A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: glird on 12 Jan 2010 15:15 On Jan 12, 1:41Â pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 10, 5:29Â pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Â 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 > > Â Â e = mc2 = (F/a)c2 > > Â Â Â = F(cm2/sec2)/(cm/sec2) > > Â Â Â = 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. > > Â 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. >> > > > Â 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. > > Â 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. > > Â 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, > > Â h = (9.1093603^-28 gm)(2.1876975^8 cm/sec)^2/(6.5797053^15/sec) > > Â Â = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. > > That is precisely âthe empirical measured valueâ of h reported on the > > Internet in 2006. >> > > > Â On page 18 that book says, > > << Putting all the above bits and pieces together we reach > > Â Â *The Equation of Everything* > > Â e = Fd = ma x d = mv2 > > Â Â = (mc2 â>m(c/Fs)2 = mcâ2 > > Â Â = (2pirmcâ)f = hf = eo. >> > > This is very interesting, although I would say that (h=c) instead of > (h=c^2/f) to simplify things.but there is something interesting about > the way you stated it. > > As far as quantum linear length of a particle is concerned (h=c^2/f) > may =(h/2pi/2) and = reduced Compton wavelength = radius of electron = > Schwarzschild radius, and (h/2pi) the full Compton wavelength. Have to > look at this more. Concentrate on h=(9.1093603^-28gm)(2.1876975^8cm/sec)^2/6.5797053^15/sec = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. I got it from studying Planck" paper. He said something about the resonators in a black box being stationary. That made me wonder, If the resonators are stationary then how can they resonate, i.e. vibrate? They couldn't vibrate back and forth from a given point. Having long ago worked out the intricate structure of matter units, from atoms to the entire universe, I knew that there are density shells of matter around every nucleus, including an atom's, and that pressure-density nodes circulate in them. So i said to myself, I wonder if his "stationary resonators" could be the circulating nodes themselves. (If so, the atom could be stationary even though its nodes -- called "electrons" -- orbited inside it.) Thinking the electron was a particle, I therefore looked up its mass (m) and orbital speed (c') and the radius of its orbit. Putting them together I proceeded thus: Well, if r is the size of the radius, then 2 x pi x r is the length of one orbital path. Since energy is the ability to do work, and work is mass x distance moved, why not try multiplying 2pir by m, and then that by c'. The fact that the result PRECISELY fit the experimental value of h -- which Planck's almost mystical mathematical treatment did not -- led me to consider the ramifications of my way of doing it. As time went on, I gradually changed my mind as to an electron being a particle, ven inside an atom. I proceeded somewhat like this: If a circulating electron escaped from an atom it would shoot out at c'. Why, then does a "photon" always travel between atoms at c? Well, suppose the electron is a wavicle, a pd node traveling in the dense medium inside its layer at c'. Suppose that when it linearly escaped from its shell layer, it represented a rather large excess pressure in the surrounding space-filling matter. That +p would instantly push surrounding matter away, in all directions from any point it was at. The +pd GRADIENT (NOT the tiny bit of matter that escaped) would then radiate outward in all directions at c. A year or so later, I began to wonder: Why is the decrease in the remaining mass of the atom equal to that of the escaped electron if the electron isn't a particle? (Forget about Heisenberg's wave- particle duality; which says that if it can't be a particle and can't be a wave system it is therefore both. That's like saying that if light can't be a particle and can't be a wave it is therefore both. Which is like saying that the mass of a photon is zero except when it isn't.) That led me to ponder about what "mass" actually is, and how it is measured. i DID figure that out and the answer led to a change in my own nomenclature in several of my books. (For instance, I deleted the word "dinsity" because I realized that: Rather than non-particulate matter having no "mass" in a g-field, it has no WEIGHT; so "density" DOES means "mass per unit volume". Enuf 4 now. If intrested let me know. glird
