ) rich and famous person ( Paine ).. Famous? > odder still, both are happy, well informed, and fun to read. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Nature is unaffected by how much one does or doesn't know about it; > so intrinsically, innately, everything is a hyperfield ( 4-D ). Yes, Feynman says that when you know which slit indivitural photons are passing throgh in the double-slit experiment, there is no interference pattern! Double-A Double-A Feynman gave the "Sum of all paths" to answer the two slits bert > Double-A Feynman gave the "Sum of all paths" to answer the two slits > bert You know your Feynman. Double-A In the double-slit experiment, with an ideal ( i.e. perfectly coherent ) laser beam, it's impossible to know if it passed through one slit and not the other and the interference pattern is flawless. In fact, that's a good way to check the quality of your laser beam. So what ? An ideal black body is the opposite of that. Nothing is acausal. Randomness is ignorance. For a black body at room temperature with a meter^2 surface area, a photon in the visible range appears every thousand years or so. Quoting WikiPedia on “ Planck's law ”: “ Although Planck's formula predicts that a black body will radiate energy at all frequencies, the formula is only practically applicable when many photons are being measured. ”. Jeff The amazing thing what the two slits is showing us is one electron is going through both slits at the same time. Feynman used this to show how weird QM was. Reality is I made sense out of it,and have posted my theory on this. Its in reality very simple bert > Jeff The amazing thing what the two slits is showing us is one electron > is going through both slits at the same time. Feynman used this to show > how weird QM was. Reality is I made sense out of it,and have posted my > theory on this. Its in reality very simple bert With two entrances in a harbor wall, a boat goes through one entrance, and its wake goes through the other. The wake can then interfere with the boat and the boat's continuing wake. The same thing happens with my ballistic particle photon. The photon passes through one slit, and its aether wake passe through the other and causes the apparent self- interference. My theory explains the double-slit! Double-A While an ideal blackbody won't produce any interfence pattern, an ideal laser beam produces a flawless pattern.. because, in the case of the laser, multiple photons pass through each slit. Double-A Sorry BUT DON'T like boat wave making the same wave pattern. A disturbance on the other entrance but not a twin wave. Give me a break will ya Bert > Assuming light IS a particle travelling though the aether, where does > all the energy from tired light go? Sky Pixies retirement home. :-) > Keep Stockholm on speed dial. This could be huge! > > Assuming light IS a particle travelling though the aether, where does > > all the energy from tired light go? > > Sky Pixies retirement home. :-) > > > Keep Stockholm on speed dial. This could be huge! Or could it be that which pumps the SPED??? Double-A >> On May 25, 12:30 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:> On May 25, >> 7:47 am, oldcoot <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Of course, if all processes ceased due to heat death, time would in a >sense stop. But of course. >>They have no concept of the CBB >> model's continuous-creation process maintaining the pressure/density [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >passing through aether make waves which depleats their energy >eventually and causes red shift. Wow, that is a profound breakthrough. So profound, in fact, that I'm nominating photon degradation theory for the prestigious Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award. Seconds? Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen Art Deco wrote on 07-Jun-08 08:07 : >>> On May 25, 12:30 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:> On May 25, >>> 7:47 am, oldcoot <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Seconds? I figure saucerheads, as a -group-, deserve VVFWS, because all of their cherished "theories" appear to have more to do with guesswork, somewhat artful word salad, post-diction, and wishful thinking than actual observation or science. Unless, of course, it's already been awarded... Seconded. >Art Deco wrote on 07-Jun-08 08:07 : >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >artful word salad, post-diction, and wishful thinking than actual >observation or science. Unless, of course, it's already been awarded... Unless I'm mistaken, I do believe the a.a saucerheads have won a group VVFWS. This goofy photon imagining did seem like something new, so hopefully the nomination will be accepted. >Seconded. TY. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen > >Art Deco wrote on 07-Jun-08 08:07 : > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > should be your concern, Deco." > -- David Tholen Perhaps you should give some credit to astronomer Fritz Zwicky. Double-A >> >Art Deco wrote on 07-Jun-08 08:07 : >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > >Double-A What happened to your slushfile/killfile? Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen > >> On May 25, 12:30 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:> On May 25, > >> 7:47 am, oldcoot <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > But of course. Yes, we have evidence of time stopping in his sense due to the bombing of Hiroshima! The clock looks stopped to me - In a sense time was stopped very possibly due to the heat!: http://fourpointsixbillion.blogspot.com/2007/08/in-early-morning-hours-of-august -6-1945.html http://tinyurl.com/3gn8wz > >>They have no concept of the CBB > >> model's continuous-creation process maintaining the pressure/density [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Seconds? I have to go with the above, where death seems to make time stop to the one that dies! Now the red shift could actually be a red tide that does result in a seemingly stoppage of time to the dead one - at least one can imagine such!: http://www.pbase.com/andywilson/image/67045799 > Double-A You reading up on Feynman's "Quantum Electrodynamics(QED) can > answer some questions for us Is it a quantum field theory? Does it fit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the