Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 495

Thread: Forces of nature donít exist

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,636
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    These are not questions related to any of my statements or at all related to the subject OP. I expect they are related to my lack of using superscript for the 9, i.e. 109
    This is a non-answer. AstroRockHunter stated in his Post #24 that he was aware you meant 109.

    Please answer his questions.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    You need to read all of my postings to ask good questions. This question was answered in posting #14 and others.



    A permanent magnet does not last forever it very slowly loses its magnetism. The molecular structure of a permanent magnet aligns most atoms in the same direction. The alignment in a magnet funnels the ZPF through it in a single direction which has large amounts of kinetic and potential energy that can form photons and virtual photons when created by the energy of spinning electrons.
    A permanent magnet does not last forever it very slowly loses its magnetism.

    What is the evidence for this claim? Preferably from a standard physics textbook or papers published in peer-reviewed physics journals.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,636
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Jim,



    Regarding posting below


    Please Note: Excepting for moderator requests, I have and will continue to answer questions and respond to comments generally in the order they were presented.
    No, sir, you have not. You have skipped some questions and answered others which were posted after them.

    I expect you to acknowledge questions. You may do so by answering them, by saying you are unable to answer them, by requesting more time to answer them, or by explaining why they have no bearing on your proposal, but you will acknowledge them in a timely fashion.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And what are these particles made of? and what keeps them in a "string"?
    Good question. In my related theory these particles are called Pan. The theory is called the Pan Theory. The theory generally asserts that there is only one thing in reality and nothing else but pan. No laws of physics, no forces, etc. These fundamental particles I call pan. They form strings of attached identical particles which make up what is presently called the ZPF. Each individual particle is millions of times smaller than an electron. These strings form coils that when long enough become spring-like in form. Based upon forces of crowding/ interactions some of these springs become looped. The three stable looped forms we call protons, electrons, and positrons. Anti-protons are accordingly unstable particles whose spin must be re-enforced by a cyclotron to maintain their existence as a spinning coil. Otherwise, like other unstable particles, they "spin out." The string of particles remains but because of its lack of spin it is no longer detectable. For the purpose of the OP proposal I think this is as far as this discussion should go.

    So these are identical particles adjoined by a short umbilical. Particle strings can range from a single pan to strings of millions that make up all particles, a theoretical particle something like what Leon Lederman called the God Particle. This is related to the OP proposal in that these looped springs make up nuclear particles and the resistance to separation are accordingly the sources of the Strong Force, where separation is seen in proton accelerators, The Weak force whose separation is seen in neutron decay, and the Strong Interaction whose separation can be seen in nuclear fission.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It's in the UHF range, 10^9 cps. It also can be observed in harmonic ranges. You need to take the radio apart and remove foil that usually protects the radio from magnetic interferences generally caused by electrical appliances, or from a UHF television.
    Now you are just making stuff up, Forrest. Radios are designed to pick up signals through antennas. Antennas do not operate well when encased in foil. All wireless equipment that I own has antennas very carefully designed not to be surrounded in foil.

    GK4: Again -- and this is a direct challenge -- describe in detail an experiment that you have performed or that others have performed that will show the effect you claim. Earlier you declared directly that radios will exhibit it. Now you are adding more ad hoc nonsense to explain why I observe the expected (by me) null result. To head that off at the pass, give a complete description of the experimental protocols to show the effect.


    I don't understand this question.
    GK5: If you had read my original carefully, it would have been clear. But I'll ask it again, with extra specificity: What experiment -- that you have performed, seen performed, or can cite from the literature -- supports your claim of radio emissions (coherent or not) from magnets?


    If there are circulating currents within a permanent magnet, and electromagnet, like I propose that there is, then the energy solely comes from the differences in pressure of the ZPF caused by the photons/ and virtual photons that align the iron and magnet and funnel the ZPF (AKA aether) between them.
    GK6: So you ARE claiming that a magnet will mediate the transfer of energy from the ZPF to radio waves. Thus, a permanent magnet will supply "free" energy?

