Who knows the cause of gravity?

Just like the question being asked. Who here is not
from their own Oz?

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

2013-04-06 05:44:19 UTC

Just like the question being asked. Who here is not
from their own Oz?

Koobee Wublee does not believe in action at a distance plagued with
Newtonian physics. <shrug>

Koobee Wublee likes the curvature of spacetime business as the cause
of gravity. It is so elegant. With instinct, you will know that must
be. However, on a careful examination of the mathematics, this
hypothesis is total garbage. <shrug>

So, the best candidate for the cause of gravity is the Aether where
different density of this medium manifests gravity. <shrug>
===========================================
Likes! Bwhahahahahahahaha! <shrug>
Aether! Bwhahahahahahahaha! <shrug>
Instinct! Bwhahahahahahahaha! <shrug>

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

benj

2013-04-06 06:10:42 UTC

Just like the question being asked. Who here is not from their own Oz?

Koobee Wublee does not believe in action at a distance plagued with
Newtonian physics. <shrug>

Nobody with a brain (except a few brainless "modern" physicists still
believe in the bogus and long-discredited "action at a distance"
theories.

Post by Koobee Wublee
Koobee Wublee likes the curvature of spacetime business as the cause of
gravity. It is so elegant. With instinct, you will know that must be.
However, on a careful examination of the mathematics, this hypothesis is
total garbage. <shrug>

Doesn't matter if the hypothesis is garbage. It's simply saying
mathematics is more real than reality. It's like saying global warming is
caused by curvature of spacetemperature. It's just babbling nonsense.

Post by Koobee Wublee
So, the best candidate for the cause of gravity is the Aether where
different density of this medium manifests gravity. <shrug>

Actually, the best theory is the Wheeler-Feynman theory (based on MUCH
older presentations of the idea) which is the uniform radiation theory
with "shadows" creating a force that pushes objects together.

So THAT is the "cause" of gravity!

Koobee Wublee

2013-04-06 06:30:35 UTC

Post by Koobee Wublee
Koobee Wublee does not believe in action at a distance plagued with
Newtonian physics. <shrug>

Nobody with a brain (except a few brainless "modern" physicists still
believe in the bogus and long-discredited "action at a distance"
theories.

Could you identify these brainless “modern” physicists? <shrug>

Well, mathematics is very important when trying to understand how the
real world works. Engineers would make sure the mathematical model is
dynamically retuned to reflect the best reality to the real world.
Self-styled physicists, on the other hand, would try the best to
ignore mathematical inconsistencies and to stay with the outdated or
just plainly wrong mathematical models they are sitting on. <shrug>

Engineers are accountable for their actions since their works reflect
transformations of reality for better lives for all. Self-styled
physicists, on the other hand, rely on their peers where they
emphasize this peer review thing as if the process will deify an idol
or something. What happen if their peers are as fvcking stupid and
clueless as they are. Well, it is like the Three Stooges thing.
<shrug>

Post by Koobee Wublee
So, the best candidate for the cause of gravity is the Aether where
different density of this medium manifests gravity. <shrug>

What caused the “shadows” thing? <shrug>

Post by benj
So THAT is the "cause" of gravity!

Sounds like another spin of action at distance thing, no? <shrug>

tj Frazir

2013-04-09 03:56:59 UTC

Time is faster near mass.
Time is faster near earth.
The slope of time around mass is gravity as mass is slope when time is a
slope.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

Sam Wormley

2013-04-06 13:15:48 UTC

Post by Koobee Wublee
Koobee Wublee does not believe in action at a distance plagued with
Newtonian physics. <shrug>

It's not little bungee cords, Koobee!

benj

2013-04-06 15:05:09 UTC

Post by Koobee Wublee
Koobee Wublee does not believe in action at a distance plagued with
Newtonian physics. <shrug>

It's not little bungee cords, Koobee!

Sam, you pretend to know it all, so what exactly is the "explanation" of
gravity? I'm sure you've got some links to popular "science" writers.

hanson

2013-04-07 07:37:11 UTC

Post by Koobee Wublee
Koobee Wublee does not believe in action at a distance
plagued with Newtonian physics. <shrug>

It's not little bungee cords, Koobee!

Sam, you pretend to know it all, so what exactly is
the "explanation" of gravity? I'm sure you've got
some links to popular "science" writers.

hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2, says that Newton's "G"
is the result of the ratio of the electric charge
per its Planck mass. So, Gravity appears to be
a manifestation of the existence of EM charges.
Dims and numerical size fit exactly.
The problem arises with e^2 = a*hear*co, that
connects the electric charge to the Hop's
uncertainty of the photon's energy, when measured
as being I = h*f about which Einstein grieved & said
in <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
Yet, you arm chair dudes, propose to have solutions?
ROTFLMAO... aahahahahanson

hanson

2013-04-07 07:42:51 UTC

The automatic spell check delivered a fine

Post by Koobee Wublee
Koobee Wublee does not believe in action at a distance
plagued with Newtonian physics. <shrug>

It's not little bungee cords, Koobee!

Sam, you pretend to know it all, so what exactly is
the "explanation" of gravity? I'm sure you've got
some links to popular "science" writers.

hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2, says that Newton's "G"
is the result of the ratio of the electric charge
per its Planck mass. So, Gravity appears to be
a manifestation of the existence of EM charges.
Dims and numerical size fit exactly.
The problem arises with e^2 = a*har*c, that
connects the electric charge to the HUP's
uncertainty of the photon's energy, when measured
as being E = h*f, about which Einstein grieved & said
in <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
Yet, you arm chair dudes, propose to have solutions?
ROTFLMAO... aahahahahanson

benj

2013-04-07 08:27:13 UTC

Basically, a simple case can be made for the "explanation" of gravity by
mathematical inference.
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2, says that Newton's "G"
is the result of the ratio of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the existence of EM
charges.
Dims and numerical size fit exactly.
The problem arises with e^2 = a*hear*co, that connects the electric
charge to the Hop's uncertainty of the photon's energy, when measured as
being I = h*f about which Einstein grieved & said in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR> ||AE|| All these 50
years of conscious brooding have ||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no
nearer to the answer ||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta,
aka h*f?'.

HaHaHanson makes excellent points about gravity and it's nature. It's so
funny to hear guys like Wormley or PBS or Sci Am tell the public that
Newton's gravity equation "explains" it! Not a clue.

The electrical nature of Gravity is a big hint as is the analogy of
Gravity and the co-gravitational field with Maxwellian EM. Try to find a
discussion of that on PBS!

Ha! Ha! But then *I* Benjamin (ignore middle name) Jacoby, the Rabi of
weird know all this stuff!

Yet, you arm chair dudes, propose to have solutions? ROTFLMAO...
aahahahahanson

Oh look at what you've all done now! You made Hanson laugh again!

hanson

2013-04-07 15:39:01 UTC

"benj" <***@iwaynet.net> wrote:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2, says that Newton's "G"
is the result of the ratio of the electric charge
per its Planck mass. So, Gravity appears to be
a manifestation of the existence of EM charges.
Dims and numerical size fit exactly.
The problem arises with e^2 = a*hbar*c, that
connects the electric charge to the HUP's
uncertainty of the photon's energy, which when
measured as being E = h*f, .... ...about which
Einstein grieved & said in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
Ben wrote:
HaHaHanson makes excellent points about gravity
and it's nature. It's so funny to hear guys like
Wormley or PBS or Sci Am tell the public that
Newton's gravity equation "explains" it! Not a clue.
The electrical nature of Gravity is a big hint as is
the analogy of Gravity and the co-gravitational field
with Maxwellian EM. Try to find a discussion of that
on PBS!
Ha! Ha! But then *I* Benjamin (ignore middle name)
Jacoby, the [guntoting] Rabi of weird know all this stuff!
hanson wrote:
Yet, you arm chair dudes, propose to have solutions?
ROTFLMAO... ahahahahahanson
Ben wrote:
Oh look at what you've all done now!
You made Hanson laugh again!
hanson wrote:
Gimme a guess why you'all have such a hardon
for Sam Wormley. I like what Sam does. Wormley,
globally warmed and otherwise, does a valuable
service. Sam combs thru dozens and dozens
of article and cut'npastes their Abstracts. I don't
care whether Sam reads or understands them.
Sam Wormley is a good guy.
Kudos, Accolades and 5 attaboys for Sam!
ahahaha... ahahahahanson

john

2013-04-07 16:03:39 UTC

"Manifestation of the existence of electric charges"- i.e. an electric 'field' is caused by the release of energies from electrons. These energies are individually MUCH smaller than photons with frequencies correspondingly higher. They result from electron matter being fused in the same way our matter fuses in stars.
Simple. These radiations from electrons fill space in the same way neutrinos from stars fill space.

john
galaxies are atoms

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-07 18:30:27 UTC

they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.

