| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate whi |
|
Page 3 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| a_plutonium |
 Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It is pretty when two competing theories vie for the same factual
evidence and where one is superior in explaining the facts. I thought
it may take years or decades to decide whether Positron Envelope theory
versus blackhole theory is true.
But if quasars are galactic centers as this wikipedia entry says so:
--- quoting wikipedia on quasars
A quasar (contraction of QUASi-stellAR radio source) is an astronomical
source of electromagnetic energy, including light, which shows a very
high redshift. The scientific consensus is that this high redshift is
the result of Hubble's law. This implies that quasars are very distant.
To be observable at that distance, the energy output of quasars must
dwarf that of almost every known astrophysical phenomenon with the
exception of comparatively short-lived supernovae and gamma-ray bursts.
They may readily release energy in levels equal to the output of
hundreds of average galaxies combined.
In optical telescopes, most quasars look like single points of light
(i.e. point source) although some are seen to be the centers of active
galaxies.
Some quasars display rapid changes in luminosity, which implies that
they are small (an object cannot change faster than the time it takes
light to travel from one end to the other; but see quasar J1819+3845
for another explanation). The highest redshift currently known for a
quasar is 6.4. [1]
Quasars are believed to be powered by accretion of material onto
supermassive black holes in the nuclei of distant galaxies, making
these luminous versions of the general class of objects known as active
galaxies. No other currently known mechanism appears able to explain
the vast energy output and rapid variability.
--- end quoting wikipedia ---
You see, there is a very big difference as to emission of energy from
matter antimatter conversion if Space is a Positron ocean and
enveloping mass. Whereas the energy emitted from blackholes would be
very much less energy than that of Matter to Antimatter conversion.
So is the quasar a product of matter to antimatter conversion or is it
a product of blackhole radiation.
It is pretty clear to me that blackhole theory is the loser. For it has
to contrive bridges and streams of matter being sucked into some event
horizon to generate quasar radiation which is all far-fetched.
On the other hand, where space is Dirac's ocean of positrons, when
galaxy centers become too laden with mass, they have a Positron
Envelope which converts the mass into pure energy.
So how much more energy is created from Matter to Antimatter conversion
above and beyond that of a blackhole energy emission.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
--- quoting from New Scientist---
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9620&feedId=online-news_rss20
A well accepted property of black holes is that they cannot sustain a
magnetic field of their own. But observations of quasar Q0957+561
indicate that the object powering it does have a magnetic field,
Schild's team says. For this reason, they believe that rather than a
black hole, this quasar contains something called a magnetospheric
eternally collapsing object (MECO). If so, it would be best evidence
yet for such an object.
--- end quoting ---
It is a delight to me to find out other scientists have also reached a
point where blackhole theory is a dud and fakery.
Only the MECO theory has no continuity with the rest of physics.
And this is where I come into the picture with Dirac's ocean of
positrons as SPACE itself. Where gravity is the attraction of mass to
positron space. That attraction is a magnetic attraction.
So we do not need MECO.
We may as well call it for what it truly is--- a massive star bends
space so much that it is a Positron Envelope and this is matter to
antimatter conversion.
Just as the 5 bright stars in the M31 galaxy does not agree with
blackhole presence, so too does this quasar and many other quasars.
So what drives quasars with their huge energy is that they are so
massive that they bend space so much around them, that this Envelope of
bent space is a matter to antimatter conversion cauldron.
All mass and matter that we see is Electron mass of the Atom Totality
embedded in a Positron Space. When mass bends space so much as in the
center of galaxies, what happens is that the Positron Envelope creates
a Matter to Antimatter conversion to energy.
So if I look long enough on the Internet, I usually will find that data
that supports my theory.
And physicists should have known a long time ago that their blackhole
theory is incompatible with such objects as quasars. Because the most
that blackholes could generate in energy emitting objects is tiny
compared to the energy emitted by quasars. In other words, blackholes
are inadequate to furnish energies of quasars. What is needed is Matter
to Antimatter conversion in order for quasars to exist.
So physicists should have realized decades ago when the first quasars
were observed that blackholes are insufficient as a source of quasar
energies. And that you need a mechanism that is Matter to Antimatter
conversion to explain quasars.