From: Inertial on 12 Jan 2010 16:53 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d6f5e6da-9ec4-413c-aab4-4459f53786a6(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 12, 2:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a079b72c-0891-4f32-a744-ad1b6b364c75(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 11, 9:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 11, 12:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jan 11, 7:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > On Jan 11, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > On Jan 11, 2:01 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > 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 >> >> >> > > > > ---------------- >> >> > > > > nice !! >> >> > > > > now about relativistic mass: >> >> > > > > 1 >> >> > > > > as some of us said >> >> > > > > it was abandoned long ago >> >> > > > > for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians >> >> > > > > and we saw it ion my thread: >> >> > > > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' >> >> > > > > one of my main clames was at th3e >> >> > > > > momentum case >> >> > > > > i showed that >> >> > > > > **no one has any way to show that in >> >> >> > > > > Gamma m v >> >> >> > > > > the gamma does not belongs to the mass >> >> > > > > IT BELONGS TO MV AS >> >> > > > > *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** >> >> >> > > > The gamma doesn't belong to anything. I don't know where you got >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > idea that factors in a product can be assigned to belong to each >> >> > > > other. >> >> >> > > > > and no one has a prove that it belongs >> >> > > > > *only to the mass*!!! >> >> >> > > > > ATB >> >> > > > > Y.Porat >> >> > > > > ------------------- >> >> >> > > no PD >> >> > > YOU are telling ME that ??? >> >> > > dont youthink that anything is documented >> >> > > to the last word ??? >> >> > > i said it in my hread >> >> > > 'THEERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS' >> >> > > anyone can see it there it is from a few weeks before only so no >> >> > > one >> >> > > can cj >> >> > > heat about it !! >> >> > > (you count too much on my short memory or on your short memory >> >> > > !!!) >> >> > > i explaned it before you !!! >> >> > > and explined it unprecedented !! >> >> > > that the gamma factor belongs to the >> >> > > mv!! **as one physical entity** >> >> > > to the mass only !!! >> >> > > 2 >> >> > > if so there is no relativistic mass ! >> >> > > no prove that the gamma belongs to mass only >> >> > > there is no precedence to that explanation of mine !!! >> >> > > UNLESS you bring former evidence >> >> > > (anyway i ddint hear it from nobody before me >> >> > > it was cooked in my mind during the above thread !!) >> >> > > and still >> >> > > you dont understand its very revolutionary meaning >> >> > > that i will bring later >> >> > > that will shake all your past claimes like >> >> >> > > ""the photon has no mass etc etc ""!! >> >> > > you refused to answer my last question to you >> >> > > whther there is jsut one kind of mass >> >> > > and tomorow you willtell every body that >> >> > > you toght me that >> >> > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' !! >> >> > > and the conclusion of it is that >> >> > > ** THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!