Post by hanson
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2, says that Newton's "G"
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.

hanson

2013-04-07 23:48:09 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2, says that Newton's "G"
is the result of the ratio of the electric charge
per its Planck mass. Run the numbers.
Dims and numerical size fit exactly. [1]
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
existence of EM charges.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
..one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" wrote:
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
hanson worte:
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-08 17:04:33 UTC

I haven't the time to see your formalism,
but it might be okay with my (obvious) statements.

Post by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.

hanson

2013-04-08 17:31:03 UTC

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-08 22:39:18 UTC

welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.

Post by hanson
explain the nature of Gravity?

hanson

2013-04-08 23:47:09 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.

Run the numbers. Dims & numerical size fit exactly:
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
..one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" wrote:
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
hanson worte:
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
I haven't the time to see your formalism,
but it might be okay with my (obvious) statements:
that "they are waves through the medium of free
space, which hath atoms."
hanson wrote:
Quincy, I am not interested in you judging the
formalism of Planck & Prok in [1] & [2]. But tell
how does your "atoms have angular momentum &
being waves through the medium of free space"
explain the nature of Gravity?
Quincy Hutchings wrote:
welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... Quincy, you have no scenario to explain
Gravity because you are a village idiot and a drunken
one at that, who simply uses some buzz words, but
who has no idea what they mean... just like you did
earlier with these:
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
ahahaha... Now Quincy, you tanked up Village idiot,
bring on your other very frequently used buzzword, your
"Quaternion" about which you don't know neither shit,
nor Jack Shit and much less do you know how to explain
gravity.
ahahahahaha.... ahahahaha.... Village idiot Quincy listen:
Go converse with some likes of yours, "imperial thinkers",
who like you do impress themselves with buzz words,
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-09 04:08:26 UTC

tha is correct; special relativity is really just quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's Jewish assistant,
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).

qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.

of course, as far as I know,
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.

Post by hanson
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-09 04:10:06 UTC

so, where is the antimatter in your God-am theory,
hoho?

hanson

2013-04-09 12:49:26 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.

Run the numbers. Dims & numerical size fit exactly:
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
..one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" wrote:
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
hanson worte:
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
I haven't the time to see your formalism,
but it might be okay with my (obvious) statements:
that "they are waves through the medium of free
space, which hath atoms."
hanson wrote:
Quincy, I am not interested in you judging the
formalism of Planck & Prok in [1] & [2]. But tell
how does your "atoms have angular momentum &
being waves through the medium of free space"
explain the nature of Gravity?
Quincy Hutchings wrote:
welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... Quincy, you have no scenario to explain
Gravity because you are a village idiot and a drunken
one at that, who simply uses some buzz words, but
who has no idea what they mean... just like you did
earlier with these:
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
ahahaha... Now Quincy, you tanked up Village idiot,
bring on your other very frequently used buzzword, your
"Quaternion" about which you don't know neither shit,
nor Jack Shit and much less do you know how to explain
gravity.
ahahahahaha.... ahahahaha.... Village idiot Quincy listen:
Go converse with some likes of yours, "imperial thinkers",
who like you do impress themselves with buzz words,
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
tha is correct; special relativity is really just quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's Jewish assistant,
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).

qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.

of course, as far as I know,
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... but Quincy, all you did now, is combining
your previous individual buzz-words into a huge
word-salad and mentioning the authors of your buzzwords
... yet nowhere have you provided an explanation for
the cause of gravity....
LOL. Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahanson

john

2013-04-09 14:36:41 UTC

Post by hanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
..one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.
I haven't the time to see your formalism,
that "they are waves through the medium of free
space, which hath atoms."
Quincy, I am not interested in you judging the
formalism of Planck & Prok in [1] & [2]. But tell
how does your "atoms have angular momentum &
being waves through the medium of free space"
explain the nature of Gravity?
welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.
ahahaha.... Quincy, you have no scenario to explain
Gravity because you are a village idiot and a drunken
one at that, who simply uses some buzz words, but
who has no idea what they mean... just like you did
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
ahahaha... Now Quincy, you tanked up Village idiot,
bring on your other very frequently used buzzword, your
"Quaternion" about which you don't know neither shit,
nor Jack Shit and much less do you know how to explain
gravity.
Go converse with some likes of yours, "imperial thinkers",
who like you do impress themselves with buzz words,
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson
tha is correct; special relativity is really just quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's Jewish assistant,
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).
qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.
of course, as far as I know,
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.
.... ahahahaha... but Quincy, all you did now, is combining
your previous individual buzz-words into a huge
word-salad and mentioning the authors of your buzzwords
... yet nowhere have you provided an explanation for
the cause of gravity....
LOL. Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahanson

I can say it many ways.
Here's another (at least its taking me
fewer words):
bending space (accelerating by spin) splits its
virtual particles into matter, which orbits the spin.
The matter radiates this acceleration away
as gravity, and electric and magnetic fields.

john
galaxy model

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-09 21:42:06 UTC

although special relativity is "just quaternions, and
obviously not lightconeheads," in the calculational sense,
that doesn't interest mee too much, because
I'm a geometer. yes,
I should become more practiced with them, and will be,
but so should you be.

when Gibbs divided teh quaternions
into an outer product space (called vector machanics,
again) and an inner product space,
it was to simplify some few important things, and
had apparently swept the engineering field, but
it lost quite a bit, notably the facility with rotations.

firstly, i propose to dump the "imaginary" nomenclature,
even though it is very clear to math-folks, and to go
with "the real, scalar part, and its associated naked vector,
with it's three components, i, j and k,
usual noncommutative rule applied,
thak you.

hanson

2013-04-11 03:09:51 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.

Run the numbers. Dims & numerical size fit exactly:
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
..one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" wrote:
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
hanson worte:
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
I haven't the time to see your formalism,
but it might be okay with my (obvious) statements:
that "they are waves through the medium of free
space, which hath atoms."
hanson wrote:
Quincy, I am not interested in you judging the
formalism of Planck & Prok in [1] & [2]. But tell
how does your "atoms have angular momentum &
being waves through the medium of free space"
explain the nature of Gravity?
Quincy Hutchings wrote:
welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... Quincy, you have no scenario to explain
Gravity because you are a village idiot and a drunken
one at that, who simply uses some buzz words, but
who has no idea what they mean... just like you did
earlier with these:
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
ahahaha... Now Quincy, you tanked up Village idiot,
bring on your other very frequently used buzzword, your
"Quaternion" about which you don't know neither shit,
nor Jack Shit and much less do you know how to explain
gravity.
ahahahahaha.... ahahahaha.... Village idiot Quincy listen:
Go converse with some likes of yours, "imperial thinkers",
who like you do impress themselves with buzz words,
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
tha is correct; special relativity is really just quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's Jewish assistant,
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).

qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.

of course, as far as I know,
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... but Quincy, all you did now, is combining
your previous individual buzz-words into a huge
word-salad and mentioning the authors of your buzzwords
... yet nowhere have you provided an explanation for
the cause of gravity....
LOL. Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings"wrote:
<Quincy changed the subject line to>
Re: the naked-vector cause of gravity, ask Alfven; don't try to
parse hoho! ... although special relativity is "just quaternions,
and obviously not lightconeheads," in the calculational sense,
that doesn't interest mee too much, because ** I'm a geometer**.
yes, I should become more practiced with them, and will be,
but so should you be.

when Gibbs divided teh quaternions into an outer product space
(called vector machanics, again) and an inner product space,
it was to simplify some few important things, and had apparently
swept the engineering field, but it lost quite a bit, notably the
facility with rotations.

firstly, i propose to dump the "imaginary" nomenclature,
even though it is very clear to math-folks, and to go
with "the real, scalar part, and its associated naked vector,
with it's three components, i, j and k, usual noncommutative
rule applied, thak you.
hanson wrote:
Quincy, bring on example/s, equation/s & NUMBERS,
not just your math-ass philosophy word salad insistence
that some "naked-vector causes gravity". Don't be an
embarrassment to the math- and geometer folks.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-13 02:42:42 UTC

you are fre to do what inspires your agendum;
I don't have any pressing need to do quaternions,
relativity, or jumping jacks.