I explain it as that Space itself is the Dirac ocean of positrons and
all the matter we see is Electron matter of the Atom Totality. So that
in galactic centers these dense centers sometimes have a Positron
Envelope of crushing gravity that begins the Matter and Antimatter
conversion.
Now I am trying to find out whether a Positron Envelope would emit more
or less x-rays than what the blackhole theory predicts. Whether Matter
and Antimatter conversion favors certain EM spectra, compared to what
blackhole predicts.
Now maybe those 5 stars in M31 are juvenile quasars, or quasars in the
making.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
Quote: So the monopoles in the Universe would be two monopoles. Space would be
a monopole since space is an ocean of positrons with only a positive
pole. And all of mass and matter that is observable is another monopole
since it is the electrons of the Atom Totality.
So the Maxwell Equations would have to be changed: (excuse me because
computers were never able to render the Maxwell Eq and so in shorthand
I deliver these below)
old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations:
New Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law-- Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
You see, the stipulation that Space is a ocean of positrons causes the
monopole equation to be a positive q/e instead of a zero. And it causes
added terms of a displacement term in Faraday's Law, so that the
Maxwell Equations become perfectly symmetrical.
But Space as a ocean of positrons does something more. It eliminates
the notion in the 20th century that Space can be more than 3
dimensional. If Space is the ocean of positrons, then there cannot be
4th or higher dimensions. And so String theories all evaporate into the
trashcan of failed ideas.
The above post is a historic post of huge importance to physics, for it
is seldom that any foundation theory is revised. What my revision does
is include gravity as a Coulomb Force in that gravity is the old idea
of "mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent
space". This old idea was General Relativity, except that GR had a flaw
in that it never developed the concept of "what is Space exactly?"
General Relativity used the concept of Space but never said what it is.
They used it as an entity on par with the concept of mass but they
never elaborated on what space was. They presumed and let readers
presume that space was a "vacuum". But they used General Relativity as
if space was an entity on par with mass and very much more than a
simple vacuum. This was their major flaw in reasoning.
So what I have done is put meaning into what Space is. I have said
space is the old Dirac sea or ocean of positrons. And in an Atom
Totality, all the mass and matter we see in the night sky are bits and
pieces of the electrons of the Atom Totality. So our observable
universe is the Space which is a ocean of positrons in which mass and
matter (electron mass of the Atom Totality) moves around. And when mass
and matter become too much then a Positron Envelope covers this
excessive mass and we see it as a quasar.
So the clarification of what SPACE is, removes the asymmetry of the old
Maxwell Equations in that space is a monopole and mass is another
monopole. And that Faraday's Law needs a displacement current to
account for positron-space.
This post is historic in that it is seldom that any important theory of
physics is revised and modified. And that is exactly what has happened.
For now, gravity is no longer a loner force of physics but merely a
tiny part of the Coulomb force of Maxwell Equations. And all of physics
is Quantum Physics. The old stuff of Big Bang, and blackholes and
string theory are all garbage theories. They are science fiction.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Kelly |
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"a_plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162842518.732227.298950@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
a_plutonium wrote:
So the monopoles in the Universe would be two monopoles. Space would be
a monopole since space is an ocean of positrons with only a positive
pole. And all of mass and matter that is observable is another monopole
since it is the electrons of the Atom Totality.
So the Maxwell Equations would have to be changed: (excuse me because
computers were never able to render the Maxwell Eq and so in shorthand
I deliver these below)
old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations:
New Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = q/e
------------
So, by Gauss Law Integral E.dA =q/e =integral B.dA
or in partial derivative form Nabla dot E =charge density/e =Nabla dot B
so that B=E
In addition, since Maxwell's equations are based on what is physically
observed and since no magnetic monopoles have been observed after much
searching (hence the 0 in Gauss law for magnetism) there is the implication
that q/e = 0
There is then the nonsensical implication that Integral E dot dA =0 and that
electric charges don't exist.
---------
Quote: Faraday-Plutonium Law-- Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
-----
Following through on the basis of B=E, these lead to dE/dt = -dB/dt which is
a contradiction as B=E and the derivatives with respect to time of opposite
sign lead to one increasing while the other decreases so they cannot be the
same.
