Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: ever since 1842, the Doppler shift was assumed to exist for
lightwaves and never experimentally verified Chapt 8 #138; ATOM TOTALITY

Replies: 122   Last Post: Jul 10, 2010 2:38 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Mitchell Jones

Posts: 17
Registered: 8/18/05
Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Posted: Jun 28, 2010 12:51 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <bOtUn.12735$wi5.9869@hurricane>,
"Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:

> "David R Tribble" <david@tribble.com> wrote in message
> news:f113887e-6199-49ad-a230-3e48820d6d42@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> | David R Tribble wrote:
> | >| The meter used to be defined in terms of what the French thought
> | >| the polar circumference of the Earth was (which was off by about
> | >| 8 km).
> | >| At any rate, I think ...
> | >
> |
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > Do you have any empirical evidence to support the absurd notion that you
> CAN
> | > think?
> |
> | Point taken. The fact that I am responding you proves conclusively
> | that I cannot think and am insane.
> |
> |
> | > | we all know who is the craziest person here.
> | >
> |
> | > Yep, the dumb bastard that defined the metre in terms of the speed of
> light
> | > and the speed of light in terms of the metre, then got hopeless confused
> | > over what a second is, is the craziest person here. We all know that.
> |
> | You win.
> |
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
> The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
> during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
>
>
> The mile is the length of the path travelled by a car on an interstate
> during a time interval of 1 minute. The speed of cars is 60 miles per hour.


***{You are right, of course, but that doesn't mean you will be able to
persuade a relativist to change his opinion. I used virtually the same
example in this group several years ago, on Mar. 11, 2007, in a lengthy
discussion with "Dan from Boston," "George Dishman," and others, yet I
persuaded no one. Below, between the lines of asterisks, is that entire
post.

*****************************************************
In article <20070309152629.647$fb@newsreader.com>,
danfromboston2@yahoo.com(Dan from Boston) wrote:

> Have any of these guys who are continually 'refuting' SR and GR ever taken
> any math courses past algebra and trig? Their analyses are pitiable.


***{Mainly, we have been discussing whether the gravitationally
entrained aether theory can or cannot explain stellar aberration, and
everyone who has posted anything on the topic, whether pro or con, has
made use of no math beyond trigonometry, for the simple and sufficient
reason that trigonometry is the math which such an analysis requires.

The only attack on relativity that was posted in connection with that
discussion was posted by me, and I assume from your comment that you
disagree with it, since you characterized my analysis as "pitiable." So
let me ask you a question: if someone told you that (a) automobile
speeds are a universal constant the value of which is 50 mph, and (b)
that the speed of each automobile has to be measured using an onboard
clock that automatically registers 1 hour for every 50 miles traveled,
would you accept his conclusion?

If not, then why would you accept Einstein's statement that (a) the
speed of light is a universal constant the value of which is 186,000
miles/sec, and (b) that the speed of light has to be measured using a
clock in the vicinity of the lightpath which automatically registers 1
second for every 186,000 miles that light travels?

In other words, why can't we follow standard practice, and use clocks
calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time here on Earth?
That's what we do when we measure the speeds of automobiles and
everything else. Why must we make an exception for light?

Enquiring minds want to know! :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

> Dan
*****************************************************

The above is, of course, a very strong argument, and it would persuade
any reasonable person. However, reasonable people--i.e., people who
place a greater value on finding the truth than on fitting in--are as
rare as hen's teeth on this blighted planet. The norm here, instead, is
unreasonableness, as described between the lines of asterisks below, in
an excerpt from a message that I posted here on Dec. 31, 2006.

*****************************************************
In article <m1mfp2t0mjk73mqbjp0274qq2p3v8fevfm@4ax.com>,
 John C. Polasek <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 01:48:39 -0600, Mitchell Jones
> <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:

> >In article <r04bp21054rf9d76t9q7c7bdp71492e93g@4ax.com>,
> > John C. Polasek <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote:


[snip]

> >> Dual Space has this motto:
> >>  
> >> "If you have something to say, write an equation. If you have nothing
> >> to say, write an essay". 

> >
> >***{I've heard that a lot, and I don't deny that it contains a grain of 
> >truth--to wit: the equations of physics describe observed relationships 
> >between experimentally measured data points, and thus summarize the 
> >results of physical measurement. Result: if your words contradict what 
> >the equations say, the odds are very great that you are talking through 
> >your hat. 


> Your philosophizing is in the wrong venue. Try sci.liberalarts. 
> It does not seem to bother you that there is not one equation cited
> above that would eliminate 90% of the arm-waving argument.