heart of QM,and how we feel and detect these great effects in our > macro realm. Bert Feynman thinks that photons can go in other than straight lines, can go faster and slower than c, and can go backwards and forwards in time. He is at variance with Einstein in thinking that photons can go faster than c, but he says it is only apparent for short distances, such as at the scale of the atom. Over long distances, the FTL photon are cancelled out, and only the ones travelling at c remain. If on could block the photons that are cancelling out the FTL photons, just as Feyman's grated mirror blocks the photons that cancel photons reflecting at angles in violation of the law of reflection, then we could communicate at FTL speeds! Double-A > Double-A You reading up on Feynman's "Quantum Electrodynamics(QED) can > answer some questions for us Is it a quantum field theory? Does it fit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the heart of QM,and how we feel and detect these great effects in our > macro realm. Bert Feynman says that QCD is essentially a knock off of QED. Only when QCD was being developed, in was the 60's, and research chemists how figured out how to make LSD in their laboratories, and were sharing with there physicist colleagues! So of course QCD has gratuitous "colors", even though there really are no colors. QCD has had a harder time computing predictions to anywhere near the same accuracy as QED. Quarks are said to exchange colors via gluons. Blue, red, and green are the color scheme of the nucleus. There are flavors too. When a quark changes flavor, something drastic happens, like a neutron changing into a proton. The forces of the gluons are much more powerful than the forces of the photons. Gluons can exchange colors with each other too. Quarks cannot be isolated. No matter how energetically the nucleus is blasted, quarks come out at least in pairs, no singles. Double-A >> Double-A You reading up on Feynman's "Quantum Electrodynamics(QED) can >> answer some questions for us Is it a quantum field theory? Does it fit [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Double-A Now what the hell does all that mean? <g> You lost me at "Feynman says that . . ." happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)... http://painellsworth.net http://savethechildren.org http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com Painius quarks coming out in pairs fits well with my thinking. I believe there are no "colors" that nature deals out only black and white. Our brain adds the color enhancement. Best to keep in mind black film,and tv came first and we created them much later to be in "color" kind of tricky,and I could be wrong Lets hope so bert > This is what I have been trying to tell you guys about the mythology > in physics textbooks! Feynman states it perfectly, even at the > expense of discrediting his own presentation. Here's another very poignant Feynman quote : "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're done you'll know absolutely nothing about the bird. So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. ...the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." Seems the mainstream is operating under an institutional mandate to never "look at the bird and see what it's doing" and moreover, to categorically deny that "the bird" even exists. :-) oc When my brain hears the name of the bird it gets a picture of it. A picture is worth 1,000 words. Rudy needs no words. Still she thinks just in pictures and for her its faster and better. Even a smell(tiny odor) she can identify and find the object. If the odor is food Rudy's brain immediately sees a pork chop Go figure bert >> This is what I have been trying to tell you guys about the mythology >> in physics textbooks! Feynman states it perfectly, even at the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > never "look at the bird and see what it's doing" and moreover, to > categorically deny that "the bird" even exists. :-) "What bird?" How can mainstream science, or anybody else for that matter, "look" at something, anything, if it's invisible to them? The bird must materialize before their eyes so that they may (as science tends to do) first name it (as has been done here in a.a) and then look at it and see what it's doing (as is being done here in a.a). If science cannot see it, then science cannot give it attention. It's a perceptual problem that will change eventually. Calling space-time a void is like calling the biggest galaxy in the local group... the "Andromeda nebula". happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)... http://painellsworth.net http://savethechildren.org http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com > How can mainstream science, or anybody else for > that matter, "look" at something, anything, if it's > invisible to them? Invisible??!! Its *effects* are manifestly and profoundly visible per those seven Cardinal Points of Evidence by which it _demonstrates itself_ unequivocally. > The bird must materialize before > their eyes so that they may (as science tends to do) > first name it.. On some moonlit night, take a look at the moon, realizing that the light from its surface took about 1.4 seconds to impinge on your retina. That awesome propagation speed is the *direct analog readout* of the pressure/density (or PDT) value of the SPED. Name it Awesome. :-) > ...and > then look at it and see what it's doing. Yeah, look at supernovas and the hypernova that was recently in the news, and quasars. Look at the state of pressurization of the SPED necessary to drive such massive gravitational phenomena. > If science cannot see it, then science cannot give it > attention. If science cannot see what's demonstrably self-evident, then it's not science but superstition and belief in magic. The functional dynamic is indistinguishable from medieval religion. > It's a perceptual problem that will change > eventually. Not in the foreseeable future. > > Calling space-time a void is like calling > the biggest galaxy in the local group... > > the "Andromeda nebula". Well, 'space-time' itself is a surrogate, a euphamism, for "That whose existance must be denied at all cost". > The SPED *is* space (or space-time). But don't tell anybody. |
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.