A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: glird on 10 Jan 2010 14:11 On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > do you think that there are more than one mass > physical entity ??? > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. The difference is this: He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that body; where -- if you study his words carefully, ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any weight. glird
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 10 Jan 2010 15:10 Y.Porat wrote: > On Jan 3, 10:01 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Look �h�, is the constant kinetic or relativistic, call it what you >> prefer, �mass/energy�, of the photon due to constant velocity of �c�. >> It is still mass, and it is mass due to motion. And as I demonstrated, >> even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical >> rotation. They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe >> is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a >> constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion, >> even rest mass, which is energy in rotation. >> Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2), �h� is constant mass/ >> energy due to constant velocity of, �c� and, �f� is variable mass/ >> energy, due to variable frequency. And higher mass/energy is due to >> higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from >> higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more >> speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy. In the old days the >> equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv), showing its direct >> correspondence to (F=mv), as indeed they are equal on the quantum >> level and directly proportional on macro level. And they updated >> equation E=hf/c^2 is equal to F=mv/r^2. >> Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it >> does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as >> deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2. >> >> On Dec 30 2009, 6:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:bdd1649a-aa33-4ac9-b17c-38428f2ede65(a)37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... >>>> 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons >>>> 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter >>>> 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, >>>> and that electron was also a wave. >>>> 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to >>>> circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of >>>> h/2pi >>>> 5) Therefore it follows from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) = >>>> (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) >>> You were going well up until you started with that last line of nonsense. >>> If c=(square root of -1), then c is no longer a real number, and cannot be >>> the speed of anything measured. Further, if c=(square root of -1), then c^2 >>> = -2, so E = mc^2 becomes E = -m, and that is absolute nonsense. >> c = the natural unit, sqrt of the natural unit -1, and is no longer >> just an imaginary number, but a real natural unit just as the electron >> is the real natural unit -1. >> And yes E= -m in this special case. >> Ever heard of the unity of the constants? As everything in the >> universe come from a unified source as we get to the constants in >> nature we find that they too extend from a unity. >> (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (h = c= i = 2pi) so far I�ve found that all >> constants can be traced to a unity with c >> In equation E=hf/c^2 and F=mv/r^2, c = r >> >> Conrad J Countess > > ----------------------- > good for you Countless !! > anyway i forgot whop said it first that > > 'ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!! > EVEN IN MICROCOSM' !! > > can you remember who said it first (:-) > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ The photon is massless because it does not interact with the Higgs field. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: cjcountess on 10 Jan 2010 15:22 On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? > > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? > > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. This statement is ludicrous inside and out. (E=mc^2), tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, and that they are equal, related through mathematical conversion factor (c^2), but does not explain how, neither can physicist explain. See Novas, Einstein's Big Idea: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html Now would not it be more information, and more interesting, to have a geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), that not only tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion factor of (c^2), but actually shows us how because (c^2) is an actual conversion frequency/ wavelength, by giving this equation physical form, a geometrical shape of circular and or spherical motion. Now, not only do we know that (E=hf=mc^2), at the level of the electron, indicating a smooth transition between energy and matter- waves and particles, but we have a picture of it, revealing