Link to Stiintaazi.ro/forum - raspunsuri

[sandokhan]

electron, cine altcineva ar fi putut sa fie? Ce fel de mesaj este acela pe care l-ai postat? Pai nu am discutat DEJA despre acest aspect? Iata, electron, citatul in engleza, direct din manual de arta fotografica:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/16833/view-posts/197481 (remember?)

Faptul ca avem comprimare pe verticala este ceva FIRESC IN ARTA FOTOGRAFIEI, IATA DEMONSTRATIA PENTRU TINE, DIN MANUAL DE ARTA FOTOGRAFICA:

Panoramic image sharpness with a rectilinear lens: When an extremely wide rectilinear lens is used to expose film through a slit in a panoramic camera, the image appears sharp along the horizon, but in this case, the VERTICAL resolution gets increasingly worse toward the top and bottom of the picture. This problem arises because the image scale of a rectilinear lens increases toward the edge of its coverage. The change in image scale is directly proportional to the change in linear distance between the secondary principal point of the lens and the relevant imaging points on the film plane.

Most wide angle lenses utilize what is called a rectilinear projection. This is the same projection that would be imaged with a pinhole camera, and it images straight lines as straight lines in the picture, regardless of their orientation to the lens. If a rectilinear lens is positioned above the exact center of a flat subject but is not pointed squarely at it, the image of the subject will be distorted, or "keystoned", with the part of the subject farthest from the center of the picture appearing to be enlarged. This is desirable for wide angle photography of some subjects, because it tends to exaggerate perspective. A rectilinear lens is also incapable of covering an angle greater than or equal to 180 degrees. This is easy to envision when you consider the pinhole camera. Fortunately, the rotation of the panoramic camera will cover the 360 degree horizon. The lens only limits the VERTICAL angle covered by the panorama.

AI PRICEPUT? Sper...

yueh, ai nevoie de engleza...poti folosi eventual google translation...DA, exista doua domuri, primul ne separa de orbitele SOARELUI/LUNII/STELELOR/PLANETELOR, cel de al doilea ne separa de Norul Oort, numit gresit de astronomia oficiala Calea Lactee, primul mare astronom care si-a dat seama ca Norul Oort este de fapt Calea Lactee, constituita doar din bucati de gheata, a fost Hans Horbiger, la inceptului sec. trecut...

Now, pentru ionut/yueh...uitati-va la valurile din fata fotografului, UNDE ati vrea sa fi fost facuta acea fotografie?

Hai sa folosim cifrele pe care le avem la dispozitie:

h = 2 metri, BW = 65 metri
h = 3 metri, BW = 60,6 metri
h = 5 metri, BW = 53 metri
h = 10 metri, BW = 40,4 metri

Nu lipsesc 40 de metri din imagine, absolut deloc: intrati pe linkul acesta, unde am postat ieri si alte poze, facute tot pe plaja Cap Gris Nez

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#376 (toate pozele cu White Cliffs Dover ca sa va convingeti si voi ca am dreptate)

Alte fotografii:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#383

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/new-photographs-new-proofs-t43.htm#390

Iar aici domnule Ionut (adica [...], care recurge la injuraturi, a se vedea forum-ul de pe astronomy.ro, atunci cand nu are argumente la dispozitie, si care se foloseste la greu de metoda eliminarii adversarului prin banare) demonstratia clara ca mai ai de studiat mult de tot:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/16833/view-posts/195286 7 comentarii (o sa ai nevoie atat de noroc cat si de sanatate)

[sandokhan]

Adi, eu sunt aici ca sa discutam doar lucruri extrem de serioase, bine si foarte atent documentate, te invit sa intri pe fiecare link ca sa descoperi greselile grosolane si grave din crolonogia oficiala dedicata vechimii pamantului:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/jurassic-park-2250-bc-t46.htm

Ai auzit vreodata de Acambaro figurines? Nu?

http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html

http://farshores.org/a8acamb.htm
http://farshores.org/a8acamb2.htm
http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999october/october1999.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro-dinos.htm
http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit83.html

Mai intra si pe http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm ca sa te mai documentezi un pic...

Cat despre greci, EI SE REFEREAU LA VORTEX-UL PRIMORDIAL, ASA NUMITUL BOSON PETER HIGGS, SI NU LA ELECTRONI CARE ORBITEAZA IN JURUL UNUI NUCLEU. CUVANTUL ATOM ARE LEGATURA CU CONCEPTUL DE VORTEX DIN SUMER ADICA ANU; ATOMOS INDIVISIBLE, NEDIVIZIBIL, ANU, acum intelegi?

[sandokhan]

Ionut, am descoperit in sfarsit inaltimea reala a stancilor Beamer Falls din Grimsby.

