Time and its need. Also, why at all must the light travel?

Dear Dick,

I wonder how I can try and convince you of the need use and reality about
'Time' or 'Time Stamp'.

I am sure you must be following certain line of thinking on the subject and
proposing your ideas based on such findings. If you have any background
material on your ideology you may share with me.

As of this instance, I have this to state about what 'Time' means to me.

It is of course a dimension and a steady scale measuring the aging Process ;
of everything Universe, you and me.

If I may say so, you seem to discount the relevance of 'Time' and view
Universe as a 'System' like 'Automata' in Computer Science where the
'System' remains as it is unless some external input is received. Between
such instances equivalence prevails and 'Time' is static.

Well,then even the best design of computer is based on a real-time clock for
controlling every step.

In a real world[our universe] a lot of things happen in a steady rate.
The sun blowing out its rays,carbon decay,light traveling etc and etc which
requires us to measure and 'time stamp' every occurrence for correlation.

Why should you have an objection to it?

Because the Universe taken as a whole can never remain same between instants
however minutely interspaced.

I really wonder what is the 'compelling reason' for light to 'travel' or
'propogate'.
Why at all it is starting - where it is headed to from its origin.
But I don't object to it. We just have to understand.

If we can find this reason and the cycle of 'cause and effect' we may reach
somewhere. That is, what exactly is the cause of 'emission of light', 'where
it is headed to' and 'what is its aim'?

Maybe it is just obeying the command "Let there be light".

Researcher
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2qu9i217c6ec1pi79f5aec3ldfq9ivtngl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:06:50 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
> dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Dear Dick:
> >
> >"Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:38f8i2dhfmc1tishu6fd646atagad3ra8s@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 06:11:46 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
> >> \(dlzc\)" <N:
> >> dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Dear Dick:
> >>>
> >>>"Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:ri67i25i731ntuhq8p0kpou6bj33h8dtnf@4ax.com...
> >>>...
> >>>> Nothing going forward in time, either. Just "now," a
> >>>> series of new moments of now. Negative time is
> >>>> history, future time propositions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Clocks are very useful for making comparisons,
> >>>> but they do not observably measure "time."
> >>>
> >> Change in space. Time is a standardized metric as is
> >> a yardstick, but I can see what the yardstick measures.
> >
> >You cannot see space. What you see is what light brings you from
> >objects.
> >
> Space is as real as it gets, which may be limited. However, I do more
> than see light from objects, I can touch them.
>
> >> What does the clock measure? Take a clock apart and
> >> show me the "time."
> >
> >Take a ruler apart and show me space.
>
> The ruler is tangible and complete as is. It does the same thing a
> clock does, it provides standardized, uniform units for comparison.
>
> The difference, I can see and touch what the ruler measures.
>
> I can neither see nor touch "time." My experience of "now" time finds
> it not uniform.
>
> >
> >So you agree that either space or time is independent, and the
> >other (time or space) is dependent?
>
> I must have missed something, I don't recall saying anything such, I
> don't even know what you are saying.
>
> >You are of course aware that NIST and the international community
> >chose time as being independent, and allow time and c to
> >establish space... Whether or not you agree with that particular
> >choice.
>
> Your word, not mine "chose time as being independent."
>
> CNN reported, this morning, scientists have managed to "teleport" a
> bunch of molecules. Interesting to see where this leads.
>
> "The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic
> object containing thousands of billions of atoms. They also teleported
> the information a distance of half a meter but believe it can be
> extended further."
>
> Science News also carried the article.
>
>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000E9691-0261-1524-826183414B7F0000
>
> What happens to your "time" if light and matter can be teleported?
>
> >David A. Smith

Re: Let us be positive and find solutions

Yes friends,

Thank you for the responses.

Of course it is to do with my fundamental beliefs and ideas and goes towards
proving them.

Universe could be endless and limitless as anything which tries to
physically bound an Euclidean straight line has [if it is real] to fall in
the space which otherwise could be the extension of the same 'straight line'
it is trying to limit.

And the universe could be origin-less too. Unlike mortal beings.

Now, I do understand the virtues of negative and imaginary numbers, but they
all play with respect to some real thing . Or else they all become
non-existent.

