Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #455482 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-10 15:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-18 10:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-10 15:02 -0700
The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 09:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 07:51 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:33 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 14:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 21:29 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 10:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 13:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 13:51 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 22:14 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Jed Serpa <iul@enwlew.lc> - 2018-04-11 15:31 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-12 04:46 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-12 15:13 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-11 05:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 08:21 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 08:36 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 10:21 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 10:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 11:02 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:07 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:19 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:37 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-11 05:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-11 08:23 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:19 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 09:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-12 04:52 -0700
The DUMBEST Belief in Physics Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 11:31 +0100
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 21:52 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 20:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 06:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 07:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-14 09:25 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 07:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 07:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 08:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-15 10:32 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-16 17:57 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-15 18:54 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 10:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 13:31 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:19 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-13 14:56 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:01 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 22:16 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-13 20:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-14 07:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 15:29 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-15 10:30 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:23 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:38 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-16 18:10 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-16 21:17 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:11 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:54 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-17 08:26 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 08:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-17 20:06 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:42 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 10:30 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:17 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:29 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-19 21:41 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-20 07:44 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:59 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 23:53 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 14:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-21 05:57 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 23:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 10:46 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:50 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 16:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-22 07:45 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-22 08:58 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 11:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:41 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-23 16:33 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:32 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 12:42 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-18 09:56 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-18 08:40 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:57 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-15 18:34 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-15 09:08 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:37 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:39 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 13:49 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 22:01 +0000
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 15:24 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-15 15:31 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 16:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 16:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 17:01 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:15 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 08:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 08:59 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 09:22 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 09:31 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-04-19 10:39 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-19 18:31 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-19 09:58 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:57 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-19 21:35 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-19 13:47 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 07:44 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-21 10:17 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-04-19 10:38 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:59 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-21 01:12 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics KronosPrime@outlook.com - 2018-04-22 12:06 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 09:08 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-18 21:15 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-04-13 11:33 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-14 18:13 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-15 09:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-15 20:27 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-16 05:40 +0200
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-15 20:55 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:07 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:25 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-04-16 23:28 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-17 07:18 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-17 08:57 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-17 20:03 -0500
