MetaFrizzics

Look at the overview: (1) You are talking about Newtonian Gravity, not General Relativity. (2) You are talking about the historical (semi-updated) reformulation of Newton's work. (3) Whether talking about planets or people floating in space, you are talking about characterizing whole 'systems' , not point-particle behaviour. (4) One key philosophical and 'causal' problem in Newtonian gravity is angular velocity and centrepital force. Problem One: Measurement Mach and other critics of Newton's version of gravity made the following argument: If all motion is only detectable relative to other bodies, then motion is relative. (true relativity, not to be confused with Einstein's theories). We should be able to express all laws of motion in a relative (inertial frame-free) and equally simple way. Counter-problem: If rotation can be detected without reference to other bodies, simply by measuring centripital force (e.g., equatorial bulge), then rotation is absolute, not relative, and independant of other bodies. Problem Two: the CAUSE of centrepital force Because of Newton's own 'Sphere Theorem', he was forced to abandon an explicit physical 'cause' of rotational effects, and postulate 'Absolute Space', a unique frame of reference for rotation. Unfortunately his other laws allow an infinite number of 'inertial frames', all equally valid as the final unique frame of reference, for translational motion (straightline velocities). Mach countered that the only possible explanation for rotational effects must come from 'outside' the object, i.e., rotational motion was relative to the rest of the mass of the universe (the backdrop of stars) and hence must be caused by interaction with that mass. Mach envisioned a reformulation of gravity theory that would explain rotational effects straightforwardly as a force due to the backdrop of stars. Newton never explained the cause rotational effects, only described them by analogy to translational laws of motion in a way that could preserve the laws of action-reaction and the conservation of energy. And Mach never found a way to reformulate gravity to account for rotational effects via the backdrop of stars. He left this to his student Albert Einstein. Unfortunately, when Einstein was done, it was eventually noticed that Einstein also failed to carry out Mach's program of explaining gravity, inertia and rotation relatively. General Relativity (in spite of Einstein's muddled early claims) does not account for rotational effects via the remaining mass in the universe. In fact, in the Solution to Gen Rel for a single spinning star, there is still centripital force and effects, even in an otherwise completely empty universe. Einstein's 'Field' has an existance all its own, and is no better a solution philosophically speaking than Newton's "Absolute Space", which also was an artificial immeasurable construct that had a life of its own. It remains true that there is no non-circular way to measure or establish rotational motion and its effects other than relative to other objects and masses. Even the Field Equations of General Relativity require a mass distribution which defines the field.

The fact is, no one knows how say a flower organizes millions of atoms and molecules and chemical/electromagnetic processes to hold itself together and look pretty, as well as make copies of itself. Physics and Chemistry at best offers a few simplex examples of 'self-organization' at low levels, like crystals growing without control (other than environmental constraints like temperature etc.). Or enzymes being able to fit together like locks and keys, thus regulating chemical reactions that depend upon environmental catalyst-sites. It is guessed or presumed that higher, more complex laws govern whole phenomenae like 'life' and 'evolution'. But this is at best hand-waving and posturing given the current state of biological science. The answer *could* be that atoms and molecules can organize themselves into living creatures, but this seems incredible to some philosophers. There is no need to abandon your religion just yet.

But what about the Magnetic Field? Here we see the magnetic field trying to form around the path of each charge as it moves outward. However, locally, the field-lines cancel. If the surface were a finite plane with an edge, there would be a 'residual' magnetic flow around the perimeter because of uncancelled field-lines. But because the sphere surface has no 'border' the magnetic field lines cancel everywhere, and there is no net field remaining. However, when we analyze three-dimensionally, there is a twist: Imagine we are riding upon one of the charges. From the point of view here, the adjacent charges are simply moving directly away on all sides in the 'plane' of the sphere's surface. This means the central (observer) charge sees horizontal magnetic fields formed around the receding charges. Now there *is* a residual force on the upper and lower boundary of the sphere's effective thickness. Luckily, we can again imagine this is true for *every particle, and the complimentary residual currents again cancel out! Lucky that!

Yes. I thought the first was good...the second was just half a movie...and didn't it go a bit downhill with the French guy & and his spiked food? Is date-rape via drugging the cultural norm now? But I did like the discussion with the 'Father' guy inside his videoscreen walled office. They finally got to some serious problematic philosophical questions which face *any* world-view. Oh yeah: and the special effects on the highway chase were over the top and simply fatigueing. What was the point? It was like reading a comic where superman and flash decide to have a footrace and its a tie. The most boring issue of D.C. comics ever. (or was it Justice League?). That just leaves the audience wondering what all these superpowers are really for, if they don't solve pressing technical problems for the hero. When Superman could bend steel or see behind walls, it gave him some edge against bank robbers and mad scientists. Once everybody has superpowers, it just turns into private club where they all stand around admiring each other, and spout witty sound-bites. At least with Thor, you got wierd German mythology along with cryptic Goth language and cool runes. Matrix was just like a Japanese Kung Fu movie that loses credibility the minute you see the first character walk up a wall sideways like a spider, and hang there. What?! You mean you wouldn't want to see Catwoman and Wonderwoman jello wrestle? What's wrong with you?