So, all these negative and imaginary numbers, or dimensions are to be
considered only in a relative way [for calculation and recasting] but never
amount to any substance.

You can't say 'x' number of [ x = pure imaginary or negative number] grams ,
second or meters some mass,occurrence or spacial volume and be serious about
it unless your statement is in relation to some true existence.

So, let us take the obvious case of mass.

Can you tell me what you understand by a non-positive mass.

I wonder how even Einstein got carried away into believing about 'Time
Travel'.

So, let me make my patented statement.

There is nothing called going back in time; except in one's imagination.

Researcher

"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1159885113.637120.12390@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Dear donstockbauer:
>
> donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> > > Dear Researcher:
> > >
> > > "Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4521cdea$0$19702$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Let me explain what I mean.
> > > >
> > > > Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can
> > > > ever be negative.
> > >
> > > Dimensions are an abstraction. Each degree of freedom can be
> > > described by any real number.
> > >
> > > > Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
> > >
> > > Why? Because it allows *relative* measurement?
> > >
> > > > Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero
> > > > length or be able to go back in Time.
> > > >
> > > > Once this is understood and applied in all calculations
> > > > we [humans] stand to find real solutions and reach
> > > > understanding in all that is boggling us so far.
> > >
> > > Actually no. By artificially limiting ourselves because *you*
> > > don't like negative numbers is a step backwards.
> > >
> > > Just look at what the imaginary numbers gave us... among
> > > other things sin and cos. And imagnary numbers are
> > > based on negative numbers.
> >
> > Sounds like Researcher is getting at that constructivistic
> > methods should be adhered to and we'd avoid the
> > Spiellberg-level Fairyland that physics has become,
> > encouraging endless debate.
>
> Researcher's point is similar to one I made long ago. If the Universe
> is finite, why do we use an infinite number set to represent it? An
> answer is, a tape measure is usually "longer" than the things we ask it
> to measure. It still works.
>
> As to the "Fairyland", that is where the advances in Science come
> from... the bleeding edge of fantasy. Because Newton doesn't get us to
> the stars. Nor does Einstein... well there was this manhole cover...
> http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20021021/manhole.shtml
>
> As to debate, Don nothing would stop you from debating, would it? If
> we don't debate, Science becomes static... an anchor, rather than a
> sail.
>
> David A. Smith
>

Fw: Toward understanding the Double Slit Experiment, pt. 1

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Toward understanding the Double Slit Experiment, pt. 1