Post by hanson
when Gibbs divided teh quaternions into an outer product space
(called vector machanics, again) and an inner product space,
it was to simplify some few important things, and had apparently
swept the engineering field, but it lost quite a bit, notably the
facility with rotations.
firstly, i propose to dump the "imaginary" nomenclature,
even though it is very clear to math-folks, and to go
with "the real, scalar part, and its associated naked vector,
with it's three components, i, j and k, usual noncommutative
rule applied, thak you.

hanson

2013-04-13 07:27:53 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<***@hotmail.com> talked to himself because:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.

Run the numbers. Dims & numerical size fit exactly:
_____ G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 ______ [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
... one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" wrote:
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
hanson worte:
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
I haven't the time to see your formalism,
but it might be okay with my (obvious) statements:
that "they are waves through the medium of free
space, which hath atoms."
hanson wrote:
Quincy, I am not interested in you judging the
formalism of Planck & Prok in [1] & [2]. But tell
how does your "atoms have angular momentum &
being waves through the medium of free space"
explain the nature of Gravity?
Quincy Hutchings wrote:
welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... Quincy, you have no scenario to explain
Gravity because you are a village idiot and a drunken
one at that, who simply uses some buzz words, but
who has no idea what they mean... just like you did
earlier with these:
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
ahahaha... Now Quincy, you tanked up Village idiot,
bring on your other very frequently used buzzword, your
"Quaternion" about which you don't know neither shit,
nor Jack Shit and much less do you know how to explain
gravity.
ahahahahaha.... ahahahaha.... Village idiot Quincy listen:
Go converse with some likes of yours, "imperial thinkers",
who like you do impress themselves with buzz words,
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
tha is correct; special relativity is really just quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's Jewish assistant,
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).
qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.
of course, as far as I know,
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... but Quincy, all you did now, is combining
your previous individual buzz-words into a huge
word-salad and mentioning the authors of your buzzwords
... yet nowhere have you provided an explanation for
the cause of gravity....
LOL. Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings"wrote:
<Quincy changed the subject line to>
Re: the naked-vector cause of gravity, ask Alfven; don't try to
parse hoho! ... although special relativity is "just quaternions,
and obviously not lightconeheads," in the calculational sense,
that doesn't interest mee too much, because ** I'm a geometer**.
yes, I should become more practiced with them, and will be,
but so should you be.
when Gibbs divided teh quaternions into an outer product space
(called vector machanics, again) and an inner product space,
it was to simplify some few important things, and had apparently
swept the engineering field, but it lost quite a bit, notably the
facility with rotations.
firstly, i propose to dump the "imaginary" nomenclature,
even though it is very clear to math-folks, and to go
with "the real, scalar part, and its associated naked vector,
with it's three components, i, j and k, usual noncommutative
rule applied, thak you.
hanson wrote:
Quincy, bring on example/s, equation/s & NUMBERS,
not just your math-ass philosophy word salad insistence
that some "naked-vector causes gravity". Don't be an
embarrassment to the math- and geometer folks.
But now Quincy, by you talking to yourself you have shown
that you are an embarrassment, and not just the drunken
village idiots. Give it a rest now, Quincy... and THANKS
for the laughs, though... ahahahaha... hahahahanson
Quincy Hutchings wrote:
I don't have any pressing need to do quaternions,
relativity, or jumping jacks.
hanson wrote:
IOW, you can't, which is cool too. I enjoyed your
tormented laments though. Thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

john

2013-04-13 19:55:21 UTC

Post by hanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
_____ G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 ______ [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
... one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.
I haven't the time to see your formalism,
that "they are waves through the medium of free
space, which hath atoms."
Quincy, I am not interested in you judging the
formalism of Planck & Prok in [1] & [2]. But tell
how does your "atoms have angular momentum &
being waves through the medium of free space"
explain the nature of Gravity?
welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.
ahahaha.... Quincy, you have no scenario to explain
Gravity because you are a village idiot and a drunken
one at that, who simply uses some buzz words, but
who has no idea what they mean... just like you did
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
ahahaha... Now Quincy, you tanked up Village idiot,
bring on your other very frequently used buzzword, your
"Quaternion" about which you don't know neither shit,
nor Jack Shit and much less do you know how to explain
gravity.
Go converse with some likes of yours, "imperial thinkers",
who like you do impress themselves with buzz words,
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson
tha is correct; special relativity is really just quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's Jewish assistant,
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).
qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.
of course, as far as I know,
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.
.... ahahahaha... but Quincy, all you did now, is combining
your previous individual buzz-words into a huge
word-salad and mentioning the authors of your buzzwords
... yet nowhere have you provided an explanation for
the cause of gravity....
LOL. Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahanson
<Quincy changed the subject line to>
Re: the naked-vector cause of gravity, ask Alfven; don't try to
parse hoho! ... although special relativity is "just quaternions,
and obviously not lightconeheads," in the calculational sense,
that doesn't interest mee too much, because ** I'm a geometer**.
yes, I should become more practiced with them, and will be,
but so should you be.
when Gibbs divided teh quaternions into an outer product space
(called vector machanics, again) and an inner product space,
it was to simplify some few important things, and had apparently
swept the engineering field, but it lost quite a bit, notably the
facility with rotations.
firstly, i propose to dump the "imaginary" nomenclature,
even though it is very clear to math-folks, and to go
with "the real, scalar part, and its associated naked vector,
with it's three components, i, j and k, usual noncommutative
rule applied, thak you.
Quincy, bring on example/s, equation/s & NUMBERS,
not just your math-ass philosophy word salad insistence
that some "naked-vector causes gravity". Don't be an
embarrassment to the math- and geometer folks.
But now Quincy, by you talking to yourself you have shown
that you are an embarrassment, and not just the drunken
village idiots. Give it a rest now, Quincy... and THANKS
for the laughs, though... ahahahaha... hahahahanson
I don't have any pressing need to do quaternions,
relativity, or jumping jacks.
IOW, you can't, which is cool too. I enjoyed your
tormented laments though. Thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

The cause of gravity continues to be
all the REST of matter's relationship with you
and your planet.

john
galaxy model

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-13 21:36:31 UTC

I was just kidding about the jumping jacks;
my other name is N-thousand Jumping Jacks.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-13 02:39:39 UTC

all you really hagve to do, to comprehend relativity
is get rid of Minkowski's screw-up. it is so simple.

however, Minkowski is still good for some thing.

Post by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).
qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.

hanson

2013-04-13 03:06:52 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<***@hotmail.com> talked to himself because:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.