Hai sa facem o excursie pana acolo, de acord?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/

Titlul pozei: View of Grimsby from the Escarpment at Beamer Falls Conservation Area.



ACUM POZA FACUTA CHIAR DE PE BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/

Titlul pozei: As seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area



INALTIMEA BEAMER FALLS: 45 METRI

Beamer’s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

Deci, Ionut, du-te pe Varful Toaca, citeste tot ce am scris, si sa vezi ca am dreptate...

Sa-ti mai explic?

PESTE 53 KM, CURBURA ESTE DE 55 DE METRI; ADICA DACA PAMANTUL AR FI FOST ROTUND, AM FI AVUT, DE LA 45 DE METRI ALTITUDINE, O PANTA ASCENDENTA, 10 METRI ADITIONALI PANA LA VARFUL CURBURII, SI AM VEDEA DOAR PORTIUNILE CLADIRILOR DIN TORONTO CARE AU PESTE 65 DE METRI.

DAR IN ACEASTA POZA, IONUT, VEDEM CLAR CA NU EXISTA NICI UN FEL DE CURBURA, NICI UN METRU PANA LA TORONTO, NICI CURBURA DE 55 DE METRI, NICI VREO PANTA ASCENDENTA...

Ai zis ceva de Galilei si de Bruno? Mai studiaza subiectul doctore, ca nu stii mai nimic despre ei...hai sa te invat eu pe tine...

http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/74395

Cele mai exceptionale lucrari care arata viclenia si erorile fundamentale din teoria complet falsa emisa de G. Galilei:

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Haigh2.pdf (pg. 13-18 )

http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/recantin.pdf

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ14_1-Galileo.pdf

http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/galileo.pdf (de pe site-ul http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/sitemap.htm )

Un site exceptional care arata clar legatura dintre Galileo Galilei si Francis Bacon, maestru al fratiei rozicruciene, excelent documentat...

http://www.sirbacon.org/mcompeer2.htm

Galileo Galilei a fost tot timpul sub protectia clanului Medici...despre conexiunea dintre Medici, Kabbala, Prieure du Sion si dinastia Merovingiana, pe:
http://www.watch.pair.com/mystery-babylon-3.html

Mai multe detalii extraordinare despre procesul lui Galilei:
http://www.fixedearth.com/popes_have_both_condemned_and_em.htm

Galileo Galilei biografia secreta (un site devastator...)
http://www.reformation.org/galileo-unmasked.html

The most egregious fact about the pre-1641 Galileo is that at the time he was vigorously defending Copernicanism before the Holy Office in 1633, he knew even then the system didn't work and that he had no substantial proof for it. Since he rejected Kepler's elliptical orbits (although he used Kepler's material whenever it was to his advantage, and claimed it as his own), and refused any compromise with the Jesuits who were going over to Brahe's geocentric model, he was stuck with Copernicus' forty-eight epicycles, yet he advertised the model as one that bypassed the earlier mechanical problems 'with one single motion of the earth.' It is obvious that either Galileo was lying or he never read Copernicus' book, which is one of the reasons Koestler refers to Copernicus' work as 'The book that nobody read.' Calling his bluff, Robert Bellarmine stated quite clearly to Galileo that the Church would not even consider changing its position on the cosmos unless Galileo could provide proof of his claims. In one of his more audacious moves, Galileo tried to prove his case by a strange concoction of theory and conjecture on the nature of tidal action. Having rejected as 'occultish' Kepler's explanation that the combination of the sun's and moon's gravity caused the daily tides, Galileo, even knowing that his own explanation could not be physically possible, nevertheless, to save his prestige, tried to convince the Catholic prelates that tides were caused by the tilt of the earth's axis and the earth's monthly changes in orbital velocity. In addition, his theory addressed only a 24-hour tidal cycle, but even sailors knew, and reported to the common folk, that the tides alternated every 12 hours. Galileo then tried to explain the discrepancy by postulating that the ocean floor varied in depth. No wonder Koestler concludes his remarks with:


There can be no doubt that Galileo's theory of the tides was based on unconscious self-deception.. making the complexities of Copernicus appear deceptively simple, was part of a deliberate strategy, based on Galileo's contempt for the intelligence of his contemporaries. We have seen that scholars have always been prone to manias and obsessions, and inclined to cheat about details; but impostures like Galileo's are rare in the annals of science.



G. Bruno a fost arestat de Inchizitie pentru publicarea cartii De Vinculis In Genere (vezi ggle search giordano bruno black magic de vinculis in genere si Eros si Magie in Renastere de I.P. Culianu) si pentru practicile sale de magie neagra (invatata de la John Dee, rosicrucianul englez), si nicidecum pentru vreo afirmatie despre sistemul planetar.

