A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 18:53 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8c735443-a7dd-4f17-867f-84f51b695c4c(a)z40g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > Al, you probably would feel "delusional", if you discovered something > as simple yet as profound as I did. > Who would have thought it was so simple that even a child or non > professional physicist can understand it, but professonal physicist, > if they are to ridgit of thinkers cannot seem to. > All the time, education, and money, spent on trying to understand > "Quantum Gravity", has to a degree, deflected some from the true and > simple path that lead to a simple reintertpretation, of a simple > equatuion, that was right under our noses all the time, The > geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2). > > This Geometrical Interpretation, show such a clear and complete > picture, of not only "that" energy and matter are "one" related > through the mathematical conversion factor of (c^2), That's old hat > but exactly how > it is so. A picture really is "worth a thousad words", in this case, > and mayby a million dollar "Nobel Prize" See .. you're delusional again > Following a simple analogy of "a line of 1 inch in the horizontal > direction, times a line of 1 inch, in the vertical direction, to equal > a square inch, c in the linear direction x c in the 90 degree angular > direction equals c^2. Nonsense .. c is not a length. Squaring a velocity doesn't give you anything useful or meaningful. > This creates a 90 degree arc trejectory of > energy, BAHAHA .. nonsense > which if constant creats a circle of energy = cx2pi, BAHAHA .. nonsense > with > angular momentum, = h/2pi. BAHAHA .. nonsense > If amplitude is constant, it will make two > rotations at right angle, to eachother to complete one wave > cycle ,which creates a standing spherical wave, of (spin 1/2), and > angular momentum of (h/2pi/2). BAHAHA .. nonsense > Furthermore if it spins backward, > counter to its trejectory, will have (-1 charge). BAHAHA .. nonsense > Wow how simple - yet how profound. And how totally nonsensical > (Quantum Gravity), (The square root of -1) and (Uncertainty Principle) > all solved. BAHAHA .. nonsense > Renormalization and running coupling constants also solved BAHAHA .. nonsense > Unity of constants (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (c = h = i = 2pi = reduced > Compton wavelength = Schwartzchild radius = electron radius). BAHAHA .. nonsense > redefining Planck scale putting it within reach of experimental > verification. BAHAHA .. nonsense You really are a deluded fool.
From: cjcountess on 19 Jan 2010 20:10 Uncle Al, is a defeated old fighter who refuses to give up, resorting to childish behavior. I read your paper Al, and its not bad, but mine is just more revealing. I think that you are jealous that I, a self taught individual, came on the seen and turned the physics world upside down, making all your hard work, time, and money, you put into your research, worth less. I do not mean completely worthless, but nevertheless it is worth less than you thought it would be. Don't take this personally, but if you open your mind maybe you can ride the cutting edge of this wave with me. There is really no way around it, it is a tsunami, and will wash you and your work up, unless you get in step with the reality of this wave of discoveries and evidence. There is just too much evidence for it to be wrong. It may not be as perfectly stated as possible, but it is correct. Inertia you You mean to tell me that you did not see this: In the case of a photon, we replace m by E/c2, where E = hf is the photon's energy. If the photon travels downward in Earth's gravitational field, it therefore loses potential energy of (hf /c2)ÄV and gains an equal amount of kinetic2 energy hÄf. First page, first column, bottom of page 424 You cannot admit when you are wrong either. And I am sure I can find plenty more examples. The evidence is overwhelming and you cannot escape its truth. Try as you may to distract us with your petty nitpicking, trying to buy yourself time, while you amend your theory, so that you can save face, and act as though you meant to say something else. You will change your mind You are the fool inertia, and I am going to enjoy showing you. Not that I take pleasure in showing people up, but you attempted to insult me and I don't like that. I am a very insightful person, and it may be like boxing with a blind person the way I can show you up because you have so little incite. I would rather shine a light to show you the way, but your foolish pride may just make it necessary to be a little tough with you You think you are so smart, but you are not. It would have been better to admit that you are wrong, but maybe you really don't see this. Maybe you really are blind or dim sighted . Oh well, get ready for your lessons I can turn the world of physics upside down, in more ways than one. First, by showing that "the speed of light", which appears to be the fastest, is actually the slowest, and that "rest mass," which appears to be the slowest, is actually the fastest, as (c^2) is faster than c. And than by making some of the most perplexing ideas in physics so plain and clear, that a child can understand it, but people like you cannot, thereby exalting the child over you. You and your ideas are obsolete. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 19 Jan 2010 20:19 A new wave of physics is upon us ride the wave, or be washed up by it Conrad J Countess Your Captain
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 21:49 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f271ba93-3645-4c49-a424-c3f608008b6f(a)s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > A new wave of physics is upon us > ride the wave, or be washed up by it > > Conrad J Countess > Your Captain You've gone down with your ship .. its already sunk due to the huge gaping holes in it.
