MetaFrizzics

Here I have to agree. There is no moral or ethical high ground in being a bully. (2) The law enforcement solution to anything is a last resort. It already indicates, or should indicate, that everything else has been tried and it failed. And that is just not the case most of the time. Too often the police are the first resort - by the rich and powerful against the poor and ethnic classes. (3) The ethical high ground would start with stopping the rich from perpetuating a system that destroys the culture, health and opportunities of underclasses, in order to exploit them and hang onto power at any cost. And it would end with a system that rewards appropriate values like honesty, hard work, good behaviour and respect for others, and provide a means for positive change when necessary or when it is recognized to be advantageous to all participants.

Can you be both naughty and nice? What a spankingly fun idea! I could gently light a candle, and illuminate your mind.The warmth would kindle a tremble in your heart, the meaning of which would help me to understand you. But your mystery would remain safe.

Degaussing a ship would be pointless for the purpose of stopping magnetic mines, which would stick equally well to magnetized or unmagnetized steel. Degaussing may have been done for the purpose of improving or correcting for radar/radio transmissions or to counteract corrosion in an experiment.

I think he's called tabasco man because he's giving you the sauce.

It seems clear and accurate to say that Einstein began by postulating that the aether was unnecessary in Special Relativity, but found himself putting it back as the gravitational field in General Relativity, disappointing both himself and his mentor Mach.

Whatever you do, don't type Cu-rlie, La-rry, and M-o-e.

By acting as an 'aether'. Einstein cleverly removed the aether by calling it a manifold.

What about an experiment to independantly establish Inertial mass? You could try to set up Mach's idea of action/reaction (3rd Law) to establish inertial mass using the law of Conservation of Momentum etc. You have to choose certain ideas as axioms, and then show the consequences, and reverse the scenarios as well. You work with ratios to establish the laws and then with specific weights and measure to establish scales. These are simple experiments but involve very subtle philosophical and scientific ideas and procedures. Newton offered a poor definition of Inertial mass (the product of volume and density of a body VxD ) which is just circular. He should have found a way to define inertial mass without referring to it (in the density definition). In this key definition of inertial mass however, Mach did not specify clearly the frame of reference with respecto to which the accelerations should be measured. It is simple to see that this definition depends upon the frame of reference. Two observers in different frames accelerated relative to each other will find different mass ratios. But it is evident from his writings that Mach had in mind the frame of fixed stars as the only frame to use in his definition. It should be noted that nowadays the accepted definition of inertial mass is Mach's (m1/m2 = -a2/a1 ) and not Newton's ( m = DV ). Mach's operational definition of inertial mass is one of his great contributions to Newtonian mechanics. The Machian formulation is vastly superior to Newton's. But it still needs work to make it relativistic. Mach believed that in physics we should only have relational quantities, the relative distance between bodies, and relative motions. Absolute positions should not appear in theories since they don't appear in experiments. Einstein changed all this by introducing frame-dependant electromagnetic forces with his interpretation of velocity in the Lorentz's force law. He also introduced a frame-dependant gravitational force. Einstein correctly pointed out that the best way to implement Mach's principle was to use only the distance between interacting bodies and their relative velocites and accerations. He himself didn't do this because he thought it was impractical. He was mistaken in this regard. In fact, we can develop a purely relational physics from Mach and Weber's electromagnetic theory.

Haven't you seen Family Guy? Babies can be quite dangerous.

That may be the best peace-keeping strategy for avoiding domestic violence as a temporary measure (i.e., until the idiot is sober, or until councelling sessions sink in).... But perpetuating injustice is hardly a way to achieve change. This again is an example of the most naive thinking possible yet sadly common among the white middle-class in North America. "We have a law against that, so everything's okay." Not likely: Guns are biggest business in the world and the U.S.A. has the largest standing army and military combine ever assembled, outsizing the combined armies of all other nations. Is there any realistic need or reason for such a fighting force? No. In fact its the single most destructive act upon our ecosystem ever perpretrated, and will probably destroy the earth in a short time. Drugs: 'Legal' and illegal drug manufacturers are all the same idiots, funded and backed by big business and government. The entire cocaine trade is essentially run by the U.S. government covert ops groups like the CIA. Laws are meaningless since these groups don't operate under any laws or restraints. They are destroying whole cultures and gutting the economic engines of entire countries on a wholesale basis, and not by accident, but by design, in order to rape those people and countries of their natural resources to feed the greed of the West. Even your local biker doesn't WANT drugs legalized, because his prices and profits would drop through the floor. Everybody works together to maximize the personal bottom line. Prostitution: One half of the entire population of the earth remains in a legal limbo, being exploited in every possible way, and must cooperate in order to have any quality of life at all economically. The whole concept of 'legal' power is absurd in such a situation. The only power the most powerful women in the world have is to exploit other women and minorities as a market, essentially becoming the monsters they began despising, by selling products like CDs, makeup, jewelry, clothing etc., and living high off of sucking away any apparent disposable income of these workers on frivolous garbage. In the end, even Madonna hits a glass ceiling as she discovers that the big boys don't let girls join the club. Laws my ass. The only way to fight these gigantic economic combines set up by gangs of armed men is pure extreme geurrilla warfare plain and simple. Zero tolerance policy and all out war.

You forgot the other important thing God does: he touches your head as he throws you down toward the earth, damaging just enough brain cells for you not to notice he slam-dunked you. This new theory is clearly far superior to Newton's "Absolute Space" and "Instantaneous Action at a Distance". And furthermore, it is clearly better than painting yourself into a slower than light-speed corner as with SRT, or imagining Einstein's "the Aether that wasn't" as in GRT. That reminds me of Winnie the Pooh's hefalump. What have you boys got that beats the Creationists?

Part of the strategy of the rich and powerful is to keep people's time and energy tied up with petty crime and sexual hangups, while they actually rape the planet and enslave whole nations on a grand scale. The three largest industries are Guns (the military-industrial complex), Drugs (Clandestine govt involvement in mafias to engage in racial warfare), and Prostitution (a giant male dominated conspiracy to degrade and dominate others as a cultural choice). Until people stop buying the b.s. from these monsters who run everything, we're all just going round in circles.

The mini-soda cans are electrolytic caps. These can only be used in circuits which have a net D.C. voltage of about 30% or more of their continuous rating voltage, and in the correct orientation for polarity. Caps like this must have a minimum voltage applied to them in order to maintain an insulating layer between the plates, which is held in place by the electrostatic forces from the charge. If such caps are constantly run below about 30% of their rating, they will short out as electricity jumps across the gap and discharges, damaging the cap. Some special caps are 'self-healing', that is, they burn off bits of themselves to prevent shorts from remaining more than a fraction of a second. However, each time an arc or internal spark occurs inside the cap, its total capacitance goes down, until it must be replaced as unreliable. Other caps, like the 'blue pennies' are non-polar, usually mica or simple plates. These can be wired in any orientation, and will work in circuits without a D.C. charging voltage to keep them functioning properly. They can transmit A.C. signals and are often used as either D.C. blockers (allowing a.c. signals) or as high-speed clipping caps intended to take the edge off of on/off spikes. Usually large caps are polar (electrolytic) and are used in D.C. power supplies. The small ones are signal caps, and can be lower capacitance and voltage since signals in most circuits are small voltages and large impedances. There are actually about a dozen different kinds of caps but you will mostly see electrolytics and micas. In speaker crossovers, you'll find non-polar electrolytics. These are made to pass A.C. voltages without needing to be charged up. They work by taking two ordinary electrolytic caps and wiring them in series internally back to back (+ to +). This allows the caps to form insulating barriers and also pass A.C. without a D.C. voltage superimposed upon them. But they are specialty caps and rarely found elsewhere.

The North American Diet leads to both prostate cancer and chronic tonsilitis. In other words, what is important is lifestyle changes and healthy habits. With a few precautions you can quadruple your happiness, since health is not sufficient, but is necessary to happiness.