***{I suggest you consider what this group would be like if all the
words were eliminated from posts, leaving only the equations. Nothing
posted here would make a lick of sense, and an outsider who browsed
through the group would conclude that we are all insane. Even your
current post, to which I am presently responding, contained no
equations; yet you do not seem to have been troubled by that state of
affairs. How can it be OK for you to post natural language statements in
this group, if it is not OK for others to do it? --MJ}*** 
 
> To a mathematician it is as you say, "the equations of physics
> describe (nothing more than)  observed relationships between
> experimentally measured data points".
>  
> To a real physicist the equation mensurates a model that he can use to
> represent a physical, believable mechanism and in which the equations
> contain sine qua non: units. 

> But modern physics has deteriorated to the point of simply
> capitulating, in having to believe something they can't really
> believe. 

> Such is the case with general relativity, in which, on the advice of a
> mathematician, space and time were equated. No one can really believe
> that space and time can be bent. 


***{Foolish notions, I agree. But therein lies the vulnerability of the
theory of relativity: it is the natural language statements that are the
entirety of the theory; and it is they, not the equations, which are
vulnerable to attack. Why, then, do almost all of the non-relativists
who post here attack the equations while ignoring the actual target of
their ire? Why can't they comprehend that the equations are a summary of
results obtained by experimentation, and, as such, are by and large
simply statements of fact? Why attack the facts, when the
interpretations of the facts are so idiotic as to be virtually obscene?
Why get one's dander up in response to ridiculous natural language
statements and then, rather than attack the statements, attack the
equations instead? --MJ}***

>Nor can they believe that all of the
> 10^53 kg in the universe was at one time tinier than a neutron. 


***{Transparent nonsense, of course. But you are wrong to say no one can
really believe it: nonsense is routinely believed by social reasoners.
Believing another person's nonsense is a way of sucking up, and social
reasoners have elevated sucking up into an art form. It's what they do
to "get ahead" and, to that end, is pretty much the only trick they
know. --MJ}***

>Nor
> that light really can have a constant value in a vacuum to which they
> attribute no physical parameters. Yet the practicioners must believe
> under pain of banishment.


***{Yup. The defining characteristic of a social reasoner is that
fitting in is more important to him than knowing the truth. In his heart
of hearts, he is utterly convinced of his own incompetence and, as a
consequence, that he cannot possibly succeed based on merit. Result: he
seeks to succeed with the assistance of others, and regards agreement
with other people's nonsense as the means by which that assistance is to
be obtained. Truth, in such a framework, is irrelevant. The goal is not
to understand reality. Reality, in the social reasoner's view, is
unknowable. Thus the social reasoner, out of ingrained habit, avoids
lines of thought that undercut the beliefs of those whose assistance he
desires, and seeks out lines of thought which support those beliefs. 

Because the thinking of the social reasoner is selective, (a) his
beliefs bear no necessary relationship to the facts, and (b) there is no
power of persuasion or force of argument that can alter any opinion
which he regards as expedient within his chosen social milieu. Instead,
when his socially expedient beliefs are persistently challenged, he will
in most cases resort to non-substantive, ad hominem arguments. Indeed,
the introduction of ad hominems into the context of what had previously
been a rational discussion is a behavior that functions very much like a
leper's bell: it tells you what sort of person you are dealing with,
and, thus, that any insights gained if the discussion continues will
probably have more to do with the peculiarities of psychopathology than
with anything else. 

Bottom line: when the leper's bell begins to ring, you need to decide
whether you are interested in studying psychopathology. If you are, then
you should continue the exchange; and if not, you should add the social
reasoner's name to your killfile. It's as simple as that. 