    GK7: So the failure of magnets to emit the radiation you have claimed will falsify the claim preceding GK6, do you not agree?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,386
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It's in the UHF range, 10^9 cps. It also can be observed in harmonic ranges. You need to take the radio apart and remove foil that usually protects the radio from magnetic interferences generally caused by electrical appliances, or from a UHF television.
    Radios are carefully designed such that they amplify a signal received by the antenna with as little distortion as possible. If you break down that careful design to show some effect, how can you tell if this effect results from the normal operation of the radio, and is not caused by malfunction of, or influence on, one or more components that make up the original circuit?
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    You need to read all of my postings to ask good questions. This question was answered in posting #14 and others.
    Actually, the problem is not with my good questions, it's with your non-answers. Nowhere in your voluminous postings do I find an actual answer to my question. You do not cite a reference, nor do you describe an experiment. You simply assert that a magnet next to a radio produces static.
    GK8: Again, in my experiments, nothing of the kind is observed. Do you not understand that this poses a problem for you?

    A permanent magnet does not last forever it very slowly loses its magnetism. The molecular structure of a permanent magnet aligns most atoms in the same direction. The alignment in a magnet funnels the ZPF through it in a single direction which has large amounts of kinetic and potential energy that can form photons and virtual photons when created by the energy of spinning electrons.
    I see that Nereid has asked you about this as well. I await your answer to her request for a reference that supports your assertion that a permanent magnet loses its magnetism. But here's a related follow-up:

    GK9: Show, by calculation or preferably by citation of a published experiment, that the energy emitted by the decaying magnet balances the diminution in the B-H product.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    My contention and theory is that magnetism, the magnetic force, does travel at the speed of light in the form of incoherent waves of EM radiation.
    Really? This begs a set of followup questions:

    MQ2: What is your formula for magnetic force.
    MQ3: what is its equation of "propagation"
    MQ4: What is the connection between magnetic force and "Incoherent waves of EM radiation"

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It's in the UHF range, 10^9 cps. It also can be observed in harmonic ranges. You need to take the radio apart and remove foil that usually protects the radio from magnetic interferences generally caused by electrical appliances, or from a UHF television.
    Bold mine.

    Forrest:
    Firstly, these items, along with computers, toasters, garage door openers, along with radios do not emit magnetism. They do, however, emit ... (wait for it) ... electromagnetic radiation! Yes, radios are sometimes lined with foil, but not for the reason that you claim. It is there so that the stray electromagnetic radiation that is generated in the radio circuitry does not escape and cause interference with other electronic devices.

    Now, you claim that your magnetic waves are in the UHF range, specifically at 1GHz. You also claim that these can also be
    observed in harmonic ranges
    . This brings up my:

    Direct Question 7:
    At what harmonic ranges can they be observed?
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,788
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Good question.
    Actually, it wasn't a good question. It was really rhetorical to show that your "simple" theory just piles greater and greater ad-hoc layers of complexity.

    The good questions are the ones that demonstrate your assertions about magnetism to be false. I assume this falsifies the entire edifice.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    response to posting #20, AstroRockHunter, Jim

    UHF; Ultra High Frequency: “A range of radio frequencies from 300 MHz to 3 GHz.
    In the U.S., analog television has used UHF channels 52 to 69 in the 700 MHz band.”
    Kilo – thousand; Mega – million; Giga -- Billion

    http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=53357,00.asp

    Completely ridiculous questions that anyone could have looked up in 1 minute, and that are totally unrelated to the OP proposal that stem from a hyper-script error of mine that I quickly corrected.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    response to posting #20, AstroRockHunter, Jim

    UHF; Ultra High Frequency: ďA range of radio frequencies from 300 MHz to 3 GHz.
    In the U.S., analog television has used UHF channels 52 to 69 in the 700 MHz band.Ē
    Kilo Ė thousand; Mega Ė million; Giga -- Billion

    http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=53357,00.asp

    Completely ridiculous questions that anyone could have looked up in 1 minute, and that are totally unrelated to the OP proposal that stem from a hyper-script error of mine that I quickly corrected.
    Given how often you've used terms in other than their accepted mainstream way without clearly stating so up front, it's completely reasonable for someone to ask you for definitions of terms as you use them. It would be a sad waste of time to discover after 30 posts that you meant something completely different. So it may seem ridiculous to you, but it helps avoid the types of misunderstandings that are all too common in ATM.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Postings #3,6,8,9,14,15,17,18,22,27,34,35,37,38,39,40,43,44 ,45,56,58,59,60,64 are my answers.

    Others ďansweredĒ postings 2,4,5,7,10,13,12,16,19,21,22,25,26,28,29,30,31,32, 36,52,57

    Comments to me or someone else, postings 11,23,24

    Irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with OP: 20

    All Postings are accounted for above: 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,2 1,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32

    I am presently working on questions in posting #33 and will generally be sequentially answering questions or may be responding to comments. All previous questions and answers have been accounted for above. If you think you have an unanswered question please repeat the question and refer to the posting that you believe is unanswered as most have done. If you did not understand my answer then also refer to the posting and answer that you did not understand where you wish me to elaborate further.

    Remember questions are often easy to ask but answers often take quite a bit more time.

    My Posting #3 was my answer for posting #2

    #3 for 2
    #6 for 4
    #8 for 5
    #9 for 7
    #14 for 10
    #15 for 13
    #17 for 12
    #18 for 16
    #22 my superscript correction
    #27 for 21
    #34 my acknowledgment to pzkpfw
    #35 for 28
    #37 my statement that questions are entirely irrelevant to OP
    #38 for 36
    #39 for 30
    #40 for 19
    #43 for comment 25
    #44 for 26
    #45 for 29
    #56 for 52
    #58 for 31
    #59 for 57
    #60 for 31
    #64 for 32
    #71 for 20 & 37
    #72 this posting, keeping track and request

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    And my three questions in #33?
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    answer posting #33
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    H1: What experimental evidence gives you this value (about 20)?
    It's a calculation but 20 was a mistake. Should have been about 12.25 Since accordingly the mass of a particle would be proportional to the volume of the particle, as the diameter (radius) increases by a factor of 12.25 the volume (4/3 pi r^3) and mass would increase by a factor ~1,838 which is approximately the difference in mass between a proton and electron (1,836).

    H2: And what exactly do you mean by "look alike"?
    "Looks alike" here means they are accordingly looped springs with a similar appearance excepting that the proton is larger.

    H3: Please show how "about 20" is a consequence of the fundamental properties of your "strings".
    Answered above in calculation.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-18 at 03:10 AM.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    answer posting #33


    It's a calculation but 20 was a mistake. Should have been about 12.25 Since accordingly the mass of a particle would be proportional to the volume of the particle, as the diameter (radius) increases by a factor of 12.25 the volume (4/3 pi r^3) and mass would increase by a factor ~1,838 which is approximately the difference in mass between a proton and electron (1,836).
    MQ5: How do you reconcile the above with the fact that, in reality, particles are point-like, i.e. they have ZERO radius?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    So, when can I expect answers to my two questions in post #47 and one question in post #69?
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,751
    And when might I expect answers to GK1 to GK9? And, no, FN, you have not answered any of them, so please do not claim otherwise.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    It's a calculation but 20 was a mistake. Should have been about 12.25 Since accordingly the mass of a particle would be proportional to the volume of the particle, as the diameter (radius) increases by a factor of 12.25 the volume (4/3 pi r^3) and mass would increase by a factor ~1,838 which is approximately the difference in mass between a proton and electron (1,836).
    That is the formulae for a sphere and your use assumes electrons and protons have the same density.
    H4: Why do you assume constant density?
    Look alike here means they are accordingly looped springs with a similar appearance excepting that the proton is larger.
    H5: How can they both be looped springs and spheres at the same time?
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Answer posting #41
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    The article's behind a paywall, and the quote's too divorced of context to criticize. There is no circulating electron current in a permanent magnet. Many permanent magnets aren't even electrical conductors. The area around individual electrons can be considered to have an electrical current due to the intrinsic angular momentum of those electrons, giving a model of the magnetic dipole moment of the electron, but this is not a current of circulating electrons. You're either confused by a didactic explanation or using a long obsolete one.

