|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Y.PoratY.Porat
Date: May 31, 2007 23:50
On Jun 1, 8:38 am, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 5:41 am, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> "Y.Porat" gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>> On Jun 1, 2:04 am, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Y.Porat" gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>>>> what is th e smallest amount of photon energy and it is not ...
|
| Show full article (3.54Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: JeckylJeckyl
Date: May 31, 2007 23:41
> On Jun 1, 12:30 am, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On May 31, 11:06 pm, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 31, 10:09 pm, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 31, 4:35 pm, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Reality is reality. . But all we have is our measurements of it.
>>>>>>> O'Barr comments: ...
|
| Show full article (3.26Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: YY
Date: May 31, 2007 23:16
Well, the singularity is a theory for starters. If it is true, then
its classification as a place or a space is paradoxical since it has
infinite density and no volume. It's fair enough. People need to
understand a beginning, even if that beginning defies the concept of
infinity which comes as a comfortable idea in the early stages of
childhood.
Do you know how many people still think the earth is flat ? Millions
of people. I have asked this question to most of the people around me
and my idiot meter always goes beserko.
Q: What would be the shortest distance from Brisbane to Sydney ?
A: A Tunnel.
What is seemingly paradoxical is that the quicker you get there is the
REAL shortest distance. And it is, but the final answer is NOT a
paradox. It is also ^more real.
A: A tunnel at the quickest possible speed. (fast as a jet plane).
Nevertheless what we think of as time in actuality has a zero rate of
change. The biggest lesson I have learned in my studies is that it is
the placement of the model that is important.
|
| Show full article (5.87Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Pentcho ValevPentcho Valev
Date: May 31, 2007 23:15
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=0004226A-F77D-1D4A-90FB809EC5880000&chanId...
"How to Build a Time Machine. It wouldn't be easy, but it might be
possible. By Paul Davies"
"For decades, time travel lay beyond the fringe of respectable
science. In recent years, however, the topic has become something of a
cottage industry among theoretical physicists."
"Our best understanding of time comes from Einstein's theories of
relativity. Prior to these theories, time was widely regarded as
absolute and universal, the same for everyone no matter what their
physical circumstances were. In his special theory of relativity,
Einstein proposed that the measured interval between two events
depends on how the observer is moving. Crucially, two observers who
move differently will experience different durations between the same
two events."
"So travel into the future is a proved fact, even if it has so far
been in rather unexciting amounts."
"Clocks run a bit faster in the attic than in the basement, which is
closer to the center of Earth and therefore deeper down in a
gravitational field."
|
| Show full article (4.19Kb) |
|
3 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Spirit of TruthSpirit of Truth
Date: May 31, 2007 23:11
> On May 31, 7:50 am, "Greg Neill" wrote:
>>> On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" wrote:
>>>> "Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>> On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold
>>>>> as
>>>>> a FOR.
>>>>> EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate. ...
|
| Show full article (1.47Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Spirit of TruthSpirit of Truth
Date: May 31, 2007 23:04
>> On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> MMX was null so is irrelevant.
>>
>> All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the
>> aether.
>
> Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of
> the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious.
> You can start by listing the mechanical properties of
> the aether as needed to match the observed data such
> as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX
> results, relativistic velocity addition for light,
> etc., etc.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: JeckylJeckyl
Date: May 31, 2007 22:58
> On May 30, 3:54 pm, rbwinn juno.com> wrote:
>> So
>> show how they are different when I use them from when he used them.
>>
>> x'=x-vt
>> y'=y
>> z'=z
>> t'=t
>>
>> I especially like the last equation.
Those equations, the last one in particular, says that time flows at the
same rate in all frames of reference, so clock in any frame of reference
will always show the same elapsed time.
What is WRONG with them is that we have experimental evidence that time does
NOT flow at the same rate in all frames of reference.
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: RPRP
Date: May 31, 2007 22:57
On Jun 1, 12:30 am, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:06 pm, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 31, 10:09 pm, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 31, 4:35 pm, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Reality is reality. . But all we have is our measurements of it.
>>>>>> O'Barr comments:
>>>>>> We have a lot more than just our measurements.
>>>>>> We each have a brain, and our intellect. And we ...
|
| Show full article (2.97Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: JeckylJeckyl
Date: May 31, 2007 22:38
> On Jun 1, 5:41 am, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2:04 am, "Jeckyl" nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> "Y.Porat" gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>> what is th e smallest amount of photon energy and it is not
>>>>> freqauncy
>>>>> dependant !!!
>> ...
|
| Show full article (3.27Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: JeckylJeckyl
Date: May 31, 2007 22:34
> On Jun 1, 4:57 am, Eric Gisse gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 6:55 pm, "Y.Porat" gmail.com> wrote:
> hey Gisse
> i ddint notice your impressive arrival
> to mytread sorry !!
> anyway
> di dyou get theimpression we are missing you here ??
> (:-)
>
> did you noticed that this thread was not leaded
> appositelly and civilisedly untill now ??
>
> iow
> what would we do without you here ??!! (:-)
> ie without you learned big contributions
> of extensive deap physics analysis
> physics thinking etc etc ??
> ...
|
| Show full article (0.75Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|