There is another problem as observations repeatedly verify that the
original Faraday's law works very well, fitting observed data, without the
added ue term or a ui term. Scaling it by ue and adding ui leads to
nonsense answers. (by a factor of about 10^-17) These factors have
apparently been tossed in to make the equations look symmetrical without any
regard to the physical meaning of the equations.
In other words, you can copy equations but it is apparent that you have no
idea of their physical significance. If the modified equations don't fit
observed data - it is the modifications that are wrong, not the physical
reality. You can't fit the universe to your equations. Your modified
equations are nonsense.
Goodbye- no use wasting any more time on your nonsense.
--
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
----------
(rest of original nonsense snipped. ) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Kelly |
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:SDV3h.267768$5R2.11992@pd7urf3no...
Quote:
"a_plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162842518.732227.298950@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
a_plutonium wrote:
So the monopoles in the Universe would be two monopoles. Space would be
a monopole since space is an ocean of positrons with only a positive
pole. And all of mass and matter that is observable is another monopole
since it is the electrons of the Atom Totality.
So the Maxwell Equations would have to be changed: (excuse me because
computers were never able to render the Maxwell Eq and so in shorthand
I deliver these below)
old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
---------
In addition to the errors that I noted before, there is also the problem
that you have not stated either the Faraday or the Ampere Law correctly. If
you cannot do that, then how do yu expect to get anywhere? However
correcting this doesn't eliminate the flaws that exist in your proposed
modification.
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
---Snip-------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
Quote:
New revised Maxwell Equations of the
Faraday Law:
Faraday-Plutonium Law-- Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Now I did some looking as to whether the radiation signal of quasars is
a specific frequency and found out that in matter-antimatter
annihilation of positron with electron that 2 gamma rays are emitted.
As to whether quasar Q0957+561 fits the description of these gamma rays
is unknown.
From LEP, the positron-electron annihilation gives a signature gamma
rays of 0.511 MeV.
Now I wonder if 0.511 MeV or greater would be the range in which
quasars shine such as the MECO quasar of Q0957+561 studied by Schild
and Leiter.
I found from this website
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983HiA.....6..525R
talking about the Galactic Center (I am assuming they mean the Milky
Way) having observed the 0.511 MeV, so that we are assured of
positron-electron annihilation within our galaxy center. Now has it
been verified that the Milky Way center has quasars?
And I am finding out that our Sun has positron-electron annihilation.
Now if I can show that positron production occurs in the sun where its
largest gravity warping occurs-- center of the Sun, would support the
claim that positron production is a result of the bending of space by
gravity since space is a ocean of positrons. The above Harvard website
never satisfactorily answers how positron production could occur.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
Quote:
Jupiter has a larger magnetic field than it really should have and the
reason being is that of this added term in the New Maxwell Equations of
a *gravity displacement*. It arises from the fact of mass bends space
and that space is positrons attracted to or attracted by the mass which
is oppositely charged (Jupiter in this case) and so a
self-made-magnetic field arises, regardless of whether Jupiter has a
liquid core dynamo and regardless of whether Earth has a liquid core
dynamo.
So all planets of a mass exceeding a limit would have a internal
magnetic field due to this gravity displacement term of u i
New revised Maxwell Equations of the
Faraday Law:
Faraday-Plutonium Law-- Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
I did some looking for the best and most recent compiled table of
planetary magnetic moment. Found this one:
--- quoting in part from
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
Solar System Magnetic Data
No. Body Present Magnetic Moment (J/T)
1. Sun 3.5 x 10^29
2. Mercury 4.8 x 10^19
3. Venus <1.0 x 10^19
4. Earth 7.9 x 10^22
5. Moon <1.3 x 10^15
6. Mars < 2.1 x 10^18
7. Jupiter 1.6 x 10^27
8. Saturn 4.3 x 10^25
9. Uranus
10. Neptune
11. Pluto
--- end quoting ---
Uranus is about 1/10 that of Saturn and Neptune about 1/2 of Uranus
from a different website.
What I am looking for is a magnetic displacement field caused by the
force of gravity as a ocean of positrons. The idea is that if you had a
simple ball the mass of Earth that was stationary, then it would arise
with an intrinsic magnetic moment simply due to the fact of Space as a
ocean of positrons creates this intrinsic magnetic field and the Earth
dynamo then creates an additional magnetic field.