From: kado on 19 Jan 2010 22:23
On Jan 18, 7:09 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > snip > > Define 'nonphysical' > This response is not directed to Inertia, but for anyone else that may be reading this thread. This is because I really dont know how he thinks or what language he speaks, and will not accept a definition by Isaac Newton is a definition, or that exposing that Newton formulated the Three Laws of Momentum instead of the three laws of motion is not something new and profound. No, I cannot define the nonphysical. I will say it again. No, I cannot define the nonphysical, because no words, pictures, or mathematics suffice. In fact, I cannot even see the nonphysical in my minds eye, and dont even know what it is. I pondered over this conundrum for a very long, but cannot yet say anything absolutely definitive or specific about the nonphysical. So if you do not accept the nonphysical, do not despair, for you are in very good company. Isaac Newton denied the nonphysical and questioned the action at a distance that is fundamental for his own concept of the universal mutual gravitational attraction with this statement to scholar/theologian Richard Bentley: that one body can act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matter a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Albert Einstein totally rejected the nonphysical, and seemed to almost submit to blowing away his Theories of Relativity in favor of Lorentzs Ether Theory at the University of Leyden with the following: but on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatsoever. Aristotle loathed a vacuum, and philosophized that Nature too, abhors a vacuum. René Descartes picked up this idea, and is now credited with originating this idea. The Aristotle/Descartes philosophy can be summarized as: empty space is nothing, and nothing, in, and of itself, does not exist. So both supposed that what is commonly called empty space must be filled with some sort of physical substance. In fact, all the sciences that are based on the philosophies of the ancient Greeks seem to deny the nonphysical. Then I realized that these are the philosophies of the West. The philosophies of the West tend to be based on religion, whereas the religions on of the East are based on philosophy. So I looked into (actually remembered) the philosophies of the East. This is where I actually found the sayings of the wise old sage, that are really ancient Chinese proverbs. The philosophies of the East have a sort of a love-hate attitude towards the nonphysical, but most important, do not deny it. So I looked for what else besides forces may be nonphysical, and quickly realized that time, in and of itself, is also nonphysical. Many very brilliant philosophers and thinkers studied time, but none actually claimed to truly understand time. What is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain what it is to him who asks, I do not know. - St. Augustine Furthermore, is a human thought physical? What about the human emotions of love and hate? There may be the nonphysical all about us, without humans ever realizing it, because it is hiding behind the cloak of not being understandable. So I accepted that forces and time are real, but are not truly understandable by humans. Then I took the easy or devious way out and postulated that forces are nonphysical. So if anyone out there can, or even come close to truly defining the nonphysical, I sure would like to know, because I sure cant. Nevertheless if one adheres to the criteria of Occams Razor, (e.g., the action of the nonphysical Newtonian gravitation CAN act a distance, the void of empty space IS nonphysical, etc.), and accepts that the Natural Phenomena demonstrated by Nature dictates what is real, it may be easier to accept that in specific instances the nonphysical is real, and not for just the occult, loonies, crazies, and superstitions as modern science and Western philosophers are so wont to believe. Again, all this is covered in greater detail in my copyrighted treatise titled: The Search for Reality and the Truths. D. Y. Kadoshima |