Run the numbers. Dims & numerical size fit exactly:
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
... one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" wrote:
atoms have angular monetum.
hanson wrote: ... So what?....
You repeat that every 2nd day.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
they are waves through the medium of free space,
which hath atoms.
hanson worte:
Why are you answering the question in a different
thread?... ahahaha... Sunday afternoon.... and you
are drunk again, aren't you, Quincy.... ahahahaha..
Now wincey Quincy, how does your "atoms have
angular momentum & being waves through the
medium of free space" explain the nature of Gravity?
You may resort to your "thus"- and "hath"-English
if you believe that it will enhance the intelligence
of your response, but stay in the same thread
like "1 tree in a Petrified Forest Lane" would do.
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
I haven't the time to see your formalism,
but it might be okay with my (obvious) statements:
that "they are waves through the medium of free
space, which hath atoms."
hanson wrote:
Quincy, I am not interested in you judging the
formalism of Planck & Prok in [1] & [2]. But tell
how does your "atoms have angular momentum &
being waves through the medium of free space"
explain the nature of Gravity?
Quincy Hutchings wrote:
welcome to the world of Einsteinmania,
plus Alfven; tehy ain't wrongsville.
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.... Quincy, you have no scenario to explain
Gravity because you are a village idiot and a drunken
one at that, who simply uses some buzz words, but
who has no idea what they mean... just like you did
earlier with these:
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
ahahaha... Now Quincy, you tanked up Village idiot,
bring on your other very frequently used buzzword, your
"Quaternion" about which you don't know neither shit,
nor Jack Shit and much less do you know how to explain
gravity.
ahahahahaha.... ahahahaha.... Village idiot Quincy listen:
Go converse with some likes of yours, "imperial thinkers",
who like you do impress themselves with buzz words,
such as the faith-based ZNR Semite anti Oligarch Brad
Guth and/or the bigoted raciost pig, kike "G=EMC^2" Bert
Glazier. __ You will feel great amongst your equals ___.
Till then, Qunicy, thank for the laughs... ahahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
tha is correct; special relativity is really just quaternions,
as shown by Einstien's Jewish assistant,
Lanczos, in _Variational Machanics_ (Dover).
qaudratic eqautions using quaternions,
teh original vector mechanics lingo by Hamilton,
also teh creator of the first (other) phase-space,
or configuration space, the Hamiltonian.
of course, as far as I know,
garvity is just an ermergent property of the discoveries
of the Alfven school in plasma labs. perhaps,
your "abovesville" might be a very simplified form of that.
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... but Quincy, all you did now, is combining
your previous individual buzz-words into a huge
word-salad and mentioning the authors of your buzzwords
... yet nowhere have you provided an explanation for
the cause of gravity....
LOL. Thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahahanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings"wrote:
<Quincy changed the subject line to>
Re: the naked-vector cause of gravity, ask Alfven; don't try to
parse hoho! ... although special relativity is "just quaternions,
and obviously not lightconeheads," in the calculational sense,
that doesn't interest mee too much, because ** I'm a geometer**.
yes, I should become more practiced with them, and will be,
but so should you be.
when Gibbs divided teh quaternions into an outer product space
(called vector machanics, again) and an inner product space,
it was to simplify some few important things, and had apparently
swept the engineering field, but it lost quite a bit, notably the
facility with rotations.
firstly, i propose to dump the "imaginary" nomenclature,
even though it is very clear to math-folks, and to go
with "the real, scalar part, and its associated naked vector,
with it's three components, i, j and k, usual noncommutative
rule applied, thak you.
hanson wrote:
Quincy, bring on example/s, equation/s & NUMBERS,
not just your math-ass philosophy word salad insistence
that some "naked-vector causes gravity". Don't be an
embarrassment to the math- and geometer folks.
But now Quincy, by you talking to yourself you have shown
that you are an embarrassment, and not just the drunken
village idiots. Give it a rest now, Quincy... and THANKS
for the laughs, though... ahahahaha./.. hahahahanson

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-22 19:39:12 UTC

the only embarrassment is that no-one knows
of Minkowski's other ****. because of his goofball,
used to confuse everyone, including mathematicians & physicists.

once I explain it in terms of quadric surfaces,
no-one finds it difficult, and certainly,
no numbers have to be harmed in the process.

hanson

2013-04-22 21:22:41 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"

Post by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
the only embarrassment is that

|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
Quincy, Porat is a mental giant when compared to you!

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-23 01:26:05 UTC

... and put them straight back on, again.

Post by hanson
Porat is a mental giant when compared to you!

hanson

2013-04-23 03:15:14 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"

Post by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
the only embarrassment is that

Y.Porat

2013-04-23 07:38:00 UTC

Post by hanson
"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"

Post by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
the only embarrassment is that

=================
Thank you Hanson my friend

space is nothing
and has no properties
***except hosting mass***

GRAVITY IS PROPERTY OF MASS !!!

see the Y Circlon idea
a basic** massive tiny** particle
that moves *naturally* in curved path
and
if not disturbed on its way
it moves in a closed circle
if colliding with another Circlon
it either reverses its curved movement
or chamges its path of movement
ie
changes its radius of path
as a result
IT CAN MOVE IN ANY RADIUS CURVE
FEOM THE SMALLEST RADIUS
TO THE BIGGEST ONE
SO SUCH system IDEA
CAN UNIFY
****ALL ATTRACTION FORCES ****!!!

see
at the ** appendix** of my home made site :
Google:

The Y Porat Model an abstract

''one simple picture might worth a thousand words'
and 500 formula

old copyright of
Eng Yehiel Porat
=========================================

tj Frazir

2013-04-09 04:05:38 UTC

The moon orbits at 2300 mph.
If your in orbit of earth at 2300 mph and fire rockets and go 6300 MPH
in that orbit your 2 Gs going away from earth.

Thats twice excape speed from that point.
You cant orbit the moon at 4000 mph because the centrifical force from
earths orbit at 6300 mph is more force then the moon can pull against.

Not even a rock can orbit the moon.
NO lunar orbits are possible.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

john

2013-04-09 06:44:58 UTC

I know I harp.

Different words.

It's all a huge fractal based on atom/galaxy.
At each level there is radiation- photons and neutrinos,
and matter, and highly-magnetized ions expelled as jets from AGNs.

And since all the levels are in the
same place, all the radiations are, too.
Space has *just as much energy* contained in the
fractal neutrinos from electrons as it does
in neutrinos from stars.

And it is the shadowing of
these fractal neutrinos from electrons by the
protons that absorb them that causes gravity and inertia.

john
galaxy model
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

tj Frazir

2013-04-09 04:00:13 UTC

Your all just fucking stupid.
Time is faster near mass and mass is a slope where time is a slope.
NO two points in the universe is at the same time.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

Y.Porat

2013-04-08 11:09:15 UTC

Post by hanson

Post by Koobee Wublee
Koobee Wublee does not believe in action at a distance
plagued with Newtonian physics. <shrug>

It's not little bungee cords, Koobee!

Sam, you pretend to know it all, so what exactly is
the "explanation" of gravity? I'm sure you've got
some links to popular "science" writers.

Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2, says that Newton's "G"
is the result of the ratio of the electric charge
per its Planck mass. So, Gravity appears to be
a manifestation of the existence of EM charges.
Dims and numerical size fit exactly.
The problem arises with e^2 = a*hear*co, that
connects the electric charge to the Hop's
uncertainty of the photon's energy, when measured
as being I = h*f about which Einstein grieved & said
in <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.
Yet, you arm chair dudes, propose to have solutions?
ROTFLMAO... aahahahahanson

=====================
Hi Hanson my friend

long ago that the smallest single photon energy is "

E Photon min = hf time n
while
0 > n <<<< 1.0000
and more curate is
by
taking that n
as the scalar part of the
Plank time !!

and the mass of that single photon
is by dividing the above energy
by c^2!!
remember ???
it is in the order of ...

exp -90 Kilograms !!....
and that is why people that the mass
of the photon is zero ..
may be practically
but not theoretically
and even so
it is a revolution in modern science
---
old copyright of mine
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
============================

hanson

2013-04-08 16:16:55 UTC

Yehiel "Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
hanson wrote:
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.

Run the numbers. Dims numerical size fit exactly
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
..one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.