Giordano Bruno a fost sacrificat DIN CAUZA PRACTICILOR SALE, si din cauza indraznelii sale care a mers mai departe decat aveau nevoie conspiratorii, vezi cartea lui Culianu + googlesearch...Copernic si Galilei AU BENEFICIAT DE PROTECTIE, oprindu-se exact atunci cand aveau nevoie...destul insa pentru a starni opinia publica ignoranta de partea lor si identificandu-se in mintile lor drept martiri, desi singurul martir adevarat a fost Tycho Brahe...



Dovada ca N. Copernic si-a schimbat numele pentru a ascunde faptul ca provenea dintr-o familie de evrei polonezi:

Nicholas Copernicus was born at the quaint old town of Thorn, in Poland, February Nineteen, Fourteen Hundred Seventy-three. The family name was Koppernigk, but Nicholas latinized it when he became of age, and seemingly separated from his immediate kinsmen forever. His father was a merchant, fairly prosperous, and only in the line of money-making was he ambitious. In the Koppernigks ran a goodly strain of Jewish blood...

The esoteric message was told only to a chosen few who had shown themselves worthy of it, and was concealed from the masses, because they would only misunderstand and pervert it, and would persecute the chosen few who were sufficiently elevated spiritually and intellectually to be able to understand it. For a modern parallel, look for the advertisements of the Rosicrucians (AMORC). They advertise in a large range of magazines, at one time including the National Geographic. Their pitch is that they are a secret society that has existed since ancient times, and that Socrates, Archimedes, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, and other respected men now safely dead were all members.

Cateva citate din 'opera' lui N. Koppernigk, De Revolutionibus care arata cum acesta a introdus, PENTRU PRIMA DATA, ideile practicantilor de Surya Yoga in Occident:

In regard to his cosmology, Copernicus consistently appealed to the 'harmony' of his system, but it was a harmony ennobled by a sun that he personified, and, some say, deified, way beyond what we now know as its ability to convert helium into hydrogen. Copernicus writes:


In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles' Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth (De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10).

Karl Popper shows the origin of these cultic ideas:


Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus' idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato's Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status.then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187).

Popper couches his critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying that Copernicus' brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan sun-worship. As Wolfgang Smith notes:


In the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus (The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174).

Upon reading Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, one is struck by the preponderance of philosophical and humanistic arguments that he brings to his aid. As J. D. Bernal notes: '[Copernicus'] reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,' and in a later edition he is more convinced that the 'reasons were mystical rather than scientific' (Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965). Overall, Copernicus presents about five-dozen arguments, at least half of which are solely philosophical in nature. Although the other half of his argumentation depends more on mechanics, these also have philosophical appendages to them (e.g., his view that the universe is infinite and therefore cannot have a center). Very few of his arguments are based on his own personal observations, since Copernicus merely reworked the observations of his Greek predecessors. In fact, Copernicus concludes that because the Greeks did not detail their cosmological models more thoroughly, history (and God) have called upon him to provide the long-awaited documentation of true cosmology.

[sandokhan]

Buoy electron, vezi ca ma superi. Poate ca ti s-a urcat la cap postul de administrator, nimeni nu te respecta pentru ca ai gresit copios deja; vezi raspunsul meu mai sus referitor la intrebarea ta, nu se poate posta pe site-ul lui Adi pentru ca AI INTERZIS TU CITATELE IN ENGLEZA AI UITAT? Fa-ti o clisma ca sa nu mai uiti altadata, ca ma enervezi...

Pentru toti, greselile comise de electron pana acum:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/16833/view-posts/196821


Dom profesor Radu M, ai uitat sa mentionezi tot ce am discutat pana acum; de la imposibilitatea big bang/string theory, la imposibilitatea formarii unui sistem planetar, la imposibilitatea formarii unei planete de forma sferica, la misterul originii oceanelor, la inexistenta atractiei gravitationale si multe altele; traiesti intr-o lume de vis, mathematical pipe dreams, de unde nu te mai scoate nimeni vad.

Ai deja la dispozitie documentarul cu orbita Soarelui (20-22 km deasupra pamantului, si nu 55 km cum insinuezi d-ta).

Hai sa mergem pe plaja St. Catharines.

Recunosti privelistea?




Exact! La fel ca in urmatoarea poza, deja binecunoscuta:



53 km, 2 meters, we get BD = 180 meters; substracting 90 (we can see at least four meters of the roof top) from 180 we get again 90 meters. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN GIVEN THE ROUND EARTH CURVATURE!

DOM PROFESOR, EXISTA O DIFERENTA DE 90 DE METRI, INTRE TEORIA DUMITALE, PE CARE O ACCEPTI ORBESTE, UNDE NU SE POATE VEDEA NIMIC SUB 180 DE METRI, SI ACEASTA POZA SIMPLA, IN CARE VEDEM VARFUL ACOPERISULUI SKY DOME.