So what I am trying to find from the above is what this intrinsic
magnetic field that arises due to purely Space as positrons and gravity
creating this magnetic field. From the above table, I would say it is a
magnetic moment equal to that of Venus and Mercury.
And this ties in with a recent program about Earth's core as a dynamo
that you need some magnetic field from the start to feedback and up the
magnetic field.
What I am saying is that Earth's Magnetic Field is due to two sources:
(1) Earth's gravity itself creates a magnetic field
(2) the Earth's liquid core generates the remainder of the magnetic
field in a dynamo.
So from the table above, all the planets have some magnetic field. And
the minimum magnetic field arises from the gravity of the planet and
how it warps the positron space around it. This is what I termed the
"gravity displacement magnetic field"
It answers the need of how to explain why Venus or Mercury have a field
yet no internal dynamo. Now the magnetic field of Mercury is about 4
times that of Venus. So is the gravitational warping around Mercury
about 5 times that of Venus?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Kolker |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
Not to be trusted. It is written by creationists with an axe to grind.
Get a real scientific source.
I am surprise you would quote from a bugus source such as this.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Kolker wrote:
I agree, I would not want anything to do with people who are not
anything short of "scientific and logical". I usually quote sources
that are connected with science such as a edu address. There were some
Google hits of Harvard with magnetic field but noone tabulated into a
table form all the latest magnetic moments of the planets. Anyone have
a good website????
So can you point to a source which has numerical data of the planets
and satellites MAGNETIC MOMENT.
Perhaps this is hard to come by since so many changes of data have
occurred recently with all the new spacecraft measuring magnetic
fields. Mars magnetic field was updated but few are listing it.
So can you point to a science website that has put in a table form the
planetary Magnetic Moments? I used to have a astronomy textbook that
tabulated but it was an old textbook and whose numbers would be out of
date.
Wikipedia has a paragraph on each planet discussing the overall
characteristics of the magnetic field but it never gives numerical data
of magnitude.
So I need the very latest and fresh data with numbers. Any help??????
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
New revised Maxwell Equations of the Faraday Law:
Faraday-Plutonium Law-- Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
In this new equation Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
I call the term u i as the magnetic displacement term, and Maxwell
called it the displacement current. We can refine what we call it in
the future but for now let me just call it the gravity displacement or
the magnetic displacement term.
And experiments in the lab should verify this new equation as the
Aharonov-Bohm Effect where the phase changes. But in a more delicate
experiment we should be able to find a MAGNETIC DISPLACEMENT value
where the Aharonov-Bohm phase shift is only a small part.
Looking at the Magnetic Moments of planets where Venus, Mercury and
Mars and Moon should have no magnetic field at all, they have a
sizeable amount. And the reason is that the newly revised Maxwell
Equation would say that any massive object of a astro body bends space
so much so, that the Positron Space bending is the attraction of Space
to Mass (in other words is gravity itself) and this bent space shows up
as a Magnetic Field.
So the magnetic field of the Moon, of Mars, of Venus is due to the bent
Positron Space that they occupy and that bent space gets its energy
transfered into the display of a planetary Magnetic Field (or satellite
in the case of the Moon).
Earth's Magnetic Field is due mostly to its internal dynamo, but Moon,
Mars, Venus, Mercury do not have internal dynamos. Their magnetic field
is due to this bent space of positrons which transfers into a magnetic
field.
So we should re-open the experiments of the Aharonov-Bohm Effect and
all the experiments involving the old Maxwell Equation of Faraday's
Law. As we increase the mass of the experiment of Faraday's Law in the
laboratory, we find this missing MAGNETIC DISPLACEMENT term of u i. Not
only is the phase shift included in u i but that we find an extra
amount of electricity due to the Magnetic Displacement. As the Mass of
Faraday's Law is increased, so too does the Magnetic Displacement
increase.
Now as for the planets we can easily add the contributions of the
internal dynamo with the Magnetic Displacement to reach a overall
planetary magnetic field. But noone has pointed out whether anyone has
observed a Aharonov-Bohm phase shift of a planet due to this term of u
i
Now perhaps I am making a goofy mistake by suggesting the odd magnetism
of the planets beyond Saturn with there Magnetic field shifted 1/3 from
the axis such as Uranus if memory serves me. So is the odd magnetic
field of Uranus and Neptune due to a Planetary Aharonov-Bohm phase
shift.