Post by Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
=====================

Yehiel Porat wrote:

Hi Hanson my friend,
long ago that the smallest single photon energy is "
E Photon min = hf time n
while 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 and more curate is by
taking that n as the scalar part of the Plank time !!
and the mass of that single photon is by dividing
the above energy by c^2!! ... remember ???
it is in the order of exp -90 Kilograms !!.... and that
is why people that the mass of the photon is zero ..
may be practically but not theoretically and even so
it is a revolution in modern science
---
old copyright of mine
TIA
Y.Porat
hanson wrote:
Yehi, my dear old haver, it's good to hear from you.
You are absolutely right with your belief which you
have copyrighted. One can "skin that cat" in very
many ways, and each one of all the onlookers sees
something different. And like you have stated else-
where... it is true that what counts is only whether
what one sees can be used in practical engineering.
Take care old buddy, stay safe and healthy
hanson

Y.Porat

2013-04-09 14:26:20 UTC

Post by hanson
Basically, a simple case can be made for the
"explanation" of gravity by mathematical inference.
Run the numbers. Dims numerical size fit exactly
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass.
Or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the number of
electric charges on a given mass
or, Gravitation is a manifestation of the (quantified?)
charge density on a given mass.
The experimental case for e/m has been measured
by Millikan's Oil drop experiment way back in 1909.
The illbegotten steam roller of Einstein's SR/GR
Gedanken farts suppressed any further investigation
into the now obvious connection between e, m & G.
So, Gravity appears to be a manifestation of the
presence of EM charges on mass entities.
Experiments with capacitors type gizmos may yield
further insights about the cause of Gravity.
One may also take into consideration that (+) & (-)
electric elementary unit charges may be opposite
but NOT quite of the same strength. This symmetry
may be broken at the level of 10^(-39) and produce
a scenario that
the electric attractive force between ( + - ) EM charges
is stronger by a fraction of 1/10^39 then the repelling
force is between like (+ +) or (- -) charges...
In that case one then could measure an EXCESS of
attractive force between Mol sized quantities of
electrically neutral masses, as is commonly seen in
the here and now local and celestial realm... and...
..one is home free to explain Gravity.... by electing to
see Gravity as being a vanishing residual or differential
effect of the electric charge behavior.
Relating to that, in 1970, Prokhovnik raised the notion
that the density (rho) of atoms in free (cosmological)
space and the size of the Hubble constant H explain
Gravity simply as being ___ G = H^2 / rho __. [2]
One may combine expressions [1] and [2] and arrive
yet at another set of explanations for the cause of
gravity.
A classical problem for gravity explanations arises
from e^2 = a*hbar*c, which connects the electric charge
to the HUP's uncertainty of the photon's energy, which
when measured as E = h*f, caused Einstein grief &
say in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta, aka h*f?'.

Post by Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
=====================

Hi Hanson my friend,
long ago that the smallest single photon energy is "
E Photon min = hf time n
while 0 > n <<<< 1.0000 and more curate is by
taking that n as the scalar part of the Plank time !!
and the mass of that single photon is by dividing
the above energy by c^2!! ... remember ???
it is in the order of exp -90 Kilograms !!.... and that
is why people that the mass of the photon is zero ..
may be practically but not theoretically and even so
it is a revolution in modern science
---
old copyright of mine
TIA
Y.Porat
Yehi, my dear old haver, it's good to hear from you.
You are absolutely right with your belief which you
have copyrighted. One can "skin that cat" in very
many ways, and each one of all the onlookers sees
something different. And like you have stated else-
where... it is true that what counts is only whether
what one sees can be used in practical engineering.
Take care old buddy, stay safe and healthy
hanson

================
Hi Hanson

please remind me what is the
Plank mass that you mentioned above

2
the advantage of my Circon idea is
a
that is tangible physically
ie
not just a formula on the flat paper
b
something that you will like much better..

ie
it canceling the need of
Curved space time
ie
GR ???...!!!
the curved movement is done by the
massive Circlon!!

c

it is a suggeted solution for

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------

Y.Porat

2013-04-09 14:39:27 UTC

Post by Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Post by Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
=====================

================
Hi Hanson
please remind me what is the
Plank mass that you mentioned above
2
the advantage of my Circon idea is
a
that is tangible physically
ie
not just a formula on the flat paper
b
something that you will like much better..
ie
it canceling the need of
Curved space time
ie
GR ???...!!!
the curved movement is done by the
massive Circlon!!
c
it is a suggeted solution for
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------

Sorry
my post was ended not as i wanted
i dont know why it was sent without my order ??

so
in addition to the above :
ie

c
that Circlon idea is good fopr all attraction forces !!

each kind of force
is done by different radius of curvature
(smaller or bigger radius
and density of them by different numbers
so for instance
the strong forces are done by]more Circlons
with smaller radi !!!
iow
more mass in a smaller volume !!
etc
so that idea has (imho)
a big potential of development !!!
potential

to UNIFY ALL FORCES
ON A SIMPLE **COMMON** BASE
is it not a good idea for another copyright idea (as a good start )???

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
===================================

hanson

2013-04-09 15:19:38 UTC

Yehiel "Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
hanson wrote:
Run the numbers. Dims & numerical size fit exactly:
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass, m_pl
<snip>
Yehiel Porat wrote:
Hi Hanson my friend,
please remind me what is the
Plank mass that you mentioned above
hanson wrote:
The Planck mass is one of the 3 measuring
units used in particle physics, conjured up
by Max Planck in 1894. They simple relate
hbar, c and G to each other, like for
. m_pl = sqrt (hbar * c / G) = ~ 0.002 mg
which is the size of a barly visible speck of dust.
These units are math artifacts and they do NOT
exist in nature, or at most only for the duration of
one Planck time unit which is ~ 10^(-44) sec

Y.Porat

2013-04-11 07:32:57 UTC

Post by hanson
G = a * e^2 / m_pl^2 [1]
It says that Newton's "G" is the result of the ratio
of the electric charge per its Planck mass, m_pl
<snip>
Hi Hanson my friend,
please remind me what is the
Plank mass that you mentioned above
The Planck mass is one of the 3 measuring
units used in particle physics, conjured up
by Max Planck in 1894. They simple relate
hbar, c and G to each other, like for
. m_pl = sqrt (hbar * c / G) = ~ 0.002 mg
which is the size of a barly visible speck of dust.
These units are math artifacts and they do NOT
exist in nature, or at most only for the duration of
one Planck time unit which is ~ 10^(-44) sec

They are used to convert events from one scale
of magnitude to another one and the closest that
the Plank mass comes to reality is that it represents
. m_pl = m_e * a * (N_A*pi*sqrt3).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass
Take care old buddy, stay safe and healthy
hanson

-----------------------
Thank you Hanson
for your detailed answer
2
i see that there is no connection between
that Plank time
and my
smallest photon mass
AS YOU THOUGHT ME JUST NOW
THE Plank mass is only some mathematical
use or manipllation of his formula
E=hf
apparently with no much concrete
tangible physical meaning

BASED AS WELL 0N THE [PLANK TIME !!! (:-)
OTHOA

i succeeded to extract of the same
E=hf
some concrete tangible physical
entity
ie
what is
the smallest photon mass !!
something (from memory )
in the order of
exp - 90 Kilograms !!
the Plank time you quoted is about the mass of a dust unit ie 0.00x kilograms

Othoa
my smallest **mass of the photon** is

0. 90 zeros!!! times x !!!!!!

is it possible that i used Plank time --
(to get smallest mass )
better ( practical) than Plank himself
used his Plank formula ?? ...
BTW
did plank himself showed that ''Plank mass''
or was it other people after him ???

after all more than 100 years of more information passed between him and mine !!.