> Some ideas :
>
> Do photons need to be necessarily single or in some numbers, can't they be
> fractional?
>
> An atom or such structure can exist without being in a state of motion.
But
> can a photon exist without being in a state of travel.
> So, there is fundamental difference between such entities which needs to
be
> considered while dealing with them.
>
> An unified theory of matter - energy continuum is needed to be visualized
> and experimented upon.
>
> Any proposals?
>
> Thomas Walker
>
> "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1155635495.017057.109480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ralph Hertle wrote:
> > > Re: Toward understanding the Double Slit Experiment, pt. 1
> > > alt.astronomy
> > > sci.physics.relativity
> > > alt.sci.physics
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > >
> > > [....]
> > >
> > > > -------------------------------
> > > > Dear Mr Kinane
> > > >
> > > > you are asking about entring one photon!!
> > > >
> > > > while me and apparently you as well
> > > > do not know
> > > > what is** one** photon !!!
> > > > what is a single photon definition??
> > > >
> > > > before starting walking we have to learn how to crawl
> > > > ist that ??
> > > >
> > > > TIA
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Y. Porat:
> > >
> > > If questions are a measure of intelligence then you are a genius.
> > >
> > > The religionist creationists and the Doppler-Hubble creationists,
> > > and maybe other sorts of expansionist creationists, base all their
> > > conclusions either upon the Bible or upon the Apparent Red Shift
> > > of EM spectral light frequencies.
> > >
> > > They adamantly refuse to consider the interaction of photons
> > > and electrons regarding interactions and velocity differentials.
> > >
> > > They are totally intellectually closed on that topic. By that they
> > > refuse to gain information regarding, not the origin of the
> > > universe, but its cause insofar as the identity and properties
> > > of the existents that continue to exist, however changed due
> > > to their properties or potentials.
> > >
> > > What is more, they refuse to accept that the entity that is the
> > > photon has any identity whatsoever, albeit, except for a few
> > > magnificently discovered properties of photons, e.g., refraction
> > > and gravitational influences, and more.
> > >
> > > They actually don't have any idea at all about what the photon is,
> > > and yet they make stupendous pronouncements regarding
> > > suppositions of the assumed causes of the universe.
> > >
> > > They don't even know what the properties of gravity existents
> > > are, much less what the substance of matter or energy is.
> > >
> > > They are intellectually and factually bankrupt.
> > >
> > > More so, they have not opened their eyes to see that the
> > > universe exists continually, that is everything that exists, - e.g.,
> > > would you believe, without start, interruption, or end, continually.
> > > The universe simply continues to exist and its plural existents to
> > > function according to their natural properties.
> > >
> > > You said it right.
> > >
> > > Scientists, especially astronomer creationist cosmologist
> > > physicists, have no clue whatsoever what a photon is.
> > >
> > > They posture madly about the supposed original
> > > discontinuities of the universe, qua their assumed
> > > creationism, this or that nothingness, let alone about what
> > > universal termination is, and still they don't even know what
> > > a photon is.
> > >
> > > Or any of the existing existents of existence.
> > >
> > > The gentleman has asked the question.
> > >
> > > What is the photon?
> > >
> > > Ralph Hertle
> > ----------------
> > Thank you Ralph
> >
> > now to be more precise the key question is:
> >
> > WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE PHOTON**??!!
> >
> > it sems that people speak about a 'single photon' whithout knowing
> > about aht they are talking
> > without that definition all the talking about a single photon is
> > nonsense physics
> >
> > so ??? waht is the above definition????
> > does a photon that is emmited from Radium is the same as that form
> > say nickel evn if the frequescy of them are the same
> > to be even more specific :
> >
> > is the **duration of emittance** is the same in radion 'single photon'
> > as in say Kalium 'single photon ' ????!!!!
> >
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > --------------
> >
>
>

Fw: General Relativity and Still Objects

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: General Relativity and Still Objects

> Because every bit of matter tends to move towards its gravitating center
> which is the center of earth in a local way while altogether they move
> towards the solar system's gravitational center which simultaneously moves
> towards the galactic center and so on and so forth towards the center of
the
> total Universe which maybe in fact more than one Universe or which could
be
> termed 'Entirety' [including our Universe {known and visible} and if they
> exist more such Universes]
>
> Thomas Walker
>
> "Danny Dot" <don't.mail.me@no.way> wrote in message
> news:AN1Dg.3167$1D.939@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> > I understand GR explains motion under a gravitational field a curvature
of
> > space. I have NO problem with this. The bending or light during a
solar
> > eclipse proved GR correct.
> >
> > But how does GR explain a stationary object exerting a force while on
the
> > surface of a planet?
> >
> > --
> > Danny Dot
> > www.mobbinggonemad.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Fw: Faith and Physics

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.sci.physics
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Faith and Physics

> I submit that though logic and evidence are the most important things for
> our own faith that is the 'Faith of our Scientific Community'
> our ability to perceive evidence is limited [i.e.. 'Human ability' is
> limited].
>
> Like Thomas did believe only after touching the wounds of Jesus which
> strengthened him enough to come to India and die as a martyr.
> But it is impossible for me to enter the spaces and corridors of an atom
or
> things which are light years away for my physical inspection.
> I being a person who always want proof sometimes perforce have to settle
for
> plausible explanations.
>
> One need not just get swayed by big names like Einstein and Newton and
> blindly follow every theory proposed. For, the truth is not even
half-known.
>
> Neither the strong faith [mistaken] such as the one that denied the truth
> found by Copernicus is right.
> But, Faith is certainly a great strength for Human Beings which can only
be
> felt by those who have it. Just like the taste of the apple which is known
> only to the one who eats it.
>
> Thomas walker
>
> "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
> news:jpcEg.6032$yG1.3279@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> > "Mike" wrote:
> > > Your only evidence for this "hypothesis" seems to be disbelief in the
> > > miraculous. What I am suggesting is a scientific explanation for
> > > improbable events.
> >
> > My disbelief is "evidence" for my hypothesis? Moving right on...
> >
> > I have very low confidence in the veracity of anecdotal evidence of
> > violations of the laws of nature, especially when that evidence dates
back
> > to a pre-scientific era in which the belief in such violations was
> > widespread. I have very high confidence in the human propensity to
> > confabulate stories in support of an ideological agenda, especially when
> > such stories are unconstrained by the sort of rational thinking demanded
> by
> > the scientific enterprise. Any empirical evidence of miracles should be
> > demonstrable and repeatable, and so available for objective
investigation,
> > whereupon our descriptions of the operations of nature would have to be
> > modified. Such would be the search for a scientific explanation of
> > improbable events. The fact that no such events can be objectively
> > demonstrated reveals an ideological agenda rather than a scientific
> > investigation.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Fw: Light-year