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-04-18 08:56 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:11 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 09:12 -0700
Re: The #8 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:40 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 18:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <a5adnYuHtb_6sEjHnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #456016 |
On 4/15/18 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > But the point is that light is NOT waves. Sure. > We do not know exactly what a photon looks like or exactly how it > works, Sure we do. Well, physicists do (not including you, OBVIOUSLY). > Experiments using single photons show that the so-called "destructive > interference" patterns STILL appear. Sure. > So there cannot be any > "interference of quantum amplitudes" Again you display your colossal IGNORANCE. And your arrogant penchant to make GUESSES about things you know nothing about, and pretend they are true. YOU have no idea what a photon actually is, and your GUESS here is just plain wrong. The quantum amplitude for a single photon does "interfere with itself" (speaking loosely), in the sense that the light/dark bands of such an experiment are accurately predicted. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 21:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58136ce3-3153-4ebf-8c05-2ede87846a99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456161 |
On Tuesday, 17 April 2018 01:10:39 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > > We do not know exactly what a photon looks like or exactly how it > > works, > > Sure we do. Well, physicists do (not including you, OBVIOUSLY). I always knew you don't really believe a word of these wise things you write sometimes about models.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11084d5e-c474-465d-beca-45a6ada717d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456161 |
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:10:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/15/18 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > But the point is that light is NOT waves. > > Sure. > > > We do not know exactly what a photon looks like or exactly how it > > works, > > Sure we do. Well, physicists do (not including you, OBVIOUSLY). > > > Experiments using single photons show that the so-called "destructive > > interference" patterns STILL appear. > > Sure. > > > So there cannot be any > > "interference of quantum amplitudes" > > Again you display your colossal IGNORANCE. And your arrogant penchant to > make GUESSES about things you know nothing about, and pretend they are true. > > YOU have no idea what a photon actually is, and your GUESS here is just > plain wrong. The quantum amplitude for a single photon does "interfere > with itself" (speaking loosely), in the sense that the light/dark bands > of such an experiment are accurately predicted. > > Tom Roberts It appears that what you are saying is that a mathematical equation can be concocted that will show a photon can "interfere with itself." Maybe so. But that would just confirm that a mathematical equation can be concocted to prove anything you want. Actual EXPERIMENTS show that the photons hit the wall one at a time and thus there is no way for the photon to "interfere with itself." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb51rs$7fu$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456203 |
Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:10:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 4/15/18 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> But the point is that light is NOT waves. >> >> Sure. >> >>> We do not know exactly what a photon looks like or exactly how it >>> works, >> >> Sure we do. Well, physicists do (not including you, OBVIOUSLY). >> >>> Experiments using single photons show that the so-called "destructive >>> interference" patterns STILL appear. >> >> Sure. >> >>> So there cannot be any >>> "interference of quantum amplitudes" >> >> Again you display your colossal IGNORANCE. And your arrogant penchant to >> make GUESSES about things you know nothing about, and pretend they are true. >> >> YOU have no idea what a photon actually is, and your GUESS here is just >> plain wrong. The quantum amplitude for a single photon does "interfere >> with itself" (speaking loosely), in the sense that the light/dark bands >> of such an experiment are accurately predicted. >> >> Tom Roberts > > It appears that what you are saying is that a mathematical equation can > be concocted that will show a photon can "interfere with itself." Maybe > so. But that would just confirm that a mathematical equation can be > concocted to prove anything you want. Not one that agrees with hard data. > > Actual EXPERIMENTS show that the photons hit the wall one at a time and > thus there is no way for the photon to "interfere with itself." Yes they hit the wall one at a time, and each one still interferes with itself, because it does not take two things to interfere, no matter what your common sense is trying to tell you about this. You are simply wrong. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a0f5331-0d5d-4fa8-beb3-99114c3ac68d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456203 |
El martes, 17 de abril de 2018, 11:11:05 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:10:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > It appears that what you are saying is that a mathematical equation can be concocted that will show a photon can "interfere with itself." Maybe so. But that would just confirm that a mathematical equation can be concocted to prove anything you want. > > Actual EXPERIMENTS show that the photons hit the wall one at a time and thus there is no way for the photon to "interfere with itself." > > Ed But you are completely wrong Edward: Just google "photon interference with itself pdf" and you will get over 1 million hits. The first two are related to laboratory experiments, which students at the University of Rochester perform. Read also the chapter of the book from Feynman who discusses this (available at http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_37.html)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <514c8552-314a-47c3-8a3d-b03eaed5e8de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456214 |
On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 10:26:32 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 17 de abril de 2018, 11:11:05 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: > > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:10:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > It appears that what you are saying is that a mathematical equation can be concocted that will show a photon can "interfere with itself." Maybe so. But that would just confirm that a mathematical equation can be concocted to prove anything you want. > > > > Actual EXPERIMENTS show that the photons hit the wall one at a time and thus there is no way for the photon to "interfere with itself." > > > > Ed > > But you are completely wrong Edward: > > Just google "photon interference with itself pdf" and you will get over 1 > million hits. The first two are related to laboratory experiments, which > students at the University of Rochester perform. > > Read also the chapter of the book from Feynman who discusses this > (available at http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_37.html) Okay. I did that, and what I see is a lot of web pages which say, "If single photons pass through the double slit apparatus, one might ask “Which slit does the photon pass