TIA
Y.Porat
==================================.

ie

Hf times the ****scalar part***
of Plank time
is it possible that i used Palnks time

better thanPlank himself

john

2013-04-11 14:22:45 UTC

Post by Y.Porat

-----------------------
Thank you Hanson
for your detailed answer
2
i see that there is no connection between
that Plank time
and my
smallest photon mass
AS YOU THOUGHT ME JUST NOW
THE Plank mass is only some mathematical
use or manipllation of his formula
E=hf
apparently with no much concrete
tangible physical meaning
BASED AS WELL 0N THE [PLANK TIME !!! (:-)
OTHOA
i succeeded to extract of the same
E=hf
some concrete tangible physical
entity
ie
what is
the smallest photon mass !!
something (from memory )
in the order of
exp - 90 Kilograms !!
the Plank time you quoted is about the mass of a dust unit ie 0.00x kilograms
Othoa
my smallest **mass of the photon** is
0. 90 zeros!!! times x !!!!!!
is it possible that i used Plank time --
(to get smallest mass )
better ( practical) than Plank himself
used his Plank formula ?? ...
BTW
did plank himself showed that ''Plank mass''
or was it other people after him ???
after all more than 100 years of more information passed between him and mine !!.
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================.
ie
Hf times the ****scalar part***
of Plank time
is it possible that i used Palnks time
better thanPlank himself

There is no smallest because smaller is smaller.

john

Y.Porat

2013-04-12 07:14:48 UTC

Post by john

Post by Y.Porat

-----------------------
Thank you Hanson
for your detailed answer
2
i see that there is no connection between
that Plank time
and my
smallest photon mass
AS YOU THOUGHT ME JUST NOW
THE Plank mass is only some mathematical
use or manipllation of his formula
E=hf
apparently with no much concrete
tangible physical meaning
BASED AS WELL 0N THE [PLANK TIME !!! (:-)
OTHOA
i succeeded to extract of the same
E=hf
some concrete tangible physical
entity
ie
what is
the smallest photon mass !!
something (from memory )
in the order of
exp - 90 Kilograms !!
the Plank time you quoted is about the mass of a dust unit ie 0.00x kilograms
Othoa
my smallest **mass of the photon** is
0. 90 zeros!!! times x !!!!!!
is it possible that i used Plank time --
(to get smallest mass )
better ( practical) than Plank himself
used his Plank formula ?? ...
BTW
did plank himself showed that ''Plank mass''
or was it other people after him ???
after all more than 100 years of more information passed between him and mine !!.
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================.
ie
Hf times the ****scalar part***
of Plank time
is it possible that i used Palnks time
better thanPlank himself

There is no smallest because smaller is smaller.
john

=======================
The smallest possible is ZERO !!
but that is not physics
in physics we deal with nonzero entities !!!

because if it is zero
it is by definition -- nonexistent !!!

2
we deal in physics with
what can be detected directly or indirectly !!

while
i based my historic suggestion for the smallest
Photon energy /mass
on the E=hf formula
that is unquestionably for most modern physicists
and experimentally BASED !!
if you dont know how i did it
please see Google :

'The smallest real single photon ... energy (mass)''
a few years ago

based on the historic
physics cornerstone of Plank

and if that is not physics
than what is physics ???.......

TIA
Y.Porat
-
================================

hanson

2013-04-22 03:04:18 UTC

Y.Porat

2013-04-22 17:18:38 UTC

=====================
Hi Hanson
may be i didnt explain myself good enough
you say
it is known a 100yers
but you are wrong or ddint understoood my innovation :

the common understanding all laong the 100yers
is that

E=hf
is the definition of the single photon energy
yet i showed it wrong and fatally wrong for Modern physics that was based on that ''understanding ''
because
f is one second defined !!
while i showed that photon energy emission
is doneas well during muchless than
one second
so i coined the histiric formula :

E photon min - hf time n
while

o > n <<< 1.0000
remember ???

that is not known 100years
that is known only a few years
until an anonymous friend of yours
discovered and published it here !!
later i was looking about
what is the scientific known shortest time
and i found the Plank time to be the
the shortest known
and i inaserted it to that n
toget the smallest photon energy
that is as well a copyright of mine
btw
i used only the scaalr oart of aplanktime
in order to settle the rigthj dimensions
for
PHOTON ENERGY
and later i did the next historic unprecedented step
by finding from the above smallest energy
the smallest possible (suggested )
photon mas
now Hanson my friend
you forgot thati am the first one
that proved that
THE PHOTON HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS
IE NOT AS 'KNOWN FOR 100 YEARS
''RELATIVISTIC MASS ''
moreover
people asked my
yet how come that the mass of the photon
is not relativistic
yet it moves withthe velocity of c

''that no mass can do it !

and your friend Yehi
postulated another innovation :

THE MASS OF THE PHOTON IS ***AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
THAT NO MASS CAN REAL c !!!
and explained it even mathematically
by showing that
the gamma factor is UNDEFINED EVEN MATHEMATICALLY
while
V=c
now Hanson my friend
you forgot all the above
and want to deprive me from all my historic
(copyrighted )achievements (:-)

TIA
Y.Porat
=============================

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-22 19:42:46 UTC

I doubt that anyome can comprehend your language,
certainly not haha (at least,
he makes no indication, at all, that he does comprehend) and
probably not yourself.

hanson

2013-04-22 21:20:48 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
<***@hotmail.com>
|||Quincy asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?
||| Quincy says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards
||| Quincy says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Quincy says: patent office.
||||Quincy says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Quincy says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Quincy says: that are absolute F and FS."
Quincy, Porat is a mental giant when compared to you!

1treePetrifiedForestLane

2013-04-23 01:24:19 UTC

if you can glean one thing that he is saying,
you are a real mentalist. I mean, even if
he does know what he means,
his English is just too awful.

and, ** yours, three.

Post by hanson
Porat is a mental giant when compared to you!

hanson

2013-04-23 03:15:52 UTC

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"

Post by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
the only embarrassment is that

G=EMC^2

2013-04-23 14:02:22 UTC

Post by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
if you can glean one thing that he is saying,
you are a real mentalist. I mean, even if
he does know what he means,
his English is just too awful.
and, ** yours, three.

Post by hanson
Porat is a mental giant when compared to you!

Me and I posted it for 22 years. Went a set further and gave the
reason for aether expansion. You all must know my "concave & convex
theory" by now. Also best to keep in mind gravity and inertia are two
sides to the same coin TreBert.

hanson

2013-04-23 15:23:49 UTC

Is that the final curtain call from 2 splendid Yidds?...
or just two more sentimental Yiddisher street corner
performances, announcing their contributions to physics?
One is by my good Israeli friend Yehiel Porat,
with whom I had many enlightening discussions
and the other
one by my special AshkeNAZI sport, the Jewish Jailbird
Hebe-Herbie Glazier whose futile passion and yearing
was to piss on my grave...
Yehiel "Y.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
First of all i want to be remembered as the originator of all
my historic innovations
and surprisingly enough it is not self understandable in
opur croocked world that is full of ungrateful dishonest
people not to mention thieve crooks say like Paul Draper
that is hiding behind the name ''Absolute vertical''
while that act in itself is an act of theft and dishonesty
and he us not the only one like that
2
just notice for instance
the invaluable importance of ust one single finding of mine
WHILE I PROVED THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS -
THE ONLY MASS (IE NOT RELATIVISTIC(
I SHOWED THE HIGS BOSON AS DEAD AT ARRIVAL !!
IE IF ENERGY HAS MASS NO NEED FOR THAT f EN
HIGGS TO GIVE MASS TO PARTICLES WHILE IT IS
MASS WHO DOES IT SIMPLY -MUCH SIMPLER
2
particles are built FROM THE SMALLER TO THE BIGGER
AND NOT VICE VERSE NO need to be a genius to
undestand it. no think about the millions invested in that
idiotic idea !! so, you see that right sound findings can
make huge real useful *** advance and prevent huge waist
of human resources that are so badly needed at our time
The problem is to be able to publish it to as many as possible
decent people like you and it is not easy ..even **.our days ...
TIA, Y.Porat
"G=EMC^2" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
I am Not fading away but going out in a flash. "OooPs"
Make that a splash. I'm getting closer to my final sail.
Still able to set my sail nomatter which way the wind blows.
One has to have a good imagination to see into the quantum
realm, and see beyond the micro realm.
I always got a clear day dream picture.
Me and I posted it for 22 years. As an imperial thinker I went
a set further and gave the reason for aether expansion.
You all must know my "concave & convex theory" and
my "Heavy air theory" by now.
Also best to keep in mind gravity and inertia are two
sides to the same coin TreBert.

hanson wrote:
Thanks for your love and trust in me, you guys.
I appreciate your truly heroic efforts, but since I am not
the grim reaper nor one of the 4 apocalyptic Horsemen,
nor a rabbi to confess to, it is a mystery why I have
been entrusted with yor final wishes.
I nether the less deeply cherish your testaments.
Thank you Yehi and Herbie!
I am looking forward to many more years of fun and
laughs with you guys... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

Sam Wormley

2013-04-23 15:27:31 UTC

Post by G=EMC^2
Me and I posted it for 22 years. Went a set further and gave the
reason for aether expansion. You all must know my "concave & convex
theory" by now. Also best to keep in mind gravity and inertia are two
sides to the same coin TreBert.