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Light-year

> Dear Dick [Why not give your real name],
>
> I read through some of your inputs and I tend to think identically in some
> of the issues.
>
> I don't see any end to an Euclidian straight line.
>
> I also think that 'Stuff' may be limited but not 'zero stuff' so according
> to me emptiness is endless
>
> Thomas Walker
>
> "Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:vp3he2l31le9rqhq1a380qcel4l8a6rsvj@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:29:58 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
> > dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Dear Dick:
> > >
> > >"Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > >news:or3fe29frm2avmoso3nshmj853n63kf2f3@4ax.com...
> > >> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 08:37:19 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
> > >> \(dlzc\)" <N:
> > >> dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >>>.. since you are being silly ...
> > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology
> > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Numbers
> > >>>but more to the point...
> > >>>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BuckinghamsPiTheorem.html
> > >>>http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/mathrev/mr-da.html
> > >>>
> > >>>It doesn't matter what it is labelled. Only its utility, and
> > >>>its
> > >>>ability to correlate to other similar measurements matters.
> > >>
> > >> I don't feel silly.
> > >
> > >Check inside your shoes for bologna. That is what Steve Martin
> > >uses.
> > >
> > >> I may be ignorant, that I will accept as my errors are
> > >> uncovered. By such a process I hope to be less ignorant.
> > >
> > >Consider a Universe where there is only time. Space/distance
> > >then is some ad hoc relationship cooked up by the matter/energy
> > >in the Universe.
> > >
> > >You age through time.
> > >You learn more through time.
> > >Light arrives at your eyes through time.
> > >
> > >If you want to do without time, do without all dimension.
> > >
> > >David A. Smith
> > >
> >
> > David, I do understand that "time" is well accepted as a dimension,
> > but I can't find where it is more than a convenient convension, not
> > the units, but the stuff itself.
> >
> > "Space" on the other hand is something I move about in. I go from
> > room to another and can return on whim, to the first room. I can
> > never move anywhere in a "time" dimension. The past is memory, the
> > future, calculation.
> >
> > My efforts to describe common formulas without "time" are an effort to
> > support this thought. I have found "distance" common to all formulas.
> > When I realized that all formulas with time were dependent on ratios
> > such as how far a light ray could travel during a rotation of the sun,
> > I was amazed. Light traveling it fastest traveled a maximum number of
> > distance units while the earth was rotating around its sun. Forget
> > the actual ratios. It is the fact that the relationship was an
> > invariable constant if nothing in the universe changed.
> >
> > But, there is the rub, earth and sun did not always exist. This led
> > me to wonder what did exist in the beginning that held the same
> > relationship. I thought I had figured out such a relationship between
> > the distance light moved while the Singularity expanded, accelerated
> > to light speed, not in time, but when distance traveled no longer
> > accelerated.
> >
> > Here, I found I was beyond my depth. Too many assumptions, too much
> > math, I foundered. I have layed out my path, but fear I cannot go
> > further.
> >
> > Thanks for staying with me. If more comes to me, I will hope for your
> > observations.
> >
> > dick
>
>