through?” This question is apparently unanswerable." And I say, then we need to look at things from a different direction, and maybe we will find an answer. It is only "unanswerable" in Quantum Mechanics and due to our lack of any full understanding of how a photon interacts with objects. Skimming through Feynman's lecture, what I see is this statement: "We shall call this result an observation of “no interference,” for a reason that you will see later. So much for bullets. They come in lumps, and their probability of arrival shows no interference. And then I see a lot of discussion of WAVES, where there IS interference. The lesson concludes with this: "The uncertainty principle “protects” quantum mechanics. Heisenberg recognized that if it were possible to measure the momentum and the position simultaneously with a greater accuracy, the quantum mechanics would collapse. So he proposed that it must be impossible. Then people sat down and tried to figure out ways of doing it, and nobody could figure out a way to measure the position and the momentum of anything—a screen, an electron, a billiard ball, anything—with any greater accuracy. Quantum mechanics maintains its perilous but accurate existence." So, you can probably create a mathematical model where a single photon "interferes with itself" because of "the uncertainty principle," but that doesn't mean that the model represents reality. It means there is a theory that cannot be disproved, and that theory says that a photon can interfere with itself. I really need to start working on my papers. These arguments aren't resolving anything. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0da46cc0-c81c-4995-a993-bbc889e3fcbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456203 |
On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 7:11:05 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:10:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 4/15/18 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > But the point is that light is NOT waves. > > > > Sure. > > > > > We do not know exactly what a photon looks like or exactly how it > > > works, > > > > Sure we do. Well, physicists do (not including you, OBVIOUSLY). > > > > > Experiments using single photons show that the so-called "destructive > > > interference" patterns STILL appear. > > > > Sure. > > > > > So there cannot be any > > > "interference of quantum amplitudes" > > > > Again you display your colossal IGNORANCE. And your arrogant penchant to > > make GUESSES about things you know nothing about, and pretend they are true. > > > > YOU have no idea what a photon actually is, and your GUESS here is just > > plain wrong. The quantum amplitude for a single photon does "interfere > > with itself" (speaking loosely), in the sense that the light/dark bands > > of such an experiment are accurately predicted. > > > > Tom Roberts > > It appears that what you are saying is that a mathematical equation can be concocted that will show a photon can "interfere with itself." Maybe so. But that would just confirm that a mathematical equation can be concocted to prove anything you want. No, this is an experimental result: photon interacts with itself. (The manner of this interaction happens to be such that it fits the wave model of interference extremely well but the point is that even without any theory whatsoever, you get the beams on the screen behaving in a certain why that's inconsistent with the assumption of no interaction, see e.g. the standard example of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer). > Actual EXPERIMENTS show that the photons hit the wall one at a time and thus there is no way for the photon to "interfere with itself." Your "thus" is faulty. You obviously haven't read much about the experiments beyond pop-sci metaphors. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 20:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8NidnWmEBY66B0vHnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #456247 |
On 4/17/18 4:24 PM, JanPB wrote: > [...] pop-sci metaphors. Excellent way of putting that. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0226e52-224c-49b9-87e4-7ad24a82020f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456247 |
On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:24:41 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 7:11:05 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:10:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 4/15/18 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > But the point is that light is NOT waves. > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > We do not know exactly what a photon looks like or exactly how it > > > > works, > > > > > > Sure we do. Well, physicists do (not including you, OBVIOUSLY). > > > > > > > Experiments using single photons show that the so-called "destructive > > > > interference" patterns STILL appear. > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > So there cannot be any > > > > "interference of quantum amplitudes" > > > > > > Again you display your colossal IGNORANCE. And your arrogant penchant to > > > make GUESSES about things you know nothing about, and pretend they are true. > > > > > > YOU have no idea what a photon actually is, and your GUESS here is just > > > plain wrong. The quantum amplitude for a single photon does "interfere > > > with itself" (speaking loosely), in the sense that the light/dark bands > > > of such an experiment are accurately predicted. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > It appears that what you are saying is that a mathematical equation can be concocted that will show a photon can "interfere with itself." Maybe so. But that would just confirm that a mathematical equation can be concocted to prove anything you want. > > No, this is an experimental result: photon interacts with itself. (The > manner of this interaction happens to be such that it fits the wave > model of interference extremely well but the point is that even without > any theory whatsoever, you get the beams on the screen behaving in a certain > why that's inconsistent with the assumption of no interaction, see e.g. > the standard example of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer). > > > Actual EXPERIMENTS show that the photons hit the wall one at a time and thus there is no way for the photon to "interfere with itself." > > Your "thus" is faulty. You obviously haven't read much about the experiments > beyond pop-sci metaphors. > > -- > Jan I assume that by "sci-pop metaphors" you are referring to "the #1 dumbest idea in physics," that scientists routinely LIE to the public by using simplistic terms that mean something very different from what the scientists actually believe. http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4896e053-781f-4425-a4ad-d6c5e6d8c4a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456303 |
