|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: mitch.nicolas.raemschmitch.nicolas.raemsch
Date: Jun 30, 2008 20:49
Round geometry in any dimension is an unchanging curve.
Mitch Raemsch
|
| |
|
| |
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: mitch.nicolas.raemschmitch.nicolas.raemsch
Date: Jun 30, 2008 19:22
Look at a raibow. Science cannot explain how the raindrops organize
into an arc from the ground and a circle from the sky(there are
circular rainbows.)
When science looks at everything I believe there will always be
something left unexplainable at its most completely fundamental level.
Mitch Raemsch; Falling light changes colour
|
| |
|
| |
75 Comments |
|
|
Author: mitch.nicolas.raemschmitch.nicolas.raemsch
Date: Jun 30, 2008 15:36
On Jun 30, 2:34Â pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@ gmail.com wrote: > Do electrons in seperate shells effect one another if the shells are
> in close proximity?
>
> What creates atomic shells?
> Are protons always surrounded by empty shells?
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Nucleon resonsonances suggest nuclear subshells.
|
| |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: DreddDredd
Date: Jun 30, 2008 14:00
As we speak they still propagate that space around the sun an earth
is curved
But what does they mean, really, they use words they dont understand
in their mythology
curved as compressed space? no, you cant compress vacuum
curved as taking some space out of space making it thinner? no, you
cant
rip permittivity and permeability out of vacuum. Even if you could,
that would
violate 2nd thermo, because destroying space you destroy vacuum which
you cant.
what else? time curved? no, time at best only dilates not curves.
in conclusion curved space-time is just another anomaly in relativity
they dont want to check
|
| |
|
30 Comments |
|
|
Author: David ThomsonDavid Thomson
Date: Jun 30, 2008 13:02
On Jun 27, 10:42Â pm, Art Deco usa.net> wrote:>>VICTOR VON FRANKENSTEIN WEIRD SCIENCE AWARD
>
>>The winner is...DAVID THOMPSON!
>
>> 13 votes "Quantum AetherDynamics Institute" by David Thomson
>> 10 votes "UFOs guided Cyclone Nargis" by Jan Pajak
>> 01 votes Neither of the above
>
>>Congratulations, David! Â Your book-length presentation of your fringe
>>ideas has proven to be the highest-quality mad science AUK has seen in
>>many a year. Â Some of it may even prove to have some validity. Â However,
>>your attempts to turn it into a scientific proof of God (George Hammond
>>might be envious) and support for the cranky idea of Intelligent Design
>>showed the inherent kookiness of your hypothesis and were enough to put
>>it on the ballot and win over a very worthy competitor.
>
> Here here! Â Those little magnets holding the universe together have
> earned you the prestigious Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award!
> Wear it with pride. ...
|
| Show full article (1.14Kb) |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Dirk Van de moortelDirk Van de moortel
Date: Jun 30, 2008 11:57
"Strich 9" physicsbanter.com> wrote in message news:Strich.9.2aecca7@physicsbanter.com...>
> ok, ok, this is usually the time where most physicists become busy or
> have something better to do, when they realize that further answers to
> my questions lead to their sure contradiction. instead of waiting for
> DIRK to restudy his relativity and consult his peers and masters, i'll
> give you the final answers. not specifically to the problem above, but
> to the twin paradox type problems in general.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> Case:
> A muon and neutrino are approaching each other at relative velocity
> ~c.
> The muon has a rest life of 2 microseconds. Gamma is 10.
Good grief, here we go again with the numbers....
[snip the numbers]
> Now where is relativity wrong. It is easy to find if we go back to the
> equations.
|
| Show full article (3.47Kb) |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: BURTBURT
Date: Jun 30, 2008 11:39
Forces organize matter.
What else is there?
Mitch Raemsch
|
| |
|
12 Comments |
|
|
Author: WenWen
Date: Jun 30, 2008 07:55
"Gravity"
Like almost everyone else, the writer started by assuming that General
Relativity represented good science and that it was his task to understand
that science. Almost immediately it became obvious that a flaw must exist
somewhere in its derivation. Allegedly, General Relativity and Special
Relativity followed The Principle of Equivalence but THEIR CONCLUSIONS WERE
NOT EQUIVALENT! In a Force-Length-Time systems of units, Special Relativity
and General Relativity provided:
Quantity Parallel Velocity General Relativity
Force F 1 1
Length L 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 1
Time T (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to recognize that these
transformations are NOT ANALOGOUS. Under Special Relativity, the
transformations for length and time are reciprocal. Under General Relativity
such a reciprocal relationship does not exist since the transformations for
length is unity.
|
| Show full article (5.56Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: HagarHagar
Date: Jun 30, 2008 07:10
"Art Deco" usa.net> wrote in message
news:270620082142506164%%erfc-1024@usa.net...> Scroll down please:
>
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler caballista.org> wrote:
>
PedoDeco,
I know it's a AUK00ker tradition, but no one really gives a shit about your
awards for lunacy and retardation. So, please keep it "All in the Family" of
nuts at AUK.
|
| |
|
15 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: grahamgraham
Date: Jun 30, 2008 06:36
The most popular theory (for lack of any other feasible explanation)
is still the exploding meteor/asteroid or comet. I don't believe though
that it has ever been really explained how either could completely
destroy itself in midair in an explosion of 15 MT yield, even with
the high kinetic energy involved.
|
| |
|
7 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