Wow. Getting an accidental but embarrassing 'boner' in swim-class must be extra-special in Iran.

Thats between the lines, but awfully loud to anyone with a clue. By the way, I love the USA and the American people. I just don't trust governments, oil barons, and the Anglo-European Military Industrial Complex.

And I'll repeat what I said too: Dozens of ideas were discussed in the document in a 'mix and match' basis. I've already explained why even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were somewhat careful what they actually put in writing, even when hiding it from the Chairman. Its called Covert Ops for a reason. "Gee, only garlic eating 'Spics' would be killed Mr. President: Not 'real' Americans." Then again, they opened fire on unarmed Ohio State University students. I guess I've misjudged them. By the way, just how do you expect to 'discredit' a declassified document written by the JTS and posted on the Govt Archives website? They damn well wrote every last comma including spelling errors. "sink refugee boats" - nice euphemism for murdering innocent people.

Are you just being coy or facetious? You spelled it amyl nitrite in your last post, so I'm not surprised you got nothing on a search: If you understand drugs at all, and have any knowledge of drug culture, you will be aware that (1) the potential deadly effects of any drug are increased by orders of magnitude when combined with other drugs. (2) This is precisely what happens in the current drug culture. Drugs are more likely to be combined with other drugs and alcohol than used alone. So my contention about the risks of rampant amyl nitrate abuse (known history of AIDS patients) combined with other drugs is highly plausible. This is not worth responding to, except to point out that such mean-minded treatment is a last resort when other methods of debate don't work.

That would require atheists and agnostics to be as generous and charitable as Christian laypersons. Good luck on that one.

Neither a 'snort' or 'pffft' cuts it. 300 NY firemen were murdered. One of the few groups of people in the USA who have a legitimate claim to moral high ground over just about anyone. In one single act, the largest group of people representing the absolute best the West has to offer were destroyed in the interests of oil grabbing by German-American Industrialists. If only a real terrorist would fly a real plane into an Oil-cartel convention. Those dead firemen are victims of the worst crime in the history of Covert Operations. Are 300 firemen worth grabbing another third of the world's oil reserves? Give me the firemen back. The 'Yale' graduates who didn't die aren't worth squat. In my view the 300 firemen are worth a lot more than 300 Pentagon personnel. I note with sarcasm the lame faked Pentagon 'crash'.

Actually, I don't have a problem with alot of what you are saying: This is precisely where the Northwoods Operation papers come in for example.The Joint Chiefs did not forsee either any serious consequences of possible release 50 years later (they'd all be dead or retired), nor did they forsee their modern counterparts being stupid enough to actually crash drones into the WTC. Now, the revealed fact that such things are routinely proposed behind closed doors is an embarrassment. This is all agreed upon. But the 'Canadian Airline Steward' was just a cover story, and hopelessly implausible for the very reasons you give. Again, I don't suggest that *all* AIDS cases were CIA operations, or simply an attack on gays. On the contrary, I would strongly suggest that many of the first 'AIDS' cases were a combination of gays in SanFran snorting Amyl Nitrate and destroying their immune system with drug abuse, and the doctors who were 'treating' them deliberately murdering them with deadly toxic 'cocktails' as pretense of treatment, because they were gay. There is ample evidence that treatment with these chemical 'cocktails' were continued, even long after the doctors knew they were killing the patients. On the contrary, I am not committed to any theory at all, I only tentatively entertain what appears most plausible to the current evidence at hand, including political and military practice and procedure. In fact, it seems almost equally plausible that there is no AIDS virus at all, and that the whole thing is just the latest incarnation of the monstrous and satanic Cancer Research Cartel, which seems to be running out of steam. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that it was a conspiracy of an entirely different kind, namely another way to fleece the public, the govenment, and rich queers out of all their money by jaded 'doctors' who need new yachts.