--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ


Date Subject Author
6/5/10
Read ever since 1842, the Doppler shift was assumed to exist for
lightwaves and never experimentally verified Chapt 8 #138; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10
Read zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #139; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #139; ATOM TOTALITY
pete
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #139; ATOM TOTALITY
ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
Mike Dworetsky
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
David Bernier
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
Mike Dworetsky
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #142; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10
Read Inconsistency of Special Relativity and Doppler Effect Chapt 8 #143;
ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10
Read Re: Inconsistency of Special Relativity and Doppler Effect Chapt 8
#143; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10
Read proof that the Doppler Shift never occurrs with EM waves Chapt 8
#141; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10
Read Re: proof that the Doppler Shift never occurrs with EM waves Chapt 8 #141; ATOM TOTALITY
Mike Dworetsky
6/7/10
Read Re: proof that the Doppler Shift never occurrs with EM waves Chapt 8
#144; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10
Read Re: proof that the Doppler Shift never occurrs with EM waves Chapt 8 #144; ATOM TOTALITY
Mike Dworetsky
6/8/10
Read Slow-light; whether it supports a nonexistant doppler effect on Light
Chapt 8 #145; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10
Read Re: Slow-light; whether it supports a nonexistant doppler effect on
Light Chapt 8 #146; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10
Read using "slow light" in a future experiment where a slow-light source
is on a moving platform to test for a Doppler shift effect Chapt 8 #147; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10
Read Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality and
dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #148; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10
Read Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality
and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #149; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10
Read Re: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom
Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #149; ATOM TOTALITY
Porky Pig Jr
6/9/10
Read Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality
and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #150; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10
Read Re: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom
Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #151; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10
Read Re: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #151; ATOM TOTALITY
Mike Dworetsky
6/10/10
Read maybe I need to combine this chapter with "Dirac new radioactivities"
Chapt 3 #152; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10
Read Re: maybe I need to combine this chapter with "Dirac new radioactivities" Chapt 3 #152; ATOM TOTALITY
Mike Dworetsky
6/10/10
Read Big Bang is a amorphous, a nonentity, process whereas Atom Totality
is a "something that is building" Chapt 3 #153; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/11/10
Read reminder to talk more about blackbody microwave and Dirac new
radioactivities Chapt 1&3 #154; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/11/10
Read Wegener's Continental Drift theory may be telling on Atom Totality
social acceptance Chapt 1 &3 #155; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/12/10
Read expanding the history chapter of this book Chapt 2 #156; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10
Read expanding the history chapter of this book Chapt 2 #157; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10
Read scientists making discoveries of science with superdeterminism Chapt
2 #158; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10
Read summary of "history of physics" and how discoveries of theories are
made Chapt 2 #159; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10
Read Re: summary of "history of physics" and how discoveries of theories
are made Chapt 2 #159; ATOM TOTALITY
bert
6/14/10
Read superdeterminism rather than Darwin evolution for science theory
discoveries Chapt 2 #160; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/14/10
Read Re: superdeterminism rather than Darwin evolution for science theory
discoveries Chapt 2 #160; ATOM TOTALITY
Porky Pig Jr
6/14/10
Read circumstantial evidence for Wegener but not for Darwin; what about
Atom Totality? Chapt 2 #161; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/14/10
Read proving Dirac's new radioactivities is additive creation based on
Local Group galaxies?? Chapt 14 #162; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10
Read best way of testing Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation
Chapt 14 #163; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10
Read Re: best way of testing Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation
Chapt 14 #164; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
Porky Pig Jr
6/7/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
bjacoby@iwaynet.net
6/7/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
Androcles
6/7/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/7/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/7/10
Read Re: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio
wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
Brian Q. Hutchings
6/15/10
Read reorganization of chapters Chapt 1 #165; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10
Read Experiment to prove Dirac's new-radioactivities additive-creation
Chapt 5 #166; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10
Read history of sciences and deciding-evidence Chapt 2 #167; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10
Read Additive Creation; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #168; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10
Read heavy water in comets is already proof Re: Additive Creation; Dirac's
new radioactivities Chapt 5 #169; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/16/10
Read Heavy water Experiment; 160 ppm deuterium Re: Additive Creation;
Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #170; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/16/10
Read Re: Heavy water Experiment; 160 ppm deuterium Re: Additive Creation;
Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #170; ATOM TOTALITY
Porky Pig Jr
6/17/10
Read Comet heavy water due to salt counterbalance? Re: Additive Creation;
Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #171; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/17/10
Read Re: Comet heavy water due to salt counterbalance? Re: Additive
Creation; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #171; ATOM TOTALITY
bert
6/17/10
Read Experiment: Additive Creation; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5
#172; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10
Read rewrite of #172; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #173; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10
Read Re: rewrite of #172; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #173; ATOM TOTALITY
Owen Jacobson
6/19/10
Read Re: rewrite of #172; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #173; ATOM TOTALITY
Androcles
6/19/10
Read Comet's 320ppm versus Earth's 160ppm experiment; Dirac's new
radioactivities Chapt 5 #177; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10
Read a check on my derivation "elementary charge e" out of pure math;
1.618.. x 10^-19 C; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #190; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10
Read question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s
; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35..
m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Frederick Williams
6/22/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Owen Jacobson