Toronto skyline, ca sa vezi despre ce e vorba:

http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg

Deci, fa-ti temele, si pe urma intra in vorba; ai mai mentionat, mancati-as, CMBR, hai sa-ti arat eu despre ce e vorba...

Cosmic Wave Background: the best proof for the aether

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/abs-AS2v2B.php
The cosmic background microwave radiation as evidence
for cosmological creation of electrons with minimum kinetic energy
and for a minimum of cosmic ambipolar massfree energy

Correa PN, Correa AN
Exp Aetherom, Series 2, Vol. 2B, 17C:1-61 (April 2002)

The authors examine the microwave cosmic background radiation (CBR) - composed exclusively of LFOT photons - with aetherometric tools developed in the preceding reports, and the results demonstrate that, unlike what is held by the accepted neo-relativist interpretations of the CBR, its true mode lies - not at 7.35 cm and a frequency of 4.08GHz, but at 7.76 cm and a frequency of 3.861GHz. Still more disturbing is the fact that the conventionally accepted temperature distribution of the CBR blackbody is off by more than an order of magnitude with respect to the real and aetherometric temperature scale that is demanded by a Planckian quantization of the spectrum. The CBR temperature mode is found to lie between 0.1863 and 0.1853 degrees Kelvin. This fact alone is sufficient to dismantle any pretensions of (neo-)Relativity to actually and adequately understand the physical significance of the CBR and grasp the physical processes of its production - thus putting into serious doubt the validity of the so-called Big-Bang hypothesis.

But the results of the aetherometric analysis of the CBR blackbody cut still deeper into the Princeton Gnosis and its interpretation of the microwave CBR: a discrete set of LFOT photon bands is found to co-inhabit the near-smooth CBR distribution, and a microfunctional model is proposed for their manifestation as being indicative of the successive phase states of aether energy, as if these bands underlay the very changes in, and characteristics of, the known chemical phases of Matter. In accordance to this aetherometric model, the CBR photon mode is an indicator that most of the aether energy of the universe has a fluid lattice structure. Likewise, the limit discrete band of the CBR blackbody would suggest the existence of a limiting solid-state phase for the Aether lattice, below which all photon production would result simply from the harmonic decay of the kinetic energy of cosmological electrons. Moreover, our aetherometric analysis indicates that the near-smooth CBR distribution appears to be bimodal, with the main peak (the ordinary mode) lying at 16µeV (at 3.861GHz), and the secondary peak at a higher energy of 26.5µeV (at 6.4GHz), corresponding to the critical-state aetherometric microenergy constant c2T/NA.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO1PDF/V15N1MAZ.pdf
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmic-microwave-background-radiation.htm

MAI VREI?

Again, one of the very best proofs/demonstrations of the fallacies inherent in the big bang theory:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm

Red Shift Errors

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/staticu.html

About the stellar parallax...

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page26.htm

Missing Doppler effect...

http://padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_9.html

An extraordinary article about the Doppler effect errors:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

And here is another superb analysis of the Doppler effect errors:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm

Also, an essay from an unusual point of view, on this subject:

http://www.whcs.org.uk/essays%20(1).htm

Mistakes of Hubble:

http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm

From Hubble:

' … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature…”

Nernst's Interpretation

Hubble made two mistakes:

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his 'law' was 'clearly linear', thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good 'first approximation' of a logarithmic curve.
The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).

The aether, by definition, is the light-carrying medium.

HARAP CA ZAPADA, ai mentionat zero point energy...

http://ldolphin.org/everything.html

[Abel Cavaşi]

Sandokhan, te rog, fără injurii, indiferent cât ar fi ele de interesante. Atrage atenţia prin metode legale, nu prin cuvinte grele. Este o provocare pentru tine să înveţi asta, iar eu te cred în stare.

[sandokhan]

De unde stii tu ce este o provocare pentru mine? Tu nu vezi cat ai rabdat acolo, fiind luat peste picior de un pustan care nu a citit in viata lui macar 5 volume de analiza matematica? Lasa-ma pe mine sa am grija de continut...sa-i lasam asa? Nu se poate...

[sandokhan]

Abel, ai uitat cine a inceput cu injuriile pe stiintaazi.ro? Nu eu...chiar tu:
http://www.stiintaazi.ro/Forum/index.php?topic=152.msg1401#msg1401 (asa ca las-o mai moale cu sfaturile, ai vazut ce patesti cand nu stii sa aplici lovituri de baston binemeritate interlocutorului tau, ti le va aplica el tie)

Raspuns pt. Al. Rautu

Nu am primit decat mesajul respectiv, din sirul propus de tine, am sa incerc sa analizez doar pe baza celor scrise acolo.