And the reason we see it in Uranus and Neptune and not any of the
terrestrial planets is because of the huge amount of positron-space
warping.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped except for this poorly written paragraph)
Quote:
I agree, I would not want anything to do with people who are not
anything short of "scientific and logical". I usually quote sources
that are connected with science such as a edu address. There were some
Google hits of Harvard with magnetic field but noone tabulated into a
table form all the latest magnetic moments of the planets. Anyone have
a good website????
I usually do not like making a post just to correct some of my grammar.
But the above is egregious for it shows that I post without reading
what I am typing. I post what is directly on my mind without proof
reading. The error I speak of is in that first sentence of "not
anything short of ". The error is of logic and that is worse than a
grammar or spelling error. I should have deleted the "not" for the
meaning I wanted to convey is that is "anything short of science and
logic".
But I want to also add something about my character of writing, in that
I knew instinctively of a habit of mine which is a good habit and which
others can profit from. Whenever I write something and which has a
possibility of misinterpretation, I so often, and this is automatic,
that I state what I am trying to convey in various forms or emphasis.
So that although someone reading the above post with its grammar error
of "not" when it should have been deleted, the reader could not fail to
understand that the direction and overall meaning of my post.
So what I am trying to say is that whenever you write about something,
try not to make the writing too short and too brief because if the
important message is too short and too brief that a reader would not
understand due to a grammar error.
In most of my writings, I tend to do a lot of repeating and alot of
picture drawing in different angles, and that is because I do want the
reader to grab a hold of the basic substance and not get caught up in
superficial sideshow or grammar or errors of writing.
This is a bigger trouble in science journal writings, in that so much
of what is printed-- the important things are said only once and not
highlighted, and the rest of the message is more likely distractions.
So even though I had a "not" where it should not have been, any reader
of my above post could not escape my meaning of what I wanted to
convey.
When I write to sci. newsgroups, I try to elaborate and emphasize in
various angles of my main message, and this is a good habit in all
writing.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Aluminium Holocene Holode |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
the fact that you chose a triviaility to correct, is interesting;
magnetic moments of planets is interesting, though!
restating an ill-posed hypothesis could result
in dyscovering the problem with it ... or otherwise, if
there's a good, plausible connection between the metaphors.
Quote: I agree, I would not want anything to do with people who are not
anything short of "scientific and logical". I usually quote sources
I usually do not like making a post just to correct some of my grammar.
thus:
there is no necessity for a perfect box to exist;
that is easy to state & prove )using Euler's parameterizations or
equiv.,
I think). to find a sufficient condition to prove nonexistance should
be somewhat harder to do, though true.
teh answer to your question is,
Wolframitism can't do numbertheory worth beans,
as of yet (although you'd *think* that Base One would
be a simple matter to emulate, thereby .-)
Quote: So has the proof which you referred to yet to be accepted by the
mathematical community at large, or is Wolfram Research a bit slow on the
uptake regarding this matter?
thus:
Dick Cheeny, Don Rumsfeld and Osama bin Latin form a mission
to Darfur, to prevent a war instead of to start one:
if Darfur is "100% Muslim," then
what's really going on, there?
is it just aother British Quag for USA soldiers to get bogged
into, with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ad vomitorium,
under auspices of the UN and NATO?
why won't the Bruin publish the fact of Islam on the ground,
therein?
thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?
--The Other Side (if it exists) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:30 pm |
|
|
|
|
also, please explain about how you keep
the positrons seperated from the electrons, or
from their associated negative nucleii; thank *you*.
that is, other than by the Leidenfrost Effect ...
is it that there is just one, other parallel universe?
a Perpendicular Universe, to ours?
Quote: magnetic moments of planets is interesting, though!
thus:
and, thanks to the militant perspicacity
of Trickier Dick Cheeny -- what *was* he doing
with Rumsfeld on the OEO under Nixon? -- there won't
be any college deferments. I mean,
he really doesn't want to go back to school.
in the meantime, please,
compile a compleat list of Remaining Breeteesh Quaggies
for US to be going to!