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:43:00 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:24:41 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 7:11:05 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > Actual EXPERIMENTS show that the photons hit the wall one at a time and thus there is no way for the photon to "interfere with itself." > > > > Your "thus" is faulty. You obviously haven't read much about the experiments > > beyond pop-sci metaphors. > > > > -- > > Jan > > I assume that by "sci-pop metaphors" you are referring to "the #1 dumbest idea in physics," that scientists routinely LIE to the public by using simplistic terms that mean something very different from what the scientists actually believe. http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html No, this is the entirely wrong assumption. Physics is a study of certain abstract models, there is no way around it. That's why you cannot make any sensible statement as long as you insist on avoiding the mathematics. What you say above is not false, it's not even wrong. Without mathematics all you can discuss is metaphors. This is enough for certain types of discussion but it happens to be an impossibility to use them as a foundation for any criticism of physics or its methods. You can only critique certain mundane aspects like how the CERN is funded or how the peer-review process is, say, faulty at such-and-such journal, and the like. If you are interested in critiquing _physics_, you need either to learn it or accept expert opinion on faith. There is no other way. Anything else you may entertain is an illusion. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbb11k$1tkv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456414 |
JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:43:00 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: >> I assume that by "sci-pop metaphors" you are referring to "the #1 >> dumbest idea in physics," that scientists routinely LIE to the public >> by using simplistic terms that mean something very different from what >> the scientists actually believe. >> http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in- physics.html > > Without mathematics all you can discuss is metaphors. This is enough for > certain types of discussion but it happens to be an impossibility to use > them as a foundation for any criticism of physics or its methods. You > can only critique certain mundane aspects like how the CERN is funded or > how the peer-review process is, say, faulty at such-and-such journal, > and the like. You put tears and soul in that mathematics, as such it would be the answer to everything. Allegedly in making predictions, but they are not really prediction, since the future is not yet happened. Moreover, and this is essential, predictions are all about CAUSALITY, which in turn is destroyed by relativity at high speeds. Happyingly, my *_Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_* does not suffer from this causality limitation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2fecbd4-fdb8-4117-a70a-66cb43429c60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456440 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-7, Erálnì Histickému wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:43:00 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > >> I assume that by "sci-pop metaphors" you are referring to "the #1 > >> dumbest idea in physics," that scientists routinely LIE to the public > >> by using simplistic terms that mean something very different from what > >> the scientists actually believe. > >> http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in- > physics.html > > > > Without mathematics all you can discuss is metaphors. This is enough for > > certain types of discussion but it happens to be an impossibility to use > > them as a foundation for any criticism of physics or its methods. You > > can only critique certain mundane aspects like how the CERN is funded or > > how the peer-review process is, say, faulty at such-and-such journal, > > and the like. > > You put tears and soul in that mathematics, as such it would be the answer > to everything. What have you been smoking? Physics studies mathematical models, it has nothing to do with me. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbb2eu$1vf5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456441 |
JanPB wrote: >> > Without mathematics all you can discuss is metaphors. This is enough >> > for certain types of discussion but it happens to be an impossibility >> > to use them as a foundation for any criticism of physics or its >> > methods. You can only critique certain mundane aspects like how the >> > CERN is funded or how the peer-review process is, say, faulty at >> > such-and-such journal, and the like. >> >> You put tears and soul in that mathematics, as such it would be the >> answer to everything. > > What have you been smoking? Physics studies mathematical models, it has > nothing to do with me. -- Jan You still dont get it, and it's so simple. You have it upside down, like a moon landing. Physics studies CAUSALITY models. Inherently, the causality involves LOGICS, hence mathematics. Elementary. Not much of a Control Engineering in you, I can see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8c685f6-55f1-4c02-8015-69396262d083@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456444 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 2:41:55 PM UTC-7, Erálnì Histickému wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> > Without mathematics all you can discuss is metaphors. This is enough > >> > for certain types of discussion but it happens to be an impossibility > >> > to use them as a foundation for any criticism of physics or its > >> > methods. You can only critique certain mundane aspects like how the > >> > CERN is funded or how the peer-review process is, say, faulty at > >> > such-and-such journal, and the like. > >> > >> You put tears and soul in that mathematics, as such it would be the > >> answer to everything. > > > > What have you been smoking? Physics studies mathematical models, it has > > nothing to do with me. -- Jan > > You still dont get it, and it's so simple. You have it upside down, like a > moon landing. Physics studies CAUSALITY models. Inherently, the causality > involves LOGICS, hence mathematics. Elementary. Not much of a Control > Engineering in you, I can see. Don't bother me. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 07:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbc5pi$1e3a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456458 |
JanPB wrote: >> >> You put tears and soul in that mathematics, as such it would be the >> >> answer to everything. >> > >> > What have you been smoking? Physics studies mathematical models, it >> > has nothing to do with me. -- Jan >> >> You still dont get it, and it's so simple. You have it upside down, >> like a moon landing. Physics studies CAUSALITY models. Inherently, the >> causality involves LOGICS, hence mathematics. Elementary. Not much of a >> Control Engineering in you, I can see. > > Don't bother me. Aha, I can see you merge with the furniture in your office. The point is that relativity, as posed, destroys causality. Hence it cannot be modelled by mathematics. Pay me an amount or something, since you are not willing to learn gratis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 12:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b2ecab5-e865-43dc-b279-b53f0f7eb7c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456470 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:44:53 AM UTC-4, Erálnì Histickému wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > > Don't bother me. > > Aha, I can see you merge with the furniture in your office. The point is > that relativity, as posed, destroys causality. Hence it cannot be modelled > by mathematics. Pay me an amount or something, since you are not willing > to learn gratis. What meds are you taking, Erálnì? Care to give an example of how "relativity, as posed, destroys causality"? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 14:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a7a7582-4873-4176-9b90-73eba6553b89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456441 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, April 19, 2018, Erálnì Histickému wrote:
> > You put tears and soul in that mathematics, as such it would be the
> > answer to everything.