    And the motions of planets can be modeled as due to a simple inverse square attractive force proportional to mass. It's a simplified model that breaks down when you need more accurate description of reality.
    And what of your claims that a stationary magnet constantly emits radio waves in the 1 GHz range, as observed by holding one next to a radio? What specific radio and what antenna setup did you use to determine this frequency?
    “In permanent magnets the electrons-in-motion phenomenon still explains the magnetic field produced within the magnet.”

    http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Produ...ld/tn_9802.pdf

    Although I've done experiments with UHF television where I found more interference somewhere around the proposed frequency (10^9 cps) than other frequencies, Although it could be easily be off by a factor of maybe 10, my guesstimate is probably also related to the penetration value of this frequency range concerning solids, comparing to a magnets penetration ability of solids. Realize that these are supposed to be incoherent waves so that an exact frequency could not be "tuned in."

    An experiment would be to use a transmitter of this range of frequencies and artificially figure out how to make it totally incoherent by mechanical means by random delays to duplicate the magnetic effect and then a general proof of this theory might be realized -- concerning the idea that magnetism is "not a force." It might take some time to experiment with all possible frequencies in the general range to find the right general range at with point I would expect the beginning of the magnetic effect until I came to the right frequency by permutations. The standard model proposes virtual photons as the "carriers" of magnetism which is not completely dissimilar to this idea which also requires the ZPF to be comprised of a particle aether to produce the photons/ virtual photons.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    tusenfem, Answer posting #47

    Apparently cycles per second is Hz, according to cjameshuff, that's fine with me (although I agree with the wiki comments on cps being more like radians per second, as I see a cycle as going around a circle, hence the 2 pi and hence the angular frequency, but that as an aside.

    Now, exacty WHAT is the energy level of the photon? I never knew that the photon can have an energy level.
    According to the standard model EM radiation can be a particle or a wave depending on the circumstances. As a wave the higher the frequency the higher the energy level. As a particle accordingly the energy of a photon is proportional to the energy of its wave equivalence. There are some differences of theory concerning energy levels of photons.

    In this theory EM radiation can be a particle, a wave, or both. Most often it would be both. The wave would be a real physical wave in the ZPF and the photon would be a physical particle similar to the way Max Planck described them, as a "bundle" of particles.

    If you give a frequency then it is a frequency, and to say that it is "incoherent with not [sic] discernible wave pattern" makes no sense at all. You either have a photon of certain energy, which is related to frequency through E=hf, or you have a wave with frequency, but ad hoc interchanging from wave to particle view is dangerous stuff. "Just a jumble of intermittent waves" is what exactly, how do you get a frequency from that?
    Again it based upon the energy level of the photons/ virtual photons being generated in the ZPF. Accordingly such photons orient electrons and intern atoms, in their directional orientation in the molecular structure of iron and other susceptible materials.
    The reason why they have not yet been detected is because the waves you propose don't exist.
    That could be the reason but it is certainly not the one I am proposing

    This whole jumble of words as an explanation of a (incorrect) correction that I made to your calculation (that cjameshuff needed to notice) does not make any sense at all, and basically is total nonsense.
    As you can imagine this takes up many pages, pictures, and diagrams within the book so that trying to explain this part in less than maybe 2% of the words and no pictures or diagrams will be more difficult, to be sure In previous proposals of mine on BAUT I was allowed referrals to book pages.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-21 at 12:18 AM.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Although I've done experiments with UHF television where I found more interference somewhere around the proposed frequency (10^9 cps) than other frequencies, Although it could be easily be off by a factor of maybe 10, my guesstimate is probably also related to the penetration value of this frequency range concerning solids, comparing to a magnets penetration ability of solids.
    H6 Please explain your experimental setup, especially how you determined the interference, and
    H7 If the interference manifested as a distorted image on the screen, how you made sure you weren't seeing the effects of the magnet deflecting the electrons in the CRT (you do know how a CRT works, right?)
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    answer to posting #48