Yes, I think you have to make a distinction between healthy erotica and educational material, as well as optional recreational activity and lifestyle free choices, on the one hand, and dangerous public health concerns, criminal activity and harm to innocent non-consenting persons. Also, given the wide range of intellect and suggestibility found in the populace at large, some management of information and regulation of what is made public knowledge or freely accessible is needed. Unfortunately, 'copycat crime', foolish and dangerous behaviour from a public health standpoint, is easily encouraged and imitated by the not so bright, or emotionally unstable. Sometimes people need to be protected against themselves.

agreed. its not nitpicking, its a safety and economics issue. By the way, when salvaging caps off old radios etc., you'll find many older caps which are loaded with PCBs, highly carcenogenic insulating oils. When these caps burn or explode, deadly toxins are released into the air as gases and vapours. These caps must be disposed by special 'toxic taxi' or industrial/hazardous waste centres, according to law. Another reason not to be sloppy with old capacitors.

The power of radio, to reach round the world.

Yes, it helps if you make plain whether you are looking at the problem from classical EM theory or SRT, or from the QED viewpoint..

If you're ready to look at special tensors, here's some more links: Metric Tensor/Extensor The Energy-Momentum Tensor Energy-Momentum Tensor as Form ElectroMagnetic Field Tensor

The Jacobian lets you convert from Cartesian to Curvilinear Coordinates. Now in the new system of coordinates, you apply tensor analysis. One other thing you might be missing here is a good grounding in Partial Differential Equations, and going from Cartesian coordinates to Curvilinear Coordinates. A good book on Partial Differential Equations is: Partial Differential Equations Basic Theory by Taylor (1996 Springer Publ.)

By the way, here is the perfect free online textbook: Quick Introduction to Tensor Analysis But I would get a copy of: Geometrical Vectors by Gabriel Weinreich as well, for a good grounding in vectors too.

here is a nice pdf file that gives an overview of QCD: Quantum Chromodynamics Overview And here is another link for those without a strong math/physics background: QCD made Easy! One more link: More on Lattice QCD Download the Part I for free of Andrei Smilga's outstanding graduate text here: LECTURES ON QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS

Well, its not the age of the manuscript that counts, unless it is remarkable, as in biblical mss. Mathematical approaches and proofs are always being revised. It should not be surprising that Einstein's papers are indeed flawed in several places for some good reasons: (1) when on the cutting edge of a concept, often steps are poorly understood and corners are cut. (2) It takes many years for formulations and teaching methods to stabilize by practise and experiment. (3) Physics is rife with examples of physicists who have lept ahead through faulty reasoning processes or unfounded guesses, only to turn out to be right about something, even though they didn't understand what they were doing in the first place. (4) Physicists, like other humans display all the faults of humankind like plagarism, cheating, laziness, and failure to give or share credit appropriately. Einstein was no exception to this in his early years. (5) There have been indeed many errors regarding both interpretation and application of both relativity theories, even by the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century, right up until the late 80's, if not still. It is hard to deny this. I have dozens of books on relativity which are filled with erroneous statements of every kind. (6) Relativity is still not a 'stable' discipline, but rather a 'new' one. 100 years in physics is a short blip on the radar screen. It took Newtonian mechanics 400 years to settle down to an established form, and that theory is relatively simple. (7) Relativity grew up side by side with quantum mechanics, and we are still working out just how the two can be blended with intelligent results. It is not surprising that a theory or set of theories that from their inception were known to be 'incomplete' or limited in their scope of application would contain inconsistencies and 'errors' or paradoxes at the very least. There are certainly many physicists who have doubts about both relativity theories, and in fact most physicists will be painfully aware of the incompleteness of both theories. That is why the greatest minds are currently either working on Quantum Gravity theories or GUTs, which would result in any case in serious modifications to Einstein's original papers. There are even more mathematicians than physicists who scoff at most papers on relativity, for many reasons, not the least the lack of mathematical rigor of physicists. Many of the scientists in the links I posted earlier are accredited and respectable physicists and mathematicians. AJAY SHARMA for instance has been published in international physics and mathematical journals many times, and is highly respected also as a historian of relativity.

I thought you'd be pleased. But I think 'new physics' is a matter of degree... and dependant upon what is actually found in the end. I am not of course advocating we throw away the Standard Model...yet. ...and rather different to the picture we will have ...shortly.

Apparently they made a whole battleship disappear using Tesla's theories... the Philadelphia Experiment