** >> >> > > AND THAT >> >> > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM !!! >> >> > > SO TO MOROW YOU WILL SAY THAT >> >> > > EVEN THAT - it was claimed 50 years ago ) >> >> >> > > there is a limit to impertinence !! >> >> > > (AT THE AGE OF GOOGLE !!) >> >> > > and then you wil tell every body that it was done >> >> > > 80 years before me !!! >> >> > > **or even better** >> >> >> > > that you explained it to me first !!! >> >> > > Y.Porat >> >> > > -------------------- >> >> >> > -------------------- >> >> > IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE >> >> >> > just see post NO 15 of the thread >> >> > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' >> >> > quote from it >> >> > ''why is it that your first entrance to this thread >> >> > you ddint say LOUD AND CLEAR >> >> > PORAT YOU ARE RIGTHT -- >> >> > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS ??!! >> >> >> Porat you are right, there is just one kind of mass. >> >> Congratulations for stumbling on something that has already been known >> >> for 50 years. >> >> >> Please also tell me that you'd like to be told that, yes, indeed, you >> >> are right when you say that 3+3=6. >> >> >> > and youcame with it >> >> > only after some new explaantions of mine?? >> >> > can you quote another place >> >> > in whichthose explanations are given??!! >> >> >> > that we can only measure momentum >> >> > and we cant measure th e mass *in that growing momentum!!* >> >> > (because we have no gauge connected to that mass >> >> > or whatever another way -- >> >> > to get in that growing momentum to tell us that the mass was >> >> > growing !!! >> >> > and another argument that i brought >> >> > that th e 'relativistic mass is **disappearing** >> >> > imediately while the movement STOPES etc etc >> >> > were are explanations preceding it >> >> > ------------------------ >> >> > end of quote >> >> > i explain why the gamma cannot be related to mass in the momentum!! >> >> >> > not only say that it belongs to the momentum >> >> > BUT EXPLAIN WHY NOT !! >> >> >> > becuse we have no experimental way >> >> > to meaure the mass separately !! >> >> >> > and that explanatin is unprecedented !! >> >> > we have no little guage attached to the mass >> >> > to tell us that the mass was inflatiing !! >> >> > that is in addition that i claimed that >> >> > WE CAN ATTACHE THE GAMMA FACTOR TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FORMULA >> >> >> > P =gamma m v >> >> > we can do itas >> >> >> > P/Gamma = mv!! >> >> > ie >> >> > belongs to the mv >> >> > AND NOT ONLY TO THE m !!!! >> >> > i ddi it many years ago by >> >> > writing >> >> >> > F/Gamma = mv >> >> > instead >> >> > F= gamma m a >> >> > iow >> >> > and that is an old claime and explanation of mine to >> >> > attaching the gamma to the force !!! >> >> > ie to m a as one unit !!! >> >> >> > AND IN ADDITION I EXPLAINED THAT >> >> > GAMMA IS A SCALAR >> >> > so it makes no no physical >> >> > QUALITATIVE change TO THE mv >> >> > if we put it on the right or left side of the >> >> > eqauation >> >> > it makes only a **quantitative** chane !! >> >> > it is as well documented in my above thread !! >> >> > in all those examples >> >> > mv or ma are >> >> > ONE UN SEPARATED UNIT !!! >> >> >> > i call anyone here to bring evidence >> >> > that such explanations are ever precedented !!! >> >> >> > TIA >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> > ------------------------- >> >> >> > to attache >> >> > -------------------- >> > very nice!! >> > now just tell it toall the blockhead parrote >> >> Who? >> >> > (you ar wrong if you think that the aboveis common knowlwdge >> >> Yes .. it is. The 'm' used in physics formula is the rest (or invariant) >> mass. It does not change with speed. I've been telling you that for >> ages. >> >> > now still you have no idea how *revolutionary* it is >> > fo r thinking people !! >> >> There is nothing revolutionary at all about what you say. mass has been >> mass for a looong time >> >> > lets see if you can read my thoughts >> > (as often you do !!) >> >> I've better things to read. > > --------------------- > psychopath Feuerbacher > i was talking to PD You were posting on a public newsgroup > im ready topay you a monthly rent > in order that > YOU WILL NOT READ MY POSTS (:-) Then if you want private conversations, send an email. If you want anyone in the world able to read your posts and reply to them, use a newsgroup.