In primul rand, enuntul tau include o inexactitate, iata formularea corecta a principiului pe care vroiai sa comunici:

http://www.dsprelated.com/dspbooks/mdft/Uncertainty_Principle.html

Ce spune acolo? Exact.

The uncertainty principle (for Fourier transform pairs) follows immediately from the scaling theorem. It may be loosely stated as
Time Duration x Frequency Bandwidth greater than/or equal to c

where c is some constant determined by the precise definitions of "duration'' in the time domain and "bandwidth'' in the frequency domain.

Mai departe.

Pot sa te intreb Al. cate ore ai petrecut in biblioteca universatii, unde spui ca te afli, pentru a afla cum se calculeaza extremality of an action integral? Cate? Nici zece minute? O cercetare serioasa inseamna sa nu apelezi la ajutorul nimanui, cel putin pt. probleme care pot fi rezolvate apeland la alte surse, de unde iti vei cladi un raspuns credibil.

Eu iti pun la dispozitie cele mai bune surse pt. ca tu, Al., sa inveti cum sa calculezi valoarea respectiva, astfel incat sa arati ca acel action integral are intradevar a lower bound (marginit inferior).

Variational Principles of Continuum Mechanics with Engineering
Applications

Kluwer, Critical Points Theory, ed. By M. Hazewinkel

Chapter 5
http://books.google.ro/books?id=f8X9fGWfsysC&pg=PA313&lpg=PA313&dq=lagragian+variational+principles&source=bl&ots=sJcyDZc--E&sig=2boOZs8zlORXO0pfCVff2e9yIYw&hl=ro&ei=FbgSSqD-DMLH-AbGoMSjDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA313,M1
http://doc.utwente.nl/30240/

Variational Principles and Conservation. Laws in the Derivation of Radiation Boundary Conditions for Wave Equations

Variational principles in dynamics and quantum theory
W. Yourgrau
http://books.google.ro/books?id=OwTyrJJXZbYC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=lagragian+variational+principles&source=bl&ots=O-Ee4Vzhae&sig=3BwyXofoy-YabAJaNU6ztQQ_OlM&hl=ro&ei=bLkSSr3FNcTP-Aab4vmwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Variational principles and methods in theoretical physics
R. Nesbet http://books.google.ro/books?id=fbz04J4MlQkC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=lagragian+variational+principles&source=bl&ots=lFd3ueHCFs&sig=SQ8sbbUafH8fYOOo_z7Iie7A360&hl=ro&ei=bLkSSr3FNcTP-Aab4vmwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#PPP1,M1

http://books.google.ro/books?id=hYeBq9-ohwUC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=action+integral+extremality+variational&source=bl&ots=esQI1GMcEo&sig=VfaV1-W8BG2hUpiMZNLgMJXJwUY&hl=ro&ei=7CAUSpvlKaG1-QbWgfXZCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

Asa cum ai vazut din primul link, an easier approach este sa mergi pe calea Fourier Transform si de acolo sa folosesti the inequalities inherent in the uncertainty principles derived from there (imi e mai usor sa explic in engleza).

Iata pentru tine notitele de lectura care iti arata despre ce e vorba:

http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/getbig/ece/520/booske/notes/classicalwavemech1.pdf

Si Fourier Transforms and Uncertainty relations:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath488/kmath488.htm

Iata si relatia dintre Fourier Transforms and Inequalities (de care vei avea nevoie in calculul tau):

http://www.math.umn.edu/~garrett/m/fun/uncertainty.pdf

fourier delta (dirac) function

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Earth--Atmospheric--and-Planetary-Sciences/12-864Spring-2005/B159D642-65D5-4A90-938B-83A07673EC85/0/tsamsfmt_1_1.pdf

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Fourier_transform

extremality of the action integral

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/16/13/013

Daca cunosti analiza functionala, iata si o lucrare pe acelasi subiect, care foloseste aceasta ramura avansata a matematicii moderne:

http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/Uncertainty.pdf

Ai facut aceasta munca de cercetare Al. Rautu, in prealabil? Sa o fac eu pt. tine? Trebuie sa treci prin furcile caudine ale cercetarii, unde vei dedica zeci de ore, chiar si mai mult, unui subiect; pe care il vei intoarce pe toate partile, folosind cat mai multe surse bibliografice.