I think you've been indoctrinated into 'science-think' so deeply that you just don't see the catastrophic failure of Occam's Razor, and scientific procedure in general, when someone is deliberately deceiving you and tampering with the evidence. Example: Kennedy is shot. Apparently a loner is arrested. Occam's Razor: lone gunman. Apparently a Jewish Would-be Communist double agent is arrested. Occam's Razor: hopeful lone gunman. Nagging question says - How did he know where to be for the bead? Occam's Razor: lucky lone gunman. Private Citizen shoots lone gunman. Occam's Razor: Outraged patriot loses control. two lone gunmen. 2nd gunman turns out to be connected Vegas mobster & strip club owner who has free run of Texas police station. Occam's Razor: Two colorful lone gunmen. 1st lone gunman turns out to have done a practice run on a U.S. general. Occam's Razor: Okay, maybe three lone gunmen. Turns out Kennedy turned down a plan to attack American targets and blame Cuba. Occam's Razor: Okay, at the most maybe 5 or 10 lone gunmen. Warren Commission finds nothing of interest. Occam's Razor: Okay, surely no more than 500 or so lone gunmen. Bobby Kennedy shot: Occam's Razor: Yep. 501 lone gunmen.

Dozens of ideas were discussed in the document in a 'mix and match' basis. I've already explained why even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were somewhat careful what they actually put in writing, even when hiding it from the Chairman. Its called Covert Ops for a reason. "Gee, only garlic eating 'Spics' would be killed Mr. President: Not 'real' Americans." Then again, they opened fire on unarmed Ohio State University students. I guess I've misjudged them. By the way, just how do you expect to 'discredit' a declassified document written by the JTS and posted on the Govt Archives website? They damn well wrote every last comma including spelling errors. "sink refugee boats" - nice euphemism for murdering innocent people. Anyway, I've started a new thread in POLITICS so this one can continue on topic. Let's go there and chat.

Here's another great discussion on Drone Planes: Drone Tech pdf Robot Attack Jets A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.” Commercial Pilot Analysis of Flights How Many Planes?

I moved this post here because it really belongs here in politics: Do you have a source for this, a real source? Try the US Government Declassified Archives right here: Northwoods Operation Here's an alternate link to the .pdf file Northwoods Op 2 If that doesn't spell it out for you, do a search with Dogpile "Operation Northwoods".

Do you have a source for this, a real source? Try the US Government Declassified Archives right here: Northwoods Operation Here's an alternate link to the .pdf file Northwoods Op 2 If that doesn't spell it out for you, do a search with Dogpile "Operation Northwoods".

These are good questions, but only from the viewpoint of a biologist, not someone with a real understanding of espionage, Covert Ops, and Psych Ops. Let's look at them: Answer: Why use a gun six times? Cause it works for the task at hand. Cause we have it in stock. Exactly what you'd want to do, if you want to mislead a medical practitioner long enough to kill someone. What used to happen in the past when someone in Iowa presented with an exotic disease? He would be misdiagnosed and die. This makes it a perfect weapon for both Covert Ops and Psych Ops. On the one hand its easy to handle for the operator, and presents no real threat on home soil, while on the other hand it certainly has completely terrorized the gay population. Awesome. Nice job boys. As bio-weapons go, AIDS is pretty easy to control. And because its an STD, its pretty easy to hand out to selected targets with a certain kind of weakness. Curability is only one factor, weighted against others like spreadability. Nothing's perfect, but hey, it kills 'fags'. This is naive. You speak as though Covert Ops only has one task. In fact, there can be hundreds of motives, targets, and political purposes which vary over time, and even from moment to moment as decisions are made behind the scenes. Secondly, it is not always best to openly attack a target. In order to perform a covert operation, you have to sacrifice efficiency, speed, and use multiple parallel and backup tactics and strategies. Finally, the nature of Covert Ops is such that most of the evidence for the Op is destroyed, the evidence that remains is ambiguous, and other false evidence is deliberately provided, preventing an organized and focussed recognition and objection, along with counter-strikes. But as for Psych Ops, AIDS is the ideal weapon. It didn't have to be 'created' or invented. But a loaded gun on the counter will certainly be used. Suppose you want to slow down reproduction in Blacks. Well, scare them out of having sex, scare other people out of having sex with them, and kill those who aren't scared.

Wow! Atinymonkey: incredible - I loved that skit. Still the Galaxy Song is surely a climax.

"Hey you, hormonally challenged! Miss Demeanor!Get off the road before I get arrested for touching a minor. Now just stay right here please, while I wait for the police to do a sexual offender check. What do you mean I already have a record?"

What I don't understand is what these teenagers were doing in Iraq in the first place. (besides being gay I mean.)

Wait, couldn't his idea be made even more efficient by using the methane gas generated from you know where? I mean you've already got the airtight container, and I don't think you want that gas to just build... I could show you a little perpetual motion machine of mine that actually depends upon friction!

I won't comment on 'wrong', but perhaps it is not worth one's while to learn new material in the middle of trying to master a physical problem. Your advice is practical. It seemed that no one else was interested, so I thought any interest would be welcome. In any event, I'd still be delighted to look at MagLev engineering. Peace, Meta

Whoa! I just noticed this now, and I have been checking in daily lately. I can hardly read your jpg. Can you post a larger version?

Wow that link to DU semiconductors was awesome! Thanks!