Fw: Light-year

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Light-year

> Speed is gained at the time of light generation [energy conversion in the
> form of photons] so no need to further accelerate.
> Whether inside a tube light or laser or radio antennae.
>
> What about the speed of electric charge and electric wave through a
> conductor. Have you thought of that?
>
> Thomas Walker
>
> "Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ol4he2dqqcipnfnrsg8ar9nhme2il4v1uq@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:25:41 -0500, "j" <whomever@wherever.es> wrote:
> >
> > >"Dick" <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > >
> > >> It is my understanding a photon does have mass. It cannot exceed
> > >> traveling further than any other mass in 1 light year. This limit is
> > >> imposed, I believe by inertia. Recent experiments have reduce light
> > >> travel so I can speak of light accelerating. When the photon is
> > >> release it starts at V=0 and accelerates to its maximum in a short
> > >> distance to be sure
> > >
> > >Does it? Or does light simply evince itself already at the speed of
> light?
> > >It does not have to accelerate. Wonder of wonders. State changes.
That's
> the
> > >way it goes.
> > >
> > Great question. One of many supositions I have made in this journey.
> > I don't have the ability or training to be talking about such things.
> > If I have said anything new, I hope someone will explore the
> > possibilities.
> >
> > However, my reaction is that is impossible. So far as I am aware,
> > anything, energy or matter at rest must accelerate to a terminal
> > velocity. I believe Neuton's laws would cover the question.
> >
> > dick
>
>

Fw: viewing light from the big bang?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: viewing light from the big bang?

> No, I don't think so.
>
> If by looking far with the view to catch the light emitted at that time,
in
> classical physics the light would have traveled away and died off.
> Even if space is curved and it comes back it will be in another dimension
> and not perceivable.
> In case you think the image is there like a photograph for you to see you
> have to wait for billions of light years for the image to arrive.
> If the image has been continuously beaming you don't need any such
telescope
> and would be already seeing it.
>
> Also, I think the entire idea of time travel is fictitious and imaginary.
>
> "Adam Russell" <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4l60abFcvqkU1@individual.net...
> > I'm reading an article telling about a radio telescope setup in Chile
that
> > they are hoping to see far enough out to view the big bang. I
understand
> > the idea that the farther out you look the further back in time you see,
> but
> > isnt there a limit to that? It seems to me that any light that started
> from
> > the big bang would have to have already passed us, or else it would
imply
> > that at some point we had been traveling faster than that light.
> >
> >
>
>

Fw: Ranging and Pioneer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,sci.astro.research
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Ranging and Pioneer