6/22/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Androcles
6/22/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35..
m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
David R Tribble
6/22/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Androcles
6/23/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35..
m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
David R Tribble
6/23/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Androcles
6/28/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Mitchell Jones
6/22/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35..
m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Uncle Al
6/22/10
Read Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35..
m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
David R Tribble
6/23/10
Read deriving speed of light from purely math considerations ; speed of
light Chapt 19 #192; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10
Read speed of light in km as exactly equal to 314159 km/second ; speed of
light Chapt 19 #193; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10
Read Re: speed of light in km as exactly equal to 314159 km/second ; speed
of light Chapt 19 #193; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10
Read some backtracking in deriving speed of light from purely math
considerations ; speed of light Chapt 19 #194; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10
Read pseudosphere in deriving speed of light from purely math
considerations ; Chapt 19 #195; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/24/10
Read pseudosphere poles = 5,000 km? in deriving speed of light from purely
math considerations ; Chapt 19 #196; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/24/10
Read looking for 1/8 circumference of Earth-Sphere = 5,000 km ; Chapt 19
#197; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10
Read deriving speed of light from pure math alone; Tractrix ; Chapt 19
#198; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10
Read deriving "elementary charge" from pure math alone ; Chapt 19 #199;
ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10
Read deriving speed of light purely from math; radius of pseudosphere
defect as 5,000km?? Chapt 19 #200; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10
Read deriving speed of light purely from math; diameter of pseudosphere
defect as 5,000km?? Chapt 19 #201; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10
Read speed of light from pure math as (NxN)/(1/8N) = 8N Chapt 19 #202;
ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10
Read speed of light from pure math as (NxN)/(1/8N) = 8N ; Schrodinger Eq.
Chapt 19 #203; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10
Read Re: speed of light from pure math as (NxN)/(1/8N) = 8N ; Schrodinger
Eq. Chapt 19 #203; ATOM TOTALITY
Cassidy Furlong
6/27/10
Read backtracking on speed of light derived from pure math Chapt 19 #204;
ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/27/10
Read on course! for deriving speed of light from pure math Chapt 19 #205;
ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/27/10
Read deriving speed of light out of raw pure math Chapt 19 #206; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/28/10
Read deriving speed of light out of raw pure math Chapt 19 #207; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/28/10
Read Re: deriving speed of light out of raw pure math Chapt 19 #207; ATOM
TOTALITY
Brian Q. Hutchings
6/29/10
Read Olber's paradox resolved Chapt 3 #208; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10
Read uniform Blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation Chapt
3 #209; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10
Read blackbody CMBR and why kelvin scale is special Chapt 3 #210; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10
Read blackbody CMBR and why kelvin scale is special Chapt 3 #211; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10
Read blackbody CMBR and why kelvin scale is special Chapt 3 #212; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10
Read Re: blackbody CMBR and Olbers Chapt 3 #213; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10
Read blackbody CMBR and Olber's Paradox explained Chapt 3 #213; ATOM
TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/2/10
Read missing mass with its solid-body-rotation conundrum solved Chapt 4
#214; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10
Read deriving speed of light out of pure math as pseudosphere nested
inside sphere Chapt 19 #215; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10
Read speed of light out of pure math the pseudosphere as time and sphere
as distance Chapt 19 #216; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10
Read time as the circumference of the lobe inside the sphere: deriving
speed of light from pure math Chapt 19 #217; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/10/10
Read Re: Schrodinger cubic set; deriving speed of light from pure math
Chapt 19 #219; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/10/10
Read Why blackbody Cosmic microwave radiation is more compelling evidence
than Missing Mass Chapt 4 #220; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10
Read Re: rewrite of #172; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #173; ATOM TOTALITY
Owen Jacobson
6/19/10
Read Re: rewrite of #172; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #173; ATOM TOTALITY
Androcles
6/19/10
Read additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities
Chapt 5 #178; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10
Read Anders, Ebihara Re: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's
new radioactivities Chapt 5 #179; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10
Read Re: Anders, Ebihara Re: additive versus multiplicative creation:
Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #180; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10
Read combinations of additive and multiplicative creation: Dirac's new
radioactivities Chapt 5 #181; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10
Read Universe itself is the one and only magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #182;
ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10
Read Dirac was both right and wrong about his magnetic monopole Chapt 14
#184; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10
Read speed of light is likely to be more accurately that of 3.14159.. x
10^8 m/s; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #185; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10
Read electric charge is likely to be more accurately that of 1.618.. x
10^-19 C; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #186; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10
Read 1/8 log spiral to yield speed of light ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14
#187; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10
Read Re: electric charge is likely to be more accurately that of 1.618.. x
10^-19 C; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #188; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10
Read deriving "elementary charge e" out of pure math; 1.618.. x 10^-19 C;
magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #189; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10
Read Additive Creation Dirac's new radioactivities predicts why lithium,
beryllium, boron are so rare Chapt 5 #174; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10
Read Additive Creation Dirac's New Radioactivities predicts that iron is
stable to fission & fusion Chapt 12 #175; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10
Read Additive Creation Dirac's New Radioactivities and Gamma Ray Bursts
Chapt 5 #176; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10
Read Re: a check on my derivation "elementary charge e" out of pure math;
1.618.. x 10^-19 C; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #190; ATOM TOTALITY
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10
Read Re: ever since 1842, the Doppler shift was assumed to exist for
lightwaves and never experimentally verified Chapt 8 #138; ATOM TOTALITY
NoEinstein

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.