Question: if Bert is ailing, is Treb ailing also. Are Treb and Bert
inextricably linked. What happens to one happens to the other?

benj

2013-04-24 00:04:33 UTC

Question: if Bert is ailing, is Treb ailing also. Are Treb and Bert
inextricably linked. What happens to one happens to the other?

You know, Sam, it's truly interesting that the "standard" proof against
any statement in this group is to call the person saying it "insane". Yet
Herb has freely admitted that not only does he have two additional
personalities that speak to him in his head, but also posts the most
incomprehensible of "scientific theories", but everyone loves him.
Nobody, not even HVAC, calls him insane and never advance beyond
"senile".

You suck up to him all the time as if he were the height of reason and
sanity pretending his nonsense is actual science. A psychologist could
write a very decent paper on these phenomena!

Don't forget MY "wood is good" theory of AGW, Sam!

hanson

2013-04-22 20:51:19 UTC

They are used to convert events from one scale
of magnitude to another one and the closest that
the Plank mass comes to reality is that it represents
1 mol (N_A) of electron masses *(m_e) per:
. m_pl = m_e * a * (N_A*pi*sqrt3). [2]
For General info see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass
Take care old buddy, stay safe and healthy
hanson
"Yehiel.Porat" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Hanson, for your detailed answer
I see that there is no connection between
that Plank time and my smallest photon mass
AS YOU THOUGHT ME JUST kNOW THE
Plank mass is only some mathematical
use or manipllation of his formula E=hf
apparently with no much concrete tangible
physical meaning.
hanson wrote:
It depends to which group of physicists you
talk to about it. To the theoretician it has a
very profound meaning, while it does NOT
matter at all in mechanical and engineering
physics.
"Yehiel" wrote:
BASED AS WELL 0N THE [PLANK TIME !!! (:-)
OTHOA i succeeded to extract of the same
E=hf > some concrete tangible physical > entity
ie what is the smallest photon mass !!
something (from memory ) in the order of
exp - 90 Kilograms !!
the Plank time you quoted is about the mass
of a dust unit ie 0.00x kilograms
Othoa my smallest **mass of the photon** is
0. 90 zeros!!! times x !!!!!!
hanson wrote:
Good for you, Yehi!
Yehi wrote:
is it possible that i used Plank time --
(to get smallest mass ) better ( practical) than Plank
himself used his Plank formula ?? ...
Hf times the ****scalar part*** of Plank time is it possible
that i used Palnks time better thanPlank himself
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... How should I know? You have not
shown me any of your calculations. What is the
scalar part*** of Plank time?
Yehi wrote:
did plank himself showed that ''Plank mass''
or was it other people after him ???
after all more than 100 years of more information
passed between him and mine !!.
hanson wrote:
Not Planck nor anybody else "showed" the m_pl.
The Planck mass, m_pl, does NOT exist.
But, there are real particles though that have a mass
of x m_pl. See above in equation [2]
The Planck mass is a measuring unit, like a gram,
a kilo, a ton or an ounce, .. which also do not exist.
But the there are items, like a gefilte fish that has a
mass of say 500 gr
The only difference is that unlike the arbitrary MKS
units, the Planck measuring units are base on the
fundamental physical constants, like
Planck's constant hbar , Newton's "G" & Light's "c".
I know that you, Yehi. can read and interpret equations,
unlike most if the posters in s.p. So, I shall post them
for you here and lament about them::
Planck mass: m_pl = (hbar * c/G)^1/2
Planck length: l_pl = (hbar * G/c^3)^1/2
Planck time: t_pl = (hbar * G/c^5)^1/2
See Yehi, the Planck units are just different ratio's of
the fundamental physical units hbar, G & c.
Now since the units of hbar, G & c are based on the
manifest and measured properties of particles that
exist in the real world, like the electron or the Hydrogen
atom, it is no surprise that all that with (N_A, Avogadro's#)
1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planks mass... and
1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius, &/a
1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical electron-radius
1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
or as equations:

::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
:::1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
or conversly
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
:::1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius
or
::: *** r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
:::1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius
or
::: *** tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
::: 1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
So, Yehi, all that stuff is known since the early 1900s.
Bing/Google for it. It's fascinating stuff that got buried
though under the useless steam roller of Relativity,
which had only one good outcome: It made it possible
for you to live where you are now.
You and me know why so. For all others it's classified!
Take care old haver. You are a good man!
Your old friend,
hanson
Yehiel Porat wrote:
Hi Hanson
may be i didnt explain myself good enough you say it is
known a 100yers but you are wrong or ddint understoood
my innovation :
hanson wrote:
Well, yeah, situations like that do happen. You gave me
the impression though that you wanted explanations
about the Planck measuring units.
Yehiel Porat wrote:
the common understanding all laong the 100yers is that
E=hf is the definition of the single photon energy
yet i showed it wrong and fatally wrong for Modern physics
that was based on that ''understanding '' because f is
one second defined !!
while i showed that photon energy emission is doneas
well during muchless than one second so i coined the
histiric formula :
E photon min - hf time n, while o > n <<< 1.0000
hanson wrote:
Right. Your eqatuion appears to be absolutely correct
for the needs in your advanced physics.Copyright it.
Yehiel Porat wrote:
that is not known 100years, that is known only a few years
until an anonymous friend of yours discovered and
published it here !!
later i was looking about what is the scientific known
shortest time and i found the Plank time to be the
the shortest time known
hanson wrote:
But, Yehi, there are time intervals which are much shorter
then the Planck Time. Here are a few of them:
1) the Planck’s time unit is :
....... t_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^5)] = 5.4e-44 sec
2) the electron base time unit is:
....... t_e = (m_e*G)/c^3) = 2.2e-66 sec
3) and a gravitational time unit is:
...... t_gr = [t_pl ^2] *2 * H = 1.12e-104 sec
which makes t_gr out to be a whopping 60 orders of
magnitude smaller than is the Planck’s time unit, t_pl:
Yehiel Porat wrote:
and i inaserted it to that n toget the smallest photon
energy that is as well a copyright of mine btw i used
only the scaalr oart of aplanktime in order to settle
the rigthj dimensions for PHOTON ENERGY
and later i did the next historic unprecedented step
by finding from the above smallest energy the smallest
possible (suggested ) photon mas
now Hanson my friend you forgot thati am the first one
that proved that
THE PHOTON HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS
IE NOT AS 'KNOWN FOR 100 YEARS
''RELATIVISTIC MASS ''
moreover people asked my yet how come that the
mass of the photon is not relativistic yet it moves with
the velocity of c ''that no mass can do it !

and your friend Yehi postulated another innovation :

THE MASS OF THE PHOTON IS ***AN EXCEPTION
TO THE RULE THAT NO MASS CAN REAL c !!!
and explained it even mathematically by showing that the
gamma factor is UNDEFINED EVEN MATHEMATICALLY
while V=c
hanson wrote:
That is wonderful, Yehiel. I am so proud of you!
Yehiel Porat wrote:
now Hanson my friend you forgot all the above
and want to deprive me from all my historic
(copyrighted )achievements (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
hanson wrote:
For heaven's sake, no, Yehi. I would never do a thing
like that. Besides, you do not need to worry in the 1st
place, since you have the full copyright protection
under the international umbrella of WIPO and others.
Just make sure to pay them their annual fees, or your
copyrights will eva-Porat-e, well, evaporate that is, and
some other shmuck will make the $Billion that will
be generated from & with your historic innovations.
Good luck with it, Yehi. Stay safe and healthy and
thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

Y.Porat

2013-04-23 08:07:25 UTC

They are used to convert events from one scale
of magnitude to another one and the closest that
the Plank mass comes to reality is that it represents
. m_pl = m_e * a * (N_A*pi*sqrt3). [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass
Take care old buddy, stay safe and healthy
hanson
Thank you Hanson, for your detailed answer
I see that there is no connection between
that Plank time and my smallest photon mass
AS YOU THOUGHT ME JUST kNOW THE
Plank mass is only some mathematical
use or manipllation of his formula E=hf
apparently with no much concrete tangible
physical meaning.
It depends to which group of physicists you
talk to about it. To the theoretician it has a
very profound meaning, while it does NOT
matter at all in mechanical and engineering
physics.
BASED AS WELL 0N THE [PLANK TIME !!! (:-)
OTHOA i succeeded to extract of the same
E=hf > some concrete tangible physical > entity
ie what is the smallest photon mass !!
something (from memory ) in the order of
exp - 90 Kilograms !!
the Plank time you quoted is about the mass
of a dust unit ie 0.00x kilograms
Othoa my smallest **mass of the photon** is
0. 90 zeros!!! times x !!!!!!
Good for you, Yehi!
is it possible that i used Plank time --
(to get smallest mass ) better ( practical) than Plank
himself used his Plank formula ?? ...
Hf times the ****scalar part*** of Plank time is it possible
that i used Palnks time better thanPlank himself
... ahahahaha... How should I know? You have not
shown me any of your calculations. What is the
scalar part*** of Plank time?
did plank himself showed that ''Plank mass''
or was it other people after him ???
after all more than 100 years of more information
passed between him and mine !!.
Not Planck nor anybody else "showed" the m_pl.
The Planck mass, m_pl, does NOT exist.
But, there are real particles though that have a mass
of x m_pl. See above in equation [2]
The Planck mass is a measuring unit, like a gram,
a kilo, a ton or an ounce, .. which also do not exist.
But the there are items, like a gefilte fish that has a
mass of say 500 gr
The only difference is that unlike the arbitrary MKS
units, the Planck measuring units are base on the
fundamental physical constants, like
Planck's constant hbar , Newton's "G" & Light's "c".
I know that you, Yehi. can read and interpret equations,
unlike most if the posters in s.p. So, I shall post them
Planck mass: m_pl = (hbar * c/G)^1/2
Planck length: l_pl = (hbar * G/c^3)^1/2
Planck time: t_pl = (hbar * G/c^5)^1/2
See Yehi, the Planck units are just different ratio's of
the fundamental physical units hbar, G & c.
Now since the units of hbar, G & c are based on the
manifest and measured properties of particles that
exist in the real world, like the electron or the Hydrogen
atom, it is no surprise that all that with (N_A, Avogadro's#)
1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planks mass... and
1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius, &/a
1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical electron-radius
1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
:::1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
or conversly
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
:::1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius
or
::: *** r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
:::1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius
or
::: *** tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
::: 1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
So, Yehi, all that stuff is known since the early 1900s.
Bing/Google for it. It's fascinating stuff that got buried
though under the useless steam roller of Relativity,
which had only one good outcome: It made it possible
for you to live where you are now.
You and me know why so. For all others it's classified!
Take care old haver. You are a good man!
Your old friend,
hanson
Hi Hanson
may be i didnt explain myself good enough you say it is
known a 100yers but you are wrong or ddint understoood
Well, yeah, situations like that do happen. You gave me
the impression though that you wanted explanations
about the Planck measuring units.
the common understanding all laong the 100yers is that
E=hf is the definition of the single photon energy
yet i showed it wrong and fatally wrong for Modern physics
that was based on that ''understanding '' because f is
one second defined !!
while i showed that photon energy emission is doneas
well during muchless than one second so i coined the
E photon min - hf time n, while o > n <<< 1.0000
Right. Your eqatuion appears to be absolutely correct
for the needs in your advanced physics.Copyright it.
that is not known 100years, that is known only a few years
until an anonymous friend of yours discovered and
published it here !!
later i was looking about what is the scientific known
shortest time and i found the Plank time to be the
the shortest time known
But, Yehi, there are time intervals which are much shorter
....... t_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^5)] = 5.4e-44 sec
....... t_e = (m_e*G)/c^3) = 2.2e-66 sec
...... t_gr = [t_pl ^2] *2 * H = 1.12e-104 sec
which makes t_gr out to be a whopping 60 orders of
and i inaserted it to that n toget the smallest photon
energy that is as well a copyright of mine btw i used
only the scaalr oart of aplanktime in order to settle
the rigthj dimensions for PHOTON ENERGY
and later i did the next historic unprecedented step
by finding from the above smallest energy the smallest
possible (suggested ) photon mas
now Hanson my friend you forgot thati am the first one
that proved that
THE PHOTON HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS
IE NOT AS 'KNOWN FOR 100 YEARS
''RELATIVISTIC MASS ''
moreover people asked my yet how come that the
mass of the photon is not relativistic yet it moves with
the velocity of c ''that no mass can do it !
THE MASS OF THE PHOTON IS ***AN EXCEPTION
TO THE RULE THAT NO MASS CAN REAL c !!!
and explained it even mathematically by showing that the
gamma factor is UNDEFINED EVEN MATHEMATICALLY
while V=c
That is wonderful, Yehiel. I am so proud of you!
now Hanson my friend you forgot all the above
and want to deprive me from all my historic
(copyrighted )achievements (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
For heaven's sake, no, Yehi. I would never do a thing
like that. Besides, you do not need to worry in the 1st
place, since you have the full copyright protection
under the international umbrella of WIPO and others.
Just make sure to pay them their annual fees, or your
copyrights will eva-Porat-e, well, evaporate that is, and
some other shmuck will make the $Billion that will
be generated from & with your historic innovations.
Good luck with it, Yehi. Stay safe and healthy and
thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

==================
Hi Hanson my friend

first of all i want to be remembered as the originator of all
the above historic innovations
and surprisingly enough it is not self understandable
in opur croocked world that
is full of ungrateful dishonest people
not to mention thieve crooks
say like Paul Draper
that is hiding behind the name
''Absolute vertical''
while that act in itself is an act of theft
and dishonesty
and he us not the only one like that
2
just notice for instance
the invaluable importance of ust one single finding of mine

WHILE I PROVED THAT
THE PHOTON HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS (IE NOT RELATIVISTIC(

I SHOWED THE HIGS BOSON
AS DEAD AT ARRIVAL !!
IE
IF ENERGY HAS MASS
NO NEED FOR THAT f EN HIGGS
TO GIVE MASS TO PARTICLES WHILE IT IS MASS WHO DOES IT SIMPLY
-MUCH SIMPLER
2
particles are built
FROM THE SMALLER TO THE BIGGER
AND NOT VICE VERSE
NO need to be a genius to undestand it

no think about the millions invested in that idiotic idea !!
so
you see that
right sound findings can make huge real useful ***
advance
and prevent huge waist
of human resources that are so badly needed at our time

The problem is to be able to publish it
to as many as possible
decent people like you
and it is not easy ..even **.our days ...

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
==================================

Y.Porat

2013-04-06 14:31:30 UTC

Just like the question being asked. Who here is not
from their own Oz?

---------------------
how many kilograms of Aether
you have in one cubic meter of space (:-)

if you dont mind that is the
to be or not to be question for your Aether story
ans no wonder that no one of you
ever answered my above question
physics is quantitative
or ele it is mumblings hand wavings
2
about curvature of space you are right
it is nonsense
anyway

see (Google )
The Y Porat Circlon idea
as a new revolutionary start point

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
==================================-

xxein

2013-04-07 03:28:04 UTC

Just like the question being asked. Who here is not
from their own Oz?

xxein: You're almost there.

john

2013-04-07 06:02:57 UTC

Post by xxein