From: Y.Porat on 13 Jan 2010 03:28 On Jan 12, 8:13 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > D. Y. K. > You said that light is a force, which I understand and agree with, but > you also said that light is not wave, nor particle, nor energy, nor > physical. I am curious, why? >------------------- if you see the 'tree' of posts you can see that you responed to someone else not to me Porat anyway i willtry to answer sosome of your interesting questions see folowing -------------- > I also found your mass post interesting, I never really believed that > rest mass increases as an object moves and that this is only > noticeable at speeds close to c but I do know that relative (mass = > kinetic energy), increases by the square of the velocity same as > photons. In other words just as a photons relative mass = kinetic > energy increases at (E=hf/c^2 = E=m/c^2), so too rest mass increases it is not because of the photon mass there are in those equations OTHER VARIABLES!! ---------------- > at (F=mv^2), in other words, as evident by the foot pound energy of > bullets, and other projectiles, energy increases 4x each time velocity > doubles, and this is noticeable way below light speeds just ask a gun ----- right there is there a whole system involved in it notonly the mass of the bullet now i as well asked myself why is it the energy is not incresing linearily with velocity and evennot 4 times at very high speeds it is even more than 4 times it is multiplied by an additional gamma my ansewr to myself is may be it is becuse if you MEASURE ***velocity** IN ANOTHER FRAME THAN YOURS -- IT IS THAT **MEASURED LENGTH** IS DECREASING !!! (measured !!) it is only a problem of** measurements** in differnt frames and confused interpretations of** attaching unjustified and prejudiced **- ---- the wrong cause to the wrong entity !!! how about that ?? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- > shot victim.. But first things first, why the above statements? > > Conrad J Countess
From: kado on 13 Jan 2010 05:41 On Jan 10, 10:40 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > In Principia Mathematica (not "Mathematical"), motion = dp/dt. > > If you deny it, you deny the second law, which is against the supposition. > > As a wise old sage said: "Engage brain before opening mouth". > > This time it means, What IS Newton's 2nd Law and HOW is it > different than present physics states it? > > glird Yes, I did error by adding the l on the end of the word Mathematica. Nevertheless, no one picked up that I stated "nick pick" in my response to Uncle Al, rather than the usual 'nit pick'. This was on purpose, to use as a sort of leadin for a point I might have to make about one of my future posts. A nit is the egg or young of a louse. A nick in the vernacular of the printing industry in the old tintype days, i.e., before linotype, and during the time of the handset individual text letters, a nick was a small nick or defect in the face of the type. So the phrase: "Don't be a nick picker," was an admonishment by the editor to the typesetter that looked only for nicks, and overlooked that he use a letter d instead of b, a q instead of p, or a 6 instead of 9, or visa versa. In other words; don't get so concerned with the small stuff of little consequence that you miss the big important mistakes you made. Now, I'm not implying that this applies to you in this particular case, but this is just a bit of advice to all posting on this thread. D.Y.K.
From: glird on 13 Jan 2010 09:27
On Jan 13, 3:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 12, 8:13 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> D. Y. K. > > You said that light is a force, which I understand and agree with, but > > you also said that light is not wave, nor particle, nor energy, nor > > physical. I am curious, why? > >------------------- > > if you see the 'tree' of posts > you can see that you responed to someone else not to me Porat > anyway i willtry to answer sosome of your interesting questions > see folowing > -------------- > > > I also found your mass post interesting, I never really believed that > > rest mass increases as an object moves and that this is only > > noticeable at speeds close to c but I do know that relative (mass = > > kinetic energy), increases by the square of the velocity same as > > photons. In other words just as a photons relative mass = kinetic > > energy increases at (E=hf/c^2 = E=m/c^2), so too rest mass increases > > it is not because of the photon mass > there are in those equations OTHER VARIABLES!! > ----------------> at (F=mv^2), in other words, as evident by the foot pound energy of > > bullets, and other projectiles, energy increases 4x each time velocity > > doubles, and this is noticeable way below light speeds just ask a gun > > ----- > right > there is there a whole system involved in it > notonly the mass of the bullet > now i as well asked myself > why is it the energy is not increasing linearly with > velocity > my ansewr to myself is > may be it is because > if you MEASURE ***velocity** > IN ANOTHER FRAME THAN YOURS -- > IT IS THAT **MEASURED LENGTH** > IS DECREASING !!! (measured !!) > it is only a problem of **measurements** > in different frames {{{YES!!!}}} and > confused interpretations > of **attaching** unjustified and prejudiced > **the wrong cause to the wrong entity** !!! > How about that ?? As in WEIGHING an object to find its "mass" (in grams) and then, when it turns out that its weight (in kilograms)is a function of its relative velocity, claiming that "mass and energy" are interconvertiblah!! glird |