> Very surprising.
>
> When I read about Quantum theory and GR and possibility of marrying both
it
> is clamed that QT is meant for less than
> millimetric space-zone and fails in large space.
>
> Here you seem to happily apply it to star distances.
>
> What is this redshift and allied conclusions
>
> The fallacy will show up if someone tries to convince me.
>
> Be sure, I ask fundamental and blunt questions
>
> Researcher
>
> "Oh No" <NotI@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VCmrVfC$VY3EFwxV@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> > Thus spake Igor Khavkine <igor.kh@gmail.com>
> > >Oh No wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> What is measured is a shift in the wavefunction corresponding to an
> > >> eigenstate of acceleration. For a general motion in radial
coordinates
> a
> > >> Newtonian acceleration toward the origin is given by -r^dotdot + r
> w^2,
> > >> where r is radial distance and w is angular velocity. In the case of
> > >> Pioneer the motion is principally radial and the first term
dominates;
> > >> the result is an illusory radial acceleration. For a star in orbit
the
> > >> motion is approximately circular, so the second term dominates. The
> > >> actual calculation is a little more complicated, but the net result
for
> > >> a star in orbit is an apparent increase in orbital velocity, or
rather
> a
> > >> shift in the wave function equivalent to such an increase.
> > >
> > >Am I understanding correctly that you are saying the both the shapes of
> > >galaxy rotation curves and the Pioneer blue shift are aspects of a
> > >quantum phenomenon?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >Several questions beg in this case.
> > >
> > >1. Which objects are you treating classically and which quantum
> > >mechanically?
> >
> > I treat the emission of a photon from a distant object and its detection
> > on Earth quantum mechanically. The distant object is a conglomeration of
> > quantum particles.
> > >
> > >2. Can you rephrase all your references to "wave functions" in terms of
> > >the language of an abstract Hilbert space of states and operators
> > >observables?
> >
> > Yes. In fact that is where I come in. I find that it is necessary to use
> > coordinates which are conformally flat in the time-radial plane in order
> > to do this, so that quantum mechanics is effectively formulated on a
> > Penrose diagram in the time-radial plane.
> > >
> > >3. If you are proposing a quantum treatment of macroscopic objects like
> > >stars or the Pioneer space craft, can you demonstrate with a
> > >back-of-an-envelope estimate that said quantum effects would be
> > >observable?
> >
> > The quantum effects are observable when the accuracy of measurement of
> > position is less than the effective wavelength of the Doppler signal.
> > For Mars we have measurement accurate to about 10m, so the shift should
> > be present in optical frequencies in measurement of Mars, but at an
> > amplitude two orders of magnitude lower than can be detected by HIRES,
> > the high resolution echelle spectrometer in operation on the Keck
> > Telescope. For Pioneer the effective Doppler frequency is 1MHz,
> > equivalent to a wavelength of 300m. The effect is predicted to appear
> > when the accuracy of radar determinations of the position of Pioneer is
> > worse than 300m, which is basically when radar becomes unusable,
> > somewhere approaching the distance of Saturn. Potentially this can be
> > tested from the original Pioneer tapes, because cycle slip is a
> > prediction of the model (associated with collapse of the wave function).
> > If we downsample the signal to 10Hz, say, the effect should become
> > invisible. Currently cycle slip is treated as a "blunder point" and
> > eliminated from the data for analysis. I do not know if there are other
> > errors causing cycle slip which would make this test impossible.
> >
> > >
> > >Answers that are short and to the point would be best.
> >
> > I hope these are short enough. I suspect they beg further questions, and
> > I look forward to answering them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > --
> > Charles Francis
> > substitute charles for NotI to email
> >
>
>

Fw: "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"