Rautu, nu te voi acuza de fanfaronada (adica ca in biblioteca ta apare Stable and Random Motions of Dynamical Systems de regretatul Jurgen Moser; da-mi voie sa-ti spun ca, in momentul de fata nu intelegi nici 5% din acea carte, mai ales diferenta fundamentala dintre teorema Smale-Birkhoff si teorema lui Moser din acea carte) dar te voi acuza de lasitate. Daca te vei uita cu atentie la mesajul meu precedent vei vedea ca eu ti-am vb civilizat, aducandu-ti la cunostinta mai multe greseli colosale din ceea ce dumneata accepti, cu ochii inchisi, ca fiind stiinta oficiala; raspunsul tau, plin de jigniri copilaresti, nu adresa nimic din ce am scris eu acolo; dar asa procedezi peste tot, tu ai dreptul sa jignesti, orice raspuns este ori banat ori sters, si ramai mai departe sa postezi nimicuri pe diverse subiecte...

Al. Rautu, ai mai scris ceva in alta parte, ai mentionat citez: potentialul gravitational; dumneata glumesti?
Nu exista nici un fel de lege a gravitatiei, o lege devine astfel dupa ce sunt clarificate toate aspectele incluse: ce este masa, ce da masa materiei, existenta gravitonilor care compun campul gravitational, si dovezi clare ca aceasta gravitatie este de natura atractiva. Insa chiar Newton nu credea deloc in conceptul de atractie gravitationala, nu apare nicaieri in Principia acest aspect; dupa moartea sa, London Royal Society a raspandit aceasta credinta falsa, pe care tu nu ai verificat-o niciodata.
Demonstratia completa a faptului ca nu exista nici un fel de atractie gravitationala, ca Newton si-a copiat TOATE rezultatele din mecanica/matematica din sutrele indiene, si citatele sale care ne spun in ce credea de fapt: PRESIUNEA GRAVITATIONALA CAUZATA DE AETHER.

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/aether-pressure-ii-inexistenta-atractiei-gravitationale-t45.htm?sid=fffa924490f1f327615722dd372f079d

PS Si nu in ultimul rand:

Julian Davis, Mathematics of Wave Propagation
http://books.google.ro/books?id=XUV5TjogoGkC&dq=julian+davis+mathematics+of+wave&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=ro&ei=KRkUSuviJsvF-QarkfGjDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

[Abel Cavaşi]

Abel, ai uitat cine a inceput cu injuriile pe stiintaazi.ro? Nu eu...chiar tu:
http://www.stiintaazi.ro/Forum/index.php?topic=152.msg1401#msg1401 (asa ca las-o mai moale cu sfaturile, ai vazut ce patesti cand nu stii sa aplici lovituri de baston binemeritate interlocutorului tau, ti le va aplica el tie)

Pe Stiintaazi spuneam despre proponenţii Pământului plat că sunt bolnavi psihic, mincinoşi şi că nu se poate discuta ştiinţific cu ei pentru că au alte interese. Dacă am greşit cu ceva acolo, te rog să mă ierţi. Dacă nu mă poţi ierta, spune-mi ce pot să fac în această privinţă. Dar dacă nu am greşit, îmi menţin părerea.

Mai important este, însă, ca tu să te gândeşti că este foarte posibil să fie oameni care chiar cred că ai putea avea dreptate (eu nu sunt printre aceia), oameni pe care nu merită să-i dezamăgeşti cu un comportament verbal agresiv, oameni care, crezând ceea ce spui tu, vor da clic pe lincurile tale, iar tu te ve îmbogăţi .

Cine are ceva bun de zis o va face cu răbdare, cu blândeţe!

[sandokhan]

Cu cati proponenti ai teoriei pamantului plat ai discutat tu pana acum Abel?

Abel, te las pe tine sa-mi spui si mie cum stau lucrurile...nu cred ca ai nevoie de English tutorial sa intelegi despre ce e vorba...UNDE ESTE CURBURA DE 4 METRI CARE AR TREBUI SA EXISTE INTRE PORT CREDIT SI TORONTO?

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=831.msg33777#msg33777

Uite harta lacului Toronto:



Hamilton - Toronto 60 km (intre Hamilton si Toronto lakeshore west condominiums, 55 de km)

Iata si descrierea pozelor facute chiar pe plaja din Hamilton (exista si poze cu autorii pe acea plaja in albumul foto):

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/



Facuta cu un Sony DSC H5

Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontario Beach in Hamilton:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream/



Da-mi voie sa-ti explic cam despre ce cifre ar fi vorba:

DISTANTA HAMILTON - TORONTO LAKESHORE WEST CONDOMINIUMS: 55 KILOMETRI

CURBURA: 59 DE METRI, ADICA DACA TE AFLI PE MALUL DIN HAMILTON TE ASTEAPTA UN MUNTE DE APA, LA MIJLOCUL DISTANTEI, DE 59 DE METRI INALTIME

OBSTACOL VIZUAL: 195 DE METRI, ADICA DE PE ACEA PLAJA, DE LA INALTIMEA DE 2 METRI, NU POTI VEDEA NIMIC SUB ALTITUDINEA DE 195 DE METRI DE PE CELALALT TARM/MAL.

INSA VEDEM CLAR TOATE DETALIILE, TOT TARMUL, FARA NICI UN FEL DE CURBURA, ZERO CURBURA, SUPRAFATA LACULUI FIIND COMPLET PLATA...

SI ATUNCI CE FACEM, ABEL?

[sandokhan]

Bai electron...repeti aceleasi replici prapadite...nu vezi ca s-au saturat cu totii de tine acolo pe stiintaazi?

Ia sa vedem ce ai scris: cum pot lentilele de la aparatele foto obisnuite (lentile cu simetrie cilindrica) sa taie din poze baza cladirilor tocmai in mijlocul pozei, si doar pe orizontala?

Mey electron...uite formula + diagrama aferenta postata de tine:



f(h,s) = R/cos(s/R - arccos [R/(R+h)] ) - R

Hai sa vizitam St. Catharines; vom lua DOAR 50 de km intre acest oras si Toronto (desi de fapt sunt cam vreo 51-52), no problem.

Curbura de 49.5 metri

SI ACUM, DE PE MALUL DIN ST. CATHARINES, DACA NE AFLAM LA O INALTIME DE 2 SAU 3 METRI NU AM PUTEA SA VEDEM NIMIC SUB URMATOARELE ALTITUDINI:

AE = 2 METRI, BD = 158 METRI

AE = 3 METRI, BD = 150.5 METRI

ORICE ALTCEVA, PE UN PAMANT ROTUND, PESTE INALTIMEA DE 158 METRI (SAU 150.5 METRI DACA LUAM AE = 3 METRI), INSEAMNA CA APARATUL RESPECTIV ARE O LIMITA (DISTANTA FOCALA), SI POZA VA FI RETEZATA SAU TAIATA LA MIJLOC, LA BAZA CLADIRILOR.

ORICE ALTCEVA, PE UN PAMANT PLAT, SUB INALTIMEA DE 158 METRI VA INSEMNA CA TEORIA PAMANTULUI ROTUND, CARE NECESITA O ANUMITA CURBURA, ESTE COMPLET FALSA.

IATA ACUM, ELECTRON POZELE AFERENTE, CARE ITI VOR DOVEDI, INCA O DATA, CA AM DREPTATE, SI CA AI SCRIS NUMAI TAMPENII IN PASII TAI:

Nu uita, ca CN Tower are vreo 520 de metri, si ca urmatoare cladire are cam 298 de metri, ca inaltime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto

IATA ACUM, POZA TAIATA LA BAZA, CARE NE ARATA DOAR VARFUL TURNULUI CN TOWER, NU SE VEDE NICI O ALTA CLADIRE, DECI NE AFLAM LA O INALTIME DE PESTE 298 DE METRI, CU 150 DE METRI PESTE LIMITA MINIMA A CAZULUI PAMANTULUI ROTUND DE 150.5 METRI (VOM LUA AICI 3 METRI AE).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/

Iata si aparatul folosit: PANASONIC DMC

ACUM, ACELASI FOTOGRAF, CU O NOUA POZA DIN PLAJA ST. CATHARINES:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/

Vedem varfurile cladirilor de peste 170-180 de metri, deci iarasi dovada ca distanta focala a aparatului va taia poza la baza, din cauza limitarii sale tehnice.

Iata si aparatul folosit: Canon Powershot

Iata acum poza senzationala CARE DISTRUGE ODATA PENTRU TOTDEAUNA TEORIA COMPLET FALSA A PAMANTULUI ROTUND:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/



ACOPERISUL CLADIRII SKY DOME VIZIBIL (INALTIMEA SKY DOME 90 DE METRI), FOTOGRAFUL AFLAT CHIAR PE PLAJA DIN ST. CATHARINES, LA 2 METRI, DAR PENTRU ELECTRON, VOM LUA AICI 3 METRI.

DECI NU AM PUTEA SA VEDEM NIMIC SUB 150.5 METRI; DAR EXISTA O DIFERENTA DE 60 DE METRI INTRE CEEA CE PUTEM VEDEA IN POZA, ACOPERISUL SKY DOME, SI TEORIA PAMANTULUI ROTUND, CARE ASTFEL ESTE COMPLET DISTRUSA.

IATA TORONTO PANORAMA:

http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg

Acum, alte doua poze, facute iarasi pe plaja din St. Catharines, care ne arata care este infatisarea acelei plaje; iarasi in prima poza, vedem varful CN Tower, in a doua mai multe detalii, distanta focala limitata a aparatului taie pozele de la baza:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg

[sandokhan]

Raspuns pt. Mihnea

Te rog sa citesti cu atentie mesajul meu Cele Sapte Epoci:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/82890

Faptul ca ADN-ul nu putea sa apara la intamplare, cea mai senzationala demonstratie:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/184/view-posts/188455
http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/74401

Dovezile despre existante dinozaurilor doar acum 4500-5000 de ani:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/jurassic-park-2250-bc-t46.htm

Iata si site-ul cu toate dovezile paleontologice/arheologice:

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Fa rost de Ciocnirea Lumilor de I. Velikovsky, ed. Lucman, mai multe detalii aici:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/184/view-posts/188452

De la bun inceput au exista trei linii genetice/genealogice:

ADAM - SET - SEM (rasa alba)

ADAM - SET - IAFET (rasele rosii/galbene)

CAIN - HAM - CANAAN (sotia lui Ham, sau Khem, se numea Aegyptos, rasa neagra/pielea inchisa, KUSH a trait in Kashmir dupa Marele Potop)

Tatal lui Cain NU a fost Adam...de aici incep toate problemele...

[mm]

Citat:
"Tatal lui Cain NU a fost Adam...de aici incep toate problemele..."
Sa fi fost oare Abel? Intreb si eu.

Citat:
"ACOPERISUL CLADIRII SKY DOME VIZIBIL"
Da, dar un sfert din turnul de televiziune nu se vede din cauza curburii apei. In aceeasi poza. Nu mai stiu ce demonstrezi cu poza asta. Ca este curbura?

Ai un mesaj privat pe aici.

[sandokhan]

Portiunea turnului care nu se vede este aceea care se afla sub cei 85-86 de metri ai Sky Dome, te rog sa consulti Toronto Panorama links, poti sa accesezi pe google images Toronto skyline, si ai sa vezi ca poza arata clar ca Sky Dome, acoperisul sau, se afla exact acolo unde trebuie.

Problema este ca exista o diferenta de 60 de metri intre ce ar trebui sa se vad pe un pamant rotund, si imaginea respectiva; daca luam, asa cum trebui, 53 km intre St. Catharines si Toronto, si o inaltime a fotografului de 2 metri, atunci diferenta va fi de 90 de metri, dar eu am luat cel mai rau caz posibil pentru TPP, ca intotdeauna.

Pozele arata clar cum pot fi taiate la baza acele cladiri; teoria aici:

http://www.stiintaazi.ro/Forum/index.php?topic=416.msg5374#msg5374

Daca ne imaginam Toronto ca un vas gigantic, cu CN Tower drept catarg, vedem, in acele poze, o exemplificare extraordinara a teoriei din acest link de mai sus, adica de ce si cum dispare corpul unei nave inaintea catargului la orizont...

[sandokhan]

Deci asa, distante relative...bai electron, ultima cifra care se poate aplica la distanta Sun/Iss transit ar fi 149000000 km, iar prima este desigur 1 km; cifrele vehiculate oficial nu corespund acestor filme sau poze; vedem clar si cu siguranta acelasi diametru ISS/Mercur si cam aceeasi distanta intre ele si Soare.

Daca nu sunteti destul de convinsi, avem si:

moontransit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExaprUbjKBk&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl1ujuOHxiI&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVRCPXwkWUY&feature=related (uitati-va cu atentie)

Din nou Sun/Iss/Mercur transit, si pozele aferente care ne demonstreaza clar cum am fost pacaliti de conspiratorii de la Nasa:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/here-comes-the-sun-t59.htm

Faint Young Sun Paradox intr-un format nou, adica paradoxul soarelui timpuriu, argumentul senzational care a bulversat toata heliocosmologia, cea mai fantastica prezentare:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg681102#msg681102

Imposibilitatea formarii unui soare de forma sferica, demonstratia exceptionala:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg24706#msg24706

Ignorantii care discuta in nestire despre Soare uita toate aceste lucruri, precum si imposibilitatea formarii vreunei stele in teoria big bang:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.0

CMBR si Hubble redshift errors:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/link-to-stiintaaziro-forum-raspunsuri-t48.htm#405

Cat despre miscari relative, nu electron este in masura sa dea lectii, nu si cand desenezi ca un fraier direct pe scheme fara scara de masura:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/16833/view-posts/196821

Criteriile pentru nesimtire si vulgaritate sunt indeplinite la modul cel mai concret chiar de electron, din cauza caruia au inceput toate problemele pe stiintaazi.ro:

http://www.neogen.ro/group/16833/view-posts/191476 (scrisoare deschisa)

http://www.neogen.ro/group/16833/view-posts/197481 (mesajul #1)

[Continut sponsorizat]