Quote: I realize that the lack of response could be becuase
of "political correctness," which may be how it is that
we are headed for Iran and "the" Sudan and a military draft.
thus:
Schroedinger's Cat Wordsoup continued;
you're metaphors don't hold any more water,
than do the Copenhagenschoolers'....
the fact that Kaluza-Klien works mathematically
for Maxwell's and Einstein's equations, is independent
of the fact that "one compact dimension" may not be
well-posed (that is to say,
it may just be a nonsequiter -- hey, but, at least,
your "make my day" metaphor was funny)....
Quote: Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That
means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere
with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire
spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in
time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the
EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½
photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite
directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too, they
are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding dimension.
thus:
this is overkill. as implied in the alleged-proof paper,
a sphere of diameter one is all that you need
for qualifying what are rational points. or,
was that what the author of the below paper, meant?
Quote: http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/reports/2001-12.shtml
thus:
the fact that you chose a triviaility to correct, is interesting;
magnetic moments of planets is interesting, though!...
restating an ill-posed hypothesis could result
in dyscovering the problem with it ... or otherwise, if
there's a good, plausible connection between the metaphors.
thus:
there is no necessity for a perfect box to exist;
that is easy to state & prove
(using Euler's parameterizations or equiv.,
I think). to find a sufficient condition to prove nonexistance should
be somewhat harder to do, though true....
the answer to your question is,
Wolframitism can't do numbertheory worth beans,
as of yet (although you'd *think* that Base One would
be a simple matter to emulate, thereby .-)
thus:
Dick Cheeny, Don Rumsfeld and Osama bin Latin form a mission
to Darfur, to prevent a war instead of to start one:
if Darfur is "100% Muslim," then
what's really going on, there? ...
is it just aother British Quag for USA soldiers to get bogged
into, with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ad vomitorium,
under auspices of the UN and NATO? ...
why won't the Bruin publish the fact of Islam on the ground,
therein?
thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?
--The Other Side (if it exists) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now if this new Faraday Law is true with its u i Gravity Displacement
term where Space is the ocean of positrons and gravity is a EM
attraction for mass and matter, then the warping of space around the
planet Jupiter would demand that its satellites have the largest
Magnetic Moments as compared to other planetary satellites of near
equal mass.
Just as Mercury is 5 times greater Magnetic field compared to Venus or
Mars is because of the Space warping nearby the Sun.
So I hope someone can locate a table listing of the most recent revised
Magnetic Moments of not only the planets but of their satellites also.
And I have been looking around to find out the situation concerning
comets and asteroids as to magnetic fields on those bodies.
So the summary is this: a astro body has a Magnetic Field due to at
least two major sources (1) internal dynamo of a liquid (2) the
intrinsic magnetic field due to the fact the body possesses a specific
gravitational mass and the gravity of nearby mass, and call this the
Gravity Displacement of the Faraday-Plutonium Law of the Maxwell
Equations the u i term in Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Every astro body has a Gravity Displacement and thus a magnetic field,
however, a body has to be large enough in mass to detect its intrinsic
magnetic field.
In short, gravity creates magnetism.
Now I need to study how the pecular and strange magnetic fields of
Uranus and Neptune is a planetary form of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect of a
phase shift.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(much snipped)
Quote:
So the summary is this: a astro body has a Magnetic Field due to at
least two major sources (1) internal dynamo of a liquid (2) the
intrinsic magnetic field due to the fact the body possesses a specific
gravitational mass and the gravity of nearby mass, and call this the
Gravity Displacement of the Faraday-Plutonium Law of the Maxwell
Equations the u i term in Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Every astro body has a Gravity Displacement and thus a magnetic field,
however, a body has to be large enough in mass to detect its intrinsic
magnetic field.
In short, gravity creates magnetism.
And here should provide a very delicate experiment to prove or deny the
assertion.
We build an apparatus of a massive object which should have no magnetic
field. But because it is so massive, that a tiny magnetic field arises
and is proportional to the displacement current u i of both the new
Faraday Law and the displacement current in the old Ampere-Maxwell Law.
This reminds me of those huge pendulums of metal at Univ Maryland by
Weber to try to detect gravity waves. Instead of that, use those metal
balls to detect a magnetic field that really should not be there under
the old Faraday Law.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:26 pm
|
|