> Add this too:
>
> Space is limitless
> Emptiness is limitless
> There is no end to an Euclidean straight-line
>
> There need not be a beginning;
> There need not be an end
>
> Researcher
>
> "Negab" <negab@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:72a$4506c364$d8080e2f$555@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> > "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
> >
> > The General Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are two
fundamental
> > theories accepted by modern physics. The former theory deals with the
very
> > large while the latter deals with the very small. A problem arises when
> > attempts are made to merge them at an intermediate scale. The two
theories
> > just don't mesh well. The former theory seems very well verified by
> > astronomical observations while the latter theory has provided
predictions
> > of incredible precision at the scale of atomic particles. Of the two,
the
> > validity of Quantum theory seems beyond question due to the accuracy of
> its
> > predictions. Combining the theories produces the conclusion that, at the
> > subatomic scale, space is violently curved to the point that it is more
> akin
> > to a foam than to what we normally consider as space.
> >
> > Attempts to reconcile the two theories have led to the development
of
> > superstring theory which, as made obvious by a recent program on NOVA,
can
> > lead a reasonable man to question whether a fundamental error has been
in
> > one or both of the theories. Of the two, the accuracy and precision of
the
> > predictions of Quantum Theory lead to point the finger of suspicion at
> > General Relativity. The observations which are alleged to proven General
> > Relativity have only been made using the effects of the Sun's
> gravitational
> > field or observations made on distant objects which are made without the
> > ability to measure the orbital parameters (necessary if a meaningful
> > conclusion is to be drawn). Unfortunately, the Sun's field is about a
> > million times too weak to reveal second order effects which, if present,
> can
> > become predominant at high field strengths. The same is true of the
> > astronomical observations of massive objects. Without the ability to
> obtain
> > precision orbital data, observations made of the effects occurring
around
> a
> > neutron star, for example, cannot be used to determine the existence of
> such
> > second order effects. Since General Relativity requires that space be
> > "curved" by the presence of matter, a requirement of no other theory
> > (cosmological observation has reveals that our universe as w whole is
not
> > curved), it would seem that it is General Relativity which should be
> > suspect. Accordingly, efforts should be made to find whether and where
its
> > derivation is either in error or non rigorous.
> >
> > If one examines the conclusions of General Relativity and compares
> > those conclusions with those of a similar theory which is not under
> > suspicion, Special Relativity which was used in its derivation, one
finds
> an
> > interesting disparity. This disparity can be seen by comparing the
> > relativistic transformations attributable to each theory. In an FLT
system
> > of units one finds the transformations:
> >
> > Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
> >
> > Force 1 1
> > Length 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 1
> > Time (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
> >
> > Where 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5, and (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2)) are equal to (c/C).
> >
> >
> > General Relativity requires an additional term to account for the
> > curvature of space. This term is provided as the "Space Transformation".
> > Until this degree of freedom re3presented by
> > "curved space" was added, Dr. Einstein found it impossible to solve the
> > mathematical equations involved.
> >
> > If General Relativity contains an error, it should be possible to
> find
> > the source of that error in its derivation. Once one takes the trouble
to
> > look, it is easily found. The derivation solves the second derivative
> > expression:<BR><BR>(dS)^2 = (dX)^2 + (dY)^2 + (dZ)^2 - (Kt*C*dT)^2
> >
> > It will be noted that the term involving C includes a constant
term,
> > Kt. The terms involving X, Y, and Z do not have such a term. The effect
of
> > the omission is to force the mathematics to assert that the required
> > coefficient is equal to unity, an assumption of a fact not in evidence.
If
> a
> > term, Kl, were provided along with the "length" terms, no error would
> since
> > the solution would provide the value of unity for Kl, but a potential
> error
> > exists if it is omitted. Solving this equations requires a mathematical
> > process called integration and in that process the omitted term would be
> > forced to have a value of unity. Mathematically, this is a NO NO as
every
> > undergraduate student of Calculus knows. As a result of this erroneous
> > omission, Dr. Einstein labored unsuccessfully to solve the equations of
> > General Relativity for 18 months until he resorted to the non-Euclidean
of
> > Riemann (fakery borne of desperation?). The use of this geometry led to
a
> > solution by providing an additional degree of freedom to the
mathematics,
> > but the mathematical error remains to compromise work using General
> > relativity as a base.
> >
> > The correct solution for the gravitational field yields a
> > transformation for length which, like the Lorentz Transformation for
> Length,
> > is the reciprocal of the Time Transformation (the reciprocal of General
> > Relativity's Time Dilation. We may then write:
> >
> > Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
> >
> > Force 1 1
> > Length 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 1/(1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
> > Time (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
> >
> > With this revision, space is no longer required to be curved and
its
> > transfornation may be ignored. The revision would not be viable if it
were
> > not consistent with the results of observation and if it were not
> consistent
> > with other means of derivation.
> > http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm. One must recognize that the
> > observations made which allegedly verified General Relativity were made
in
> > the Sun's gravitational field which is about a million times too weak to
> > make a determination. Observationally, either interpretation is valid,
but
> > the revised theory does not require that space be curved, reveals the
> source
> > of gravitational energy, and even shows how universes are created! (I
was
> > surprised too!). Isn't time that Dr. Einstein's screw up was repaired?
> >
> > The source material for this posting may be found in
> > http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997);
> http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
> > (1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH
WE
> > ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED
AS
> > TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
> > MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
> > REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
> FROM
> > THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
> >
> > All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
> > http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
> >
> > Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
> on
> > a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same
> courtesy
> > as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our
> parts,
> > please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
> > have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
> >
> > E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your
> > mail reception is not blocked.
> >
> > The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
> > years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
> > MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> > individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
> > questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
> > objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> > Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with
one
> > exception for which a correction was provided.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Fw: Let us be positive and find solutions

----- Original Message -----
From: "Researcher" <notmy@email.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.acoustics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.a
stro,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.research
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 6:30 PM
Subject: Let us be positive and find solutions

> Hi all,
>
> Let me explain what I mean.
>
> Consider this : None of the fundamental dimensions can ever be negative.
>
> Mass, Length and Time can never be negative.
>
> Nothing can exist with a negative mass or a sub-zero length or be able to
go
> back in Time.
>
> Once this is understood and applied in all calculations we [humans] stand
to
> find real solutions and reach understanding in all that is boggling us so
> far.
>
> Researcher
>
>