>
> What have you been smoking? Physics studies mathematical models, it has
> nothing to do with me.
The null Einstein tensor described in the polar coordinate system and in spherical symmetry can be laid as follows. <shrug>
** 1 - ∂²Ω/∂r² / Ρ + (∂Ω/∂r)² / (4 Ρ Ω) + ∂Ρ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Ρ²) = 0
** 1 - (∂Ω/∂r)² / (4 Ρ Ω) - ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ) = 0
** ∂Τ²/∂r² / (Τ Ρ) + ∂²Ω/∂r² / (Ρ Ω) – (∂Τ/∂r)² / (2 Τ² Ρ)
- (∂Ω/∂r)² / (2 Ρ Ω²) – ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ρ/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ²)
+ ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ Ω) - ∂Ρ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Ρ² Ω) = 0
Where
** ds² = Τ(r) dt² – Ρ(r) dr² - Ω(r) dθ²
** dθ² = dLongtidue² cos²(Latitude) + dLatitude²
In pure mathematical sense, there are infinite solutions to these 3 differential equations above. Examples are:
** ds1² = Q c² dt² / (1 + K/r) – (1 + K/r) dr² - (r² + K²) dθ²
And
** ds2² = Q c² (1 - K/r) dt² – dr² / (1 - K/r) - r² dθ²
Where
** Q, K = integration constants
Koobee Wublee would like to know what the fvck the fruitcake was smoking when the schezo-idiot is able to cherry pick only ds1 as the representation to reality. How does a delusional person deal with itself? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02118cd5-1e13-4d07-a6a7-c87ded0f753e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456447 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 3:00:00 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, April 19, 2018, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, April 19, 2018, Erálnì Histickému wrote: > > > > You put tears and soul in that mathematics, as such it would be the > > > answer to everything. > > > > What have you been smoking? Physics studies mathematical models, it has > > nothing to do with me. > > The null Einstein tensor described in the polar coordinate system and in spherical symmetry can be laid as follows. <shrug> Are on drugs? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 23:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f485a91-d5a2-4e21-a9e3-a548c5eedea4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456459 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018, Jan Bielawski the fruitcake wrote: > On Thursday, April 19, 2018, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The null Einstein tensor described in the polar coordinate system and > > in spherical symmetry can be laid as follows. <shrug> > > > ** 1 - ∂²Ω/∂r² / Ρ + (∂Ω/∂r)² / (4 Ρ Ω) + ∂Ρ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Ρ²) = 0 > > > ** 1 - (∂Ω/∂r)² / (4 Ρ Ω) - ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ) = 0 > > > ** ∂Τ²/∂r² / (Τ Ρ) + ∂²Ω/∂r² / (Ρ Ω) – (∂Τ/∂r)² / (2 Τ² Ρ) > > - (∂Ω/∂r)² / (2 Ρ Ω²) – ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ρ/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ²) > > + ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ Ω) - ∂Ρ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Ρ² Ω) = 0 > > > Where > > > ** ds² = Τ(r) dt² – Ρ(r) dr² - Ω(r) dθ² > > ** dθ² = dLongtidue² cos²(Latitude) + dLatitude² > > > In pure mathematical sense, there are infinite solutions to these 3 > > differential equations above. Examples are: > > > ** ds1² = Q c² dt² / (1 + K/r) – (1 + K/r) dr² - (r² + K²) dθ² > > > And > > > ** ds2² = Q c² (1 - K/r) dt² – dr² / (1 - K/r) - r² dθ² > > > Where > > > ** Q, K = integration constants > > > Koobee Wublee would like to know what the fvck the fruitcake was > > smoking when the schezo-idiot is able to cherry pick only ds1 as > > the representation to reality. How does a delusional person deal > > with itself? <shrug> > > Are on drugs? So, the fruitcake thinks studying GR is like taking drugs. What a fvcking imbecile! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81b509b1-f6c9-45d0-9711-8c3f556a7bc7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456469 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, April 19, 2018, Jan Bielawski the fruitcake wrote: > > On Thursday, April 19, 2018, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > The null Einstein tensor described in the polar coordinate system and > > > in spherical symmetry can be laid as follows. <shrug> > > > > > ** 1 - ∂²Ω/∂r² / Ρ + (∂Ω/∂r)² / (4 Ρ Ω) + ∂Ρ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Ρ²) = 0 > > > > > ** 1 - (∂Ω/∂r)² / (4 Ρ Ω) - ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ) = 0 > > > > > ** ∂Τ²/∂r² / (Τ Ρ) + ∂²Ω/∂r² / (Ρ Ω) – (∂Τ/∂r)² / (2 Τ² Ρ) > > > - (∂Ω/∂r)² / (2 Ρ Ω²) – ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ρ/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ²) > > > + ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ Ω) - ∂Ρ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Ρ² Ω) = 0 > > > > > Where > > > > > ** ds² = Τ(r) dt² – Ρ(r) dr² - Ω(r) dθ² > > > ** dθ² = dLongtidue² cos²(Latitude) + dLatitude² > > > > > In pure mathematical sense, there are infinite solutions to these 3 > > > differential equations above. Examples are: > > > > > ** ds1² = Q c² dt² / (1 + K/r) – (1 + K/r) dr² - (r² + K²) dθ² > > > > > And > > > > > ** ds2² = Q c² (1 - K/r) dt² – dr² / (1 - K/r) - r² dθ² > > > > > Where > > > > > ** Q, K = integration constants > > > > > Koobee Wublee would like to know what the fvck the fruitcake was > > > smoking when the schezo-idiot is able to cherry pick only ds1 as > > > the representation to reality. How does a delusional person deal > > > with itself? <shrug> > > > > Are on drugs? > > So, the fruitcake thinks studying GR is like taking drugs. What a fvcking imbecile! <shrug> As usual, you've falsified the context by inserting complete irrelevancies into an ongoing thread. Here is what actually happened: 1. One guy posted: > > On Thursday, April 19, 2018, Erálnì Histickému wrote: > > > > You put tears and soul in that mathematics, as such it would be the > > > answer to everything. 2. To which I answered: > > What have you been smoking? Physics studies mathematical models, it has > > nothing to do with me. 3. Now YOU respond to THE ABOVE with: > The null Einstein tensor described in the polar coordinate system and in spherical symmetry can be laid as follows. <shrug> > > ** 1 - ∂²Ω/∂r² / Ρ + (∂Ω/∂r)² / (4 Ρ Ω) + ∂Ρ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Ρ²) = 0 > > ** 1 - (∂Ω/∂r)² / (4 Ρ Ω) - ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ) = 0 > > ** ∂Τ²/∂r² / (Τ Ρ) + ∂²Ω/∂r² / (Ρ Ω) – (∂Τ/∂r)² / (2 Τ² Ρ) > - (∂Ω/∂r)² / (2 Ρ Ω²) – ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ρ/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ²) > + ∂Τ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Τ Ρ Ω) - ∂Ρ/∂r ∂Ω/∂r / (2 Ρ² Ω) = 0 > > Where > > ** ds² = Τ(r) dt² – Ρ(r) dr² - Ω(r) dθ² > ** dθ² = dLongtidue² cos²(Latitude) + dLatitude² > > In pure mathematical sense, there are infinite solutions to these 3 differential equations above. Examples are: > > ** ds1² = Q c² dt² / (1 + K/r) – (1 + K/r) dr² - (r² + K²) dθ² > > And > > ** ds2² = Q c² (1 - K/r) dt² – dr² / (1 - K/r) - r² dθ² > > Where > > ** Q, K = integration constants > > Koobee Wublee would like to know what the fvck the fruitcake was smoking when the schezo-idiot is able to cherry pick only ds1 as the representation to reality. How does a delusional person deal with itself? <shrug> ================= I leave it to the readers to decide who is a fruitcake. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web