more of how the EM spectrum is not just the electromagnetic but the energy/matter, spectrum as well. I read some ware that some die hard, old school, physicist. may have to die out before new revolutionary ideas and discoveries generally accepted. Oh well; to bad, it doesnt have to be that way. And so yes: (c^2), as a rotation of energy is more fundamental than (c^2) as just a mathematical conversion factor with no geometrical meaning, because the latter is incomplete and simply not entirely true Buy the way. Ever see a cat move? You think you know more about physics than they- huh? Boy are you gonna look dumb when this "idea-discovery", gets the proper, truly objective, scientific review. > I rather enjoy the scene in "War of the Worlds" where the clergyman > walks out to a Martian war machine holding a bible and mouthing > something about how little fear he has when walking into the valley of > the shadow of death. > > Go Martians, Go! Increase the average intelligence of the human race! > > Or to quote Clint: "deserve's got nothing to do with it". My discovery will be around when you dye out Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 10 Jan 2010 15:58 On Jan 10, 1:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Good for you Countless !!!! > > dont let all the imbecile parrot gangsters > hold you back > we are going to win not them!! > (that is why they are in panic !!) > > ATB > Y.Porat Thank you Y.Porat Its only a matter of time before the right people in the right position, with a truly objective perspective, valuing what is right, over who is right, sees this. Than it will become apparent, both who is revealing the truth, and who is trying to conceal it. Conrad J Countess
From: glird on 10 Jan 2010 17:29
On Jan 10, 3:22 pm, cjcountess wrote: > >< (E=mc^2) tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, and that they are exqxuxaxl related through a mathematical conversion factor (c^2), but does not explain how. Neither can physicists. > True. >< Now would not it be more information and more interesting to have a geometrical interpretation of e=mc^2 that not only tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter and that they are oxnxe related through a mathematical conversion factor of c^2, but actually shows us HOW, by giving this equation physical form, a geometrical shape of circular and or spherical motion. > E = mc^2 says that the energy in a mass is equal to its weight times (the speed of light in a vacuum)^2. >< Now, not only do we know that (E=hf=mc^2) at the level of the electron, indicating a smooth transition between energy and matter- waves and parxticlxes, but we have a picture of it, revealing more of how the âEM spectrumâ is not just the âelectromagneticâ but the âenergy/matterâ, spectrum as well. > From page 6 of The Anpheon: << "Energy" is the ability to do work. The following equations prove this: F = ma, so m = F/a. Therefore, by substituting equals for equals we see that e = mc2 = (F/a)c2 = F(cm2/sec2)/(cm/sec2) = Fd = gm cm = ergs = work. That which possesses this ability is matter. That which provides matter with the ability to do work is the difference in degree of organization of different portions of matter. That difference is the result of the interplay of the motions, pressures, densities, and ontropy, of matter. Being a complex product, energy is not a basic item. >> From page 93 of that book: << Using the following data values and the equation e=hf we will now derive the numerical data value of h by simple arithmetic. The empirical numerical values of the mass m of an electron, the radius r of its orbit, the velocity c of light in a vacuum, the Fine structure constant Fs, and the speed câ of an electron in its orbital path (taken herein as the speed of light in an outer ponitron) are: m = 9.1094^-28 gm, the radius of an average atom is r = 5.29177^-9 cm, c = 2.997934^10 cm/sec, Fs = 137.03604, and câ = c/Fs = 2.1876975^8. An electron will take 2pir/câ seconds per orbit, so the frequency is f = 1/(2pir/câ) = 6.5797053^15 beats per second. Since e = mc2 and the local speed of light in a pon is câ, we thus have e = hf = mcâ2, from which we get h = mcâ2/fï Solving the latter equation we get, h = (9.1093603^-28 gm)(2.1876975^8 cm/sec)^2/(6.5797053^15/sec) = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. That is precisely âthe empirical measured valueâ of h reported on the Internet in 2006. >> On page 18 that book says, << Putting all the above bits and pieces together we reach *The Equation of Everything* e = Fd = ma x d = mv2 = (mc2 â>m(c/Fs)2 = mcâ2 = (2pirmcâ)f = hf = eo. >> >< I read somewhere that some die hard, old school, physicist. may have to die out before new revolutionary ideas and discoveries are generally accepted. Oh well; too bad. It doesnât have to be that way.> From your pen to God's. >< And so yes: (c^2), as a rotation of energy is more fundamental than (c^2) as just a mathematical conversion factor with no geometrical meaning, because the xlxatxtexr {former) is incomplete and simply not exnxtxixrxexlxy true. > My discovery will be around when I hope you still are, Countess J Conrad. glird |