    Direct Question 6:
    If there would be 'no distinguishable or coherent-wave pattern to the emissions' then how could you determine such things as wavelength and frequency?
    Answered already but not when you asked this question. The frequency was quesstimated by UHF interference and penetration equivalence to solids by a magnet, trying to find the frequency range that is the most similar. Since these proposed waves are accordingly incoherent it might be like trying to compare apples to oranges but this frequency (10^9 cps) will be my starting point hopefully for future experiments.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-18 at 02:50 AM.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    answer to posting #47



    Answered already but not when you asked this question. The frequency was quesstimated by UHF interference and penetration equivalence to solids by a magnet, trying to find the frequency range that is the most similar. Since these proposed waves are accordingly incoherent it might be like trying to compare apples to oranges but this frequency (10^9 cps) will be my starting point hopefully for future experiments.
    Thank you forrest, unfortunately this really doesn't answer my question. You actually came closer to answering it in post #80 so I think we can move on from here.

    As a suggestion, have you ever considered using a spectrum analyzer?

    Now, how about answering my Direct Question #5, also in post #47?

    BTW, the S.I. unit for frequency is the Hz (Hertz). Why do you insist on using cps?
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    AstroRockHunter, answer to question #5 posting 47

    Since my questions were based on statements that you did make (despite your denial), and you claim that the my questions of your statements explaining your OP are NOT related to the subject OP, then why did you make the statements to begin with?
    Your questions concerning the meaning of UHF I do not consider relevant to the OP since it is simply a definition than anyone can look up.

    Why do you insist on using cps?
    fewer letters than Hertz , and cycles per second, to me, explains better what you are talking about to those less familiar.

    As a suggestion, have you ever considered using a spectrum analyzer?
    This might be a possibility for me to consider when I properly answer this posting by addressing this idea.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    And when might I expect answers to GK1 to GK9? And, no, FN, you have not answered any of them, so please do not claim otherwise.
    I may not have been up to posting #58 at the time you made this posting. Posting #58 answered GC1, 2 & 3 according to OP theory. Answering up to GC9 will not happen until tomorrow or the following day or so. I am presently only up to posting #48. GC9 is in posting # 67.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,885
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    ...fewer letters than Hertz , and cycles per second, to me, explains better what you are talking about to those less familiar.
    "Hz" is one letter less than "cps" and is the internationally recognized standard unit of frequency. As mentioned previously, if you wish to work with non-standard units, you should declare and define them up front. As it happened, you created more difficulty than you said you were trying to avoid. I don't think any participant in this thread has a problem using or understanding the proper term.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    That is the formulae for a sphere and your use assumes electrons and protons have the same density.
    H4: Why do you assume constant density?

    H5: How can they both be looped springs and spheres at the same time?
    I must say that all your questions are good ones and that I look forward to answering more of them when I get up to posting #79. I am currently only on posting #48 concerning questions, but my posting #75 answers your questions in posting #33.

    cheers

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    I may not have been up to posting #58 at the time you made this posting. Posting #58 answered GC1, 2 & 3 according to OP theory. Answering up to GC9 will not happen until tomorrow or the following day or so. I am presently only up to posting #48. GC9 is in posting # 67.
    Please do not play your usual games of claiming to have answered when you have done nothing of the kind. Please re-read the questions, and then answer them.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    PetersCreek,

    "Hz" is one letter less than "cps" and is the internationally recognized standard unit of frequency. As mentioned previously, if you wish to work with non-standard units, you should declare and define them up front. As it happened, you created more difficulty than you said you were trying to avoid. I don't think any participant in this thread has a problem using or understanding the proper term.
    OK you got me. Majority favors Hz so Hz it will be
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-18 at 05:37 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Uniting of the forces
    By Copernicus in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2012-May-25, 05:44 AM
  2. Forces in nature?
    By rigney in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 2010-May-21, 08:23 AM
  3. The Forces?
    By Ionic in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-08, 10:45 PM
  4. Relativistic E&M forces
    By Digix in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2006-May-27, 11:39 PM
  5. So what are the 4 fundamental Forces
    By ChromeStar in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-18, 10:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •