Thread: The Aether light carrier wave

1. The velocity of this wave can be calculated as c = 1/(LC)^1/2. It is the RESONANT VALUE of vacuum and ABSOLUTE ZERO HAS MASS.

LC has units of mass, length and time. A basic fact that Einstein chose to ignore.

It is the very first Quantum Free Lunch and many more cycles are shown at DELETED WEBSITE

2.

3. What do C and L represent in this equation? Why does c=(CL)^1/2?

4. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
What do C and L represent in this equation? Why does c=(CL)^1/2?
It doesn't matter. This is spam advertising his nutball web site (with a link that doesn't work).

5. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
What do C and L represent in this equation? Why does c=(CL)^1/2?
C and L are the capacitance and induction values given by all Physics studies. c is
the velocity of light 300,000,000 m/s.

The formula is from Standard Resonance.

The site works now. Ishould have typed org and not com

I hope Dr 'nutBalls' Rocket does not use the topic to raise his brain activity to 3185 posts.

6. Originally Posted by cresswell
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
What do C and L represent in this equation? Why does c=(CL)^1/2?
C and L are the capacitance and induction values given by all Physics studies. c is
the velocity of light 300,000,000 m/s.

The formula is from Standard Resonance.

The site works now. Ishould have typed org and not com

I hope Dr 'nutBalls' Rocket does not use the topic to raise his brain activity to 3185 posts.

This is one of the nuttier nutball sites around.

This thread belongs in Pseudoscience, not here.

7. Yep, the link works now.

This is one of the nuttier nutball sites around.

This thread belongs in Pseudoscience, not here.[/quote]

Could not resist could he. He had 30 seconds and less to comprehend that which I have worked on for 14 years.

He is a serial poster and way, way beyond parental control.

8. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
What do C and L represent in this equation? Why does c=(CL)^1/2?
Sorry it should be c = 1/(CL)^1/2

9. Originally Posted by cresswell
Could not resist could he. He had 30 seconds and less to comprehend that which I have worked on for 14 years.

He is a serial poster and way, way beyond parental control.
It doesn't take long if one understands physics. Several decades of esperience help.

I am pretty sure that I can grasp in a few seconds the validity of any revolutionary theory that you could come up with in only 14 years.

10. Conspiracy theories and pseudo-science: a toxic combination. Some people have and will always try to get something from nothing. And if they can't, it must be because of a conspiracy against "truth".

11. Originally Posted by MoJo98221
Conspiracy theories and pseudo-science: a toxic combination. Some people have and will always try to get something from nothing. And if they can't, it must be because of a conspiracy against "truth".
Maybe a working brain will post later on

12. Originally Posted by cresswell
Maybe a working brain will post later on
Here I am. Before I get into your hypothesis, if I get that far, I wanted to explore some of your foundation comments. You say:

A cult called the Royal Society were controlling scientific education with rules which they called laws. This engine era became known as the Industrial Revolution. Money and greed ruled. It was a very bad time for thinking straight.
This was the period that saw the foundations of evolutionary theory, the recognition of the age of the Earth and the establisment of the Principle of Uniformity. It was a time that saw a dramtic increase in knowledge of nature beyond 'civilisation' and the growing awareness of the character and importance of chemistry.

At the forefront of these developments was the Royal Society. Do you deny the nature and the value of these steps? Is it not the case that your statements are rhetorically powerful, but factually wrong? I ask because it is more difficult to take an argument seriously when it is prefaced by an emotive attack that lacks substance. True, I should judge your idea on its own merits, but you have chosen to found it on these claims, so these claims have to be considered.

13. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
What do C and L represent in this equation? Why does c=(CL)^1/2?
As previously, capacitance and inductance, and there should be a reciprocal in there. In electrical cables, characteristic impedance for a lossless line is Z0 = √(L/C), see wiki. When we move to vacuum impedance we say Z0 = √(μ00) and c = √(1/ε0μ0), where ε0 is the permittivity of free space and μ0 is the permeability of free space. Simply rewrite c=√(1/ε0μ0) as and replace ε0 and μ0 with L and C and voila:

15. Originally Posted by sox
CHUCKLE YOUR WAY THRO THIS NOW ........

c/T = earth gravity vaue of 9.805 m/s^2 where T is the periodic time in seconds of an EARTH year.

This value is at 1100 km above sea level (NASA re-entry) where the correction factor for sea level gives 9.81

ALL MY STATEMENTS ARE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. And Darwin is in there
and TV physicists now claim that all CHAOS is EVOLUTIONARY ORDER.

Ring any bells yet ?????????????????

16. The Royal Society is just the scapegoat. The real culprit is the Illuminati working along with lizard aliens to control us.

Tell us your ideas here, and let us discuss them here.

18. Originally Posted by KALSTER
The Royal Society is just the scapegoat. The real culprit is the Illuminati working along with lizard aliens to control us.
And you are a MODERATOR. THis at least explains the quality of 90% of the postings.

19. Originally Posted by cresswell
Originally Posted by KALSTER
The Royal Society is just the scapegoat. The real culprit is the Illuminati working along with lizard aliens to control us.
And you are a MODERATOR. THis at least explains the quality of 90% of the postings.
Indeed. I am one with a sense of humour, hopefully.

20. "c/T = earth gravity vaue of 9.805 m/s^2 where T is the periodic time in seconds of an EARTH year.

This value is at 1100 km above sea level (NASA re-entry) where the correction factor for sea level gives 9.81" This simple equation is really ingenious because it links the speed of light with gravity. It may also lead to this conclusion: in another galaxy with greater solar flux radiation, the relation between light and its carrier wave will change. A more powerful carrier wave will propel light faster. We can only measure light within this galaxy so who can tell? Nothing with mass moves by itself. Light has mass therefore some kind of carrier wave propelled by starbursts moves the light. The speed of light is not constant throughout the universe.

21. Originally Posted by mitomke
"c/T = earth gravity vaue of 9.805 m/s^2 where T is the periodic time in seconds of an EARTH year.

This value is at 1100 km above sea level (NASA re-entry) where the correction factor for sea level gives 9.81" This simple equation is really ingenious because it links the speed of light with gravity. It may also lead to this conclusion: in another galaxy with greater solar flux radiation, the relation between light and its carrier wave will change. A more powerful carrier wave will propel light faster. We can only measure light within this galaxy so who can tell? Nothing with mass moves by itself. Light has mass therefore some kind of carrier wave propelled by starbursts moves the light. The speed of light is not constant throughout the universe.
New nonsense.