Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
There are three ‘tonal’ languages on the planet, where the same word has a different meaning by tone. Two of them are in Africa: Bantu (a giant language group covering most of Sub-Sahara Africa) and Northern (not Southern!) Sudanese.
But chinese don't have drums that can talk, and the africans do. Talking drums actually produce "words, sentences and paragraphs" in those languages. People acually pay drummers to go around and insult their enemies with rythyms, this turns into a game of one upmanship, each man paying the musicians to leave him alone and go harass the other. Nobody but the musicians win these exchanges I think, but I can't think of a better way for rich men to vent their hatred for each other...
There are three ‘tonal’ languages on the planet, where the same word has a different meaning by tone. Two of them are in Africa: Bantu (a giant language group covering most of Sub-Sahara Africa) and Northern (not Southern!) Sudanese.
Sense there is a relationship between the music of an area and the base metaphysical teaching, a base 8 / 16 (Ravi Shankar ? spelling) in India etc. (Eightfold Path, I Ching etc.) Again, as I am tone deaf I only go so far with that aspect, more on the visual.
The earlier works in X-Ray refraction, (Roentgen, Peck, Cowan), started to come close to the ball geometry.
into a google search gives this mumbo jumbo as its first resultX-Ray refraction Roentgen Peck Cowan
(What is physical is but a reflection, true whether you buy that or not.)
counter samples of pyrite formed in little cubes, a shape that crystals can but rarely take
maybe known for hundreds of years but I can't find anyone explaining it on the internets. I can't find it with google or wiki could ya help me with a link cause I can't find one and I don't have a Donovanism dictionary to help me parse it out......Stella limit...
^^Well done, especially the NACL crystal. I'm surprised nobody mentioned Donovan's remarkable thesis about "The Yellow Race" yet, but I guess that one's better left alone.
Pi is the ratio of across to around.
You have entered a geometry where circles and spheres are limits, which can be approached but never obtained.
And where pi, in any situation, would be a ratio of two whole real numbers, always.
This relates to the study of quarks. After galagabytes of calculus and balding men in white coats scratching their heads in laboratories with fancy names, they came to the conclusion that there is a very strong limit in nature: a limit of twelve types of quarks; that there can be no more. They are right.
Second, we know that time is denser near the effect and slower near the cause. In other words, if you were to hang very sensitive clocks along a big spring or rubber band that you nailed to the wall, and that you pull the other end of the rubber band by walking away with it: that the clocks closer to the wall will run progressively faster. Therefore time is less dense (runs slower) near the cause of an event, and is more dense (runs faster) as it approaches the effect.
jingofever wrote:Second, we know that time is denser near the effect and slower near the cause. In other words, if you were to hang very sensitive clocks along a big spring or rubber band that you nailed to the wall, and that you pull the other end of the rubber band by walking away with it: that the clocks closer to the wall will run progressively faster. Therefore time is less dense (runs slower) near the cause of an event, and is more dense (runs faster) as it approaches the effect.
All of that is just wrong. I can only assume you are misunderstanding gravitational time dilation.
As Figure 1. illustrates, the relativistic Lorentz Formula and the Aerodynamic Mach-number formula are mathematically identical.
Could the identical formulas describe two entirely different conceptual contents ? -- If that is unlikely, then which conceptual theory is right ?
Now the scientific choice is quite clear:
Obviously, the two equations are totally interchangeable. We can use the Lorentz transformation for the airplane and the Mach-number for the accelerated electron by a simple switch of the symbols, c and S.But are the two conceptual interpretations interchangeable ?
Absolutely not!
Should we be seeking for the cause for a relativistic increase in the inertial mass of the airplane instead of accepting the simple, common sense explanation of the physical retarding force of air-resistance ?
Or should we rather accept the existence of an all-pervading Aether medium through which the electron flies and where the dissipation speed of local density fluctuations is equivalent with the speed of light. By the removal of the stumbling block of the transverse wave theory of light, this ideal gas model of the Aether is now rendering a humanly comprehensible alternative for the misconceived hypothesis of /relativistic mass increase.
But we can draw one further conclusion from this analogy.
Considering the different conceptual interpretations of the same phenomenon, the two contradictory theories must arrive at two contradictory quantitative predictions for a suitably designed experiment.
On the one hand, relativity agrees with the Newtonian principle of inertia which states that uniform motion on a straight line in empty space is eternally constant. In the absence of external force there is no change in the state of motion. Now, since the space of relativity is totally empty, when a particle is accelerated up to a certain speed and the force is removed, the theory must predict that the particle will perform an unchanging uniform motion on a straight line ad infinitum, at its latest, final uniform speed.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest