A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 20 Jan 2010 05:47 In other words, I can take the listed works of Planck, Einstien, deBroglie, and Bohr, to independantly arive at conclusion that (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), in natural units, as well as my "Geometrical Interpretation", independantly, to arrive at the same conclusions .. Arriving at this same conclusion independantly, from two very different avenues, only makes it more likely to be true. If not, what a Cosmic Coincidence? The evidence is overwelming and there is realy no way around it, although I am sure you guys will come up with all sorts of stalling tactics for non exceptence, such as mispelled words, double meaning or imprecise equations, and so on, but the more evidence that is used to build this model, the more precise its meaning within that more supported context. Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 20 Jan 2010 07:19 On Jan 20, 12:22 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 9:56 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > Although this is placed as a response to > > cjcountess, it also applies to Inertia, > > Y. Porat , all who read this thread, and > > in fact, all of mainline science. > > > For the sake of true science: heed the words > > of the wise old sage, i.e.,: > > > Learn the meanings of the words, and use > > these correctly. This does not mean just > > the dictionary definitions. This means when > > reading Newtons writings, learn the > > > On Jan 15, 5:09 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > snip > > > > 1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons > > > > 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for > > > electrons (snip) > > > in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation > > > > 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is > > > also wave, > > > as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive > > > interference, > > > which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves > > > This also indicated a smooth from waves to particles, energy to > > > matter > > > along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/ > > > matter", > > > as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum > > > > 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron > > > = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple > > > integer of > > > h/2pi. > > > These are all wet. > > > Planck SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf > > applies to photons. > > > Einstein SUPPOSED E=m/c^2 is a valid > > concept due to the fundamental tenets > > of Special Relativity. > > > deBroglie accepted on FAITH that Einsteins > > equation is gospel, and SUPPOSED that a > > single particular photon has the properties > > of both waves and particles, and also > > SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf=mc^2 > > applies to photons (not electrons). So > > ASSUMED that this was demonstrated by > > diffraction, constructive and destructive > > interference, so MISTAKENLY BELIEVED that > > the waves of light and other forms of waves > > indicated a smooth from waves to particles, > > or a smooth energy to matter exchange, > > THAT MIGHT, (not IS) be called the > > "energy/matter" duality. > > > Your #4 is pure Bullshit. > > You seem very offended that I used the equations of Planck, Einstein, > deBroglie, and Bohr, and that they support my theory so smoothly. And > although you are correct in that these ideas and equations are not > absolute, they do support my theory so seamlessly and likewise, mine > in turn supports the equations and the stated interpretations. > > My theory must be a threat to yours because you are attacking it in > the most trvial ways. > > Even if each of the stated equations, and their stated meanings, are > not perfect, as you pointed out, still, all togather with my > geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), they gain more support and > collaboration. and likewise does mine, exponentily, because the whole > is greater than the sum of its parts. > > Conrad J Countess --------------------- please note that the harmonic equations of a vibrating mass are the same (i dint check it to scrach)-- or quite the same as those of an orbiting mass !! so may be your and my models have something in common .... ATB Y.Porat -----------
From: cjcountess on 20 Jan 2010 08:05 On Jan 20, 7:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 12:22 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 18, 9:56 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > > Although this is placed as a response to > > > cjcountess, it also applies to Inertia, > > > Y. Porat , all who read this thread, and > > > in fact, all of mainline science. > > > > For the sake of true science: heed the words > > > of the wise old sage, i.e.,: > > > > Learn the meanings of the words, and use > > > these correctly. This does not mean just > > > the dictionary definitions. This means when > > > reading Newtons writings, learn the > > > > On Jan 15, 5:09 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > snip > > > > > 1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons > > > > > 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for > > > > electrons (snip) > > > > in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation > > > > > 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is > > > > also wave, > > > > as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive > > > > interference, > > > > which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves > > > > This also indicated a smooth from waves to particles, energy to > > > > matter > > > > along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/ > > > > matter", > > > > as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum > > > > > 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron > > > > = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple > > > > integer of > > > > h/2pi. > > > > These are all wet. > > > > Planck SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf > > > applies to photons. > > > > Einstein SUPPOSED E=m/c^2 is a valid > > > concept due to the fundamental tenets > > > of Special Relativity. > > > > deBroglie accepted on FAITH that Einsteins > > > equation is gospel, and SUPPOSED that a > > > single particular photon has the properties > > > of both waves and particles, and also > > > SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf=mc^2 > > > applies to photons (not electrons). So > > > ASSUMED that this was demonstrated by > > > diffraction, constructive and destructive > > > interference, so MISTAKENLY BELIEVED that > > > the waves of light and other forms of waves > > > indicated a smooth from waves to particles, > > > or a smooth energy to matter exchange, > > > THAT MIGHT, (not IS) be called the > > > "energy/matter" duality. > > > > Your #4 is pure Bullshit. > > > You seem very offended that I used the equations of Planck, Einstein, > > deBroglie, and Bohr, and that they support my theory so smoothly. And > > although you are correct in that these ideas and equations are not > > absolute, they do support my theory so seamlessly and likewise, mine > > in turn supports the equations and the stated interpretations. > > > My theory must be a threat to yours because you are attacking it in > > the most trvial ways. > > > Even if each of the stated equations, and their stated meanings, are > > not perfect, as you pointed out, still, all togather with my > > geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), they gain more support and > > collaboration. and likewise does mine, exponentily, because the whole > > is greater than the sum of its parts. > > > Conrad J Countess > > --------------------- > please note that the harmonic equations > of a vibrating mass > are the same (i dint check it to scrach)-- > or quite the same > as those of an orbiting mass !! > > so may be your and my models > have something in common .... > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I too, am aware of that. The harmonic equations.(U=1/2 kx^2), is the same as the frequency equation (E=hf/c^2) and and mass equation (F= mv/r^2).except the 1/2 which aplies to KE=1/2 mv^2. As a matter of fact, alot of these equations are the same, just the letters or symbols are different. It is as if scientist just take an existing equation, for say photon energy, and change the symbols and/or rearrange it slitely, and claim to have discovered, or invented something new, when all they realy have done is to rewrite and reapply the universal inverse squar law equation, which applies to so many things. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 20 Jan 2010 11:34 Thank you Al You know that I am serious, and that it is only a matter of time before I am vindicated, as I wait for all to catch up, "being ahead of my time and all". And so I thank you for that infomation. All true information can only help and collaborate my discovery, although you may think otherwise. This is fun stuff, watching you guys get nervious. You know that I am right don't you Al? Why do you think that I don't get mad at you guys, even though you speak disrespectfully to me? It's because I know that I am right, and that the day of reconing is approaching. I am saving my energy for that. Beside, I'm just a cool, cconfident, kind of guy anyway, and its easy to be confident when you know you are right. Its not just faith, it is confidence. that come from knowing, which itself comes from a deed insite on this subject Conrad J Countess
From: glird on 20 Jan 2010 14:06
On Jan 18, 9:56 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > For the sake of true science: heed the words > of the wise old sage, i.e.,: > Learn the meanings of the words, and use > these correctly. This does not mean just > the dictionary definitions. This means when > reading Newtons writings, learn the > definitions he used. When reading Einsteins > writings, learn the definitions he used, and > so on. > Verify the truths you have and use. So use > some degree of logic and rational thinking, > rather than just taking on FAITH the ideas, > concepts, and the words of others. > Accept that the truth that you can put into > words, pictures, and MATHEMATICS is not the > whole absolute truth. Excellent advice! (That's why I always define a significant word the first time it appears in my books.) > On Jan 15, 5:09 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: snip <<1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for electrons (snip) in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is also a wave, as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive interference, which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves. This also indicated a smooth from waves to particles, energy to matter along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/matter", as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple integer of h/2pi.> > >< These are all wet. Planck SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf applies to photons. Einstein SUPPOSED E=m/c^2 is a valid concept due to the fundamental tenets of Special Relativity. deBroglie accepted on FAITH that Einsteins equation is gospel, and SUPPOSED that a single particular photon has the properties of both waves and particles, and also SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf=mc^2 applies to photons (not electrons). So ASSUMED that this was demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive interference, so MISTAKENLY BELIEVED that the waves of light and other forms of waves indicated a smooth exchange from waves to particles, or a smooth energy to matter exchange THAT MIGHT, (not IS) be called the "energy/matter" duality. Your #4 is pure Bullshit. > No; it is only slightly wrong. Countess should have said: 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of an electron = the circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pir. > The kinetic energy equation of Newtonian > Mechanics is: KE = 1/2mv^2. Like this: #h/2pir = #2pirmc'/2pir = #mc' = angular momentum of an electron; wherein m is the weight of an electron, c' is its orbital speed, and # = .5. > When Dr. Dicke demonstrated by EMPIRICAL > experimentation that mass is not > relativistic, current post Einsteinian > Relativity replaced Einsteins inertial mass > with the notion of invariant mass, and that > the momentum and/or energy are relativistic. > So these confused people SUPPOSED that all > was still in accord with Special Relativity, > and SUPPOSED all was still honky-dory. > > What a bunch of idiotic thinking. No one, I > mean no one, seems to realize that both > momentum AND energy are relativistic within > the tenets of Einsteins Special Relativity. Yes, momentum = mv and e = mc^2 are as relativistic as the value of m. > In fact, BOTH ARE DOUBLY RELATIVISTIC! The > 1st due to mass being relativistic, and the > 2nd due to time (i.e., the time component of > velocity, the denominator of ds/dt) being > relativistic. The expression dtau/dt is relativistic; but how is dt relativistic all by itself? > So do you get (understand) how Einstein was > able to rationally inflate the ½ of the > common 1/2mv^2 equation of Newtonian kinetic > energy into unity, drop the ½, and use just > kinetic energy=mv^2? But as the notion of > relativistic qualities applies only at > speeds near that of light, and as the > doubly relativistic qualities double the > effects of gamma, this equation can > reasonably be stated as E=mc^2. That's not remotely close to how he arrived at that equation. > However, if you take away one of the causes > for momentum and energy to be relativistic > (i.e., with invariant mass) youre back at > the Newtonian equation for kinetic energy > (i.e., KE=1/2 mv^2), that must be modulated > by gamma whenever the effects of > the relativity of time is meaningful, > because time is still relativistic. And > there is a lot of empirical evidence that > this is so. Given that there is a dt in c^2 and gamma, in what way is that dt relativistic in itself? > In other words; when Dicke empirically > proved that mass is that defined in Newtons > Principia, he also empirically demonstrated > that Einsteins most famous and enduring > equation of E=m/c^2 is a fallacy! There is a lot of empirical evidence that this is NOT so. > This regardless whatever shouting, jumping > up and down, and hand waving mainline > science may do! > This also demonstrates that mainline > scientists are not as smart as they think, > and that modern post Einsteinian > relativists do not even really > understand Special Relativity! On that we do agree. > Now to address the posts of Y.Porat and > Inertial snip > On Jan 15, 2:00 am, "Y.Porat" wrote: > > > snip > > if you cant measure anything > > there is no physics at all ....(:-) > > you must measure something common > > > Y.Porat > > On Jan 15, 2:41 am, "Inertial" wrote: > > snip > > Measuring doesn't mean or require understanding the deeper questions of what mass actually is etc. It is simply a defined procedure and calculation. > > > > Empirically measuring (empirical > measurements) usually implies comparing the > unknown (i.e., sought after quality) against > a known standard. (e.g., weight by the use > of a balance scale; length, width and height > measured with a vernier caliper; the passage > of time with an accurate clock, etc.) > Only the tangible (i.e., those that you can > touch and feel), see, smell, hear, or taste, > that is, the physical and the enigmatic > phenomenon that we call time can be > empirically measured. (To make it clearer, > we touch the physical to empirically > measure the physical. We look at a clock to > empirically measure time.) Many connote the > mathematical calculations used to measure > the dynamic qualities such as momentum, > energy, impulse, etc., as measurements. > These dynamic qualities are not true > physical qualities in the true sense of the > word tangible. Well said! > This is where a whole lot of philosophical > thinking becomes necessary. Now a lot of > unthinking people bad mouth and reject the > use of inductive/deductive reasoning, logic, > rational thinking, etc., and any mention of > philosophy within physics without > realizing that they are really using the > past inductive/deductive reasoning, logic, > rational thinking, etc., of exceptionally > smart people that preceded them. They now call it "metaphysics" and dismiss it as "beneath' them. Little do they kmow that in the list of catagories of the ancient Greeks who invented the words, Phliosophy was at the top of the list, then came Metaphysics (above and beyond physics) and THEN came "physics". > All the current ideas of mass, inertia, and > all the dynamic qualities such as momentum, > kinetic energy are human mental cognizant > ideas, conceived through the inductive/ > deductive logic, reasoning, and rational > thinking of past geniuses. The ideas and > conclusions of these past geniuses are the > starting point for these specific notions > of interest. You left out the single most important thing of them all: Sense evidence. THAT is what the logic and reasoning of past and present geniuses is based on and treats. > Thats why physics has the idea of > postulates and mathematics has the concept > of axioms. These two are commonly the > starting point, and are stated (proposed, > supposed, assumed, etc.,) to be true > without further justification. As written in one of my books, "" > So the validity of the inductive/deductive > notions are based on the truths and the > exactness the definitions of the words used > when these geniuses formulated these ideas. {Plus the validity of the sense-evidence they began with.} > Thats why the understanding of the words > is so crucial to advancing knowledge. > Galileo could not have conceived the notion > of the effects of inertia without inductive/ > deductive logic and rejecting the > Philosophy of Idealism. > Isaac Newton could not have conceived all > the new and novel Ideas of that particular > time in history presented in Principia > without first rejecting the Philosophy of > Idealism and a whole lot of inductive/ > deductive logic. > Furthermore, what the heck is the thought > experiment that Einstein used to formulate > his Theories of Relativity but Inductive/ > deductive reasoning. > Nevertheless, there is a great danger in > inductive/deductive reasoning, logic, etc. > This is that if the conclusion is not true, > everything you or anyone else develop based > on this supposition that you deem true are > not. A greater danger is that if the premise beneath the logical reasoning is false then the conclusion is too, even though nobody knows it. Example 1: The kinetic atomic theory is based on the secret answer "No" to the unasked question, "Is matter compressible?" Since that ancient answer is false, so is the consequent theory that all matter is made of ultimate particles separated from each other by empty spaces. > Furthermore this places a great > responsibility on the exactness and > preciseness of the definitions. Yes! > So the true understanding of the words is > paramount. Current science is very lax in > this area, as are the posters on this > newsgroup. {!!} > Anyway, to get back to the subject of the > validity of my idea that forces are of a > nonphysical quality: > The nonphysical cannot be empirically > measured. In fact, the nonphysical cannot > be directly studied. As numbers alone (as > such) cannot define the nonphysical, > mathematics does not really help in this > matter. So the only avenue remaining for > anyone contemplating the nonphysical > within physics is by inductive/deductive > contemplation. Define "nonphysical" versus "physical". > The concept of force is fundamental to > science, especially physics. So while the > nonphysical cannot be directly studied, the > EFFECTS OF THE NONPHYSICAL ON THE > PHYSICAL CAN BE. Consequently not > mistaking the effect with the cause is crucial. > It is by this process of inductive/deductive > logic that I came to the conclusion that all > the forces within Nature are nonphysical. Define "force". > This is not a pie in the sky conclusion, > but is based on studying the findings of > the past geniuses and the many Natural > Phenomena demonstrated by Nature. Explain how their findings support the notion that a force is nonphysical. > So the validity of my postulate is > established by the fact that Newtons > conundrum of an action at a distance of > Newtonian gravitation that is fundamental to > Newtonian Mechanics is resolved, because the > nonphysical need not obey Newtons > mechanical (physical) laws. That is, the > action at a distance is a viable concept, > thus true Newtonian Mechanics really works, > but not the BS Classical Newtonian Mechanics > of mainline sciens. 1. Explain how a nonphysical thing can cause a mass to accelerate. 2. Explain how it can cause that without touching the mass or anything else. > The mystery whether light accelerates to > the speed of light or just starts and stays > at the speed of light is also put to rest. > In fact, the idea that light (a force) > is nonphysical explains why light can pass > through the void of space without the ether, > and why it is without mass. So you no > longer have to deal with the idiotic ideas > of the ether or a massless mass.... 1. Explain how a beam of light is a nonphysical force. 2. Define "mass"! (Long ago I defined density as "mass per unit volume". Then, noting that raw matter has no weight -- and thinking that it therefore has no mass, I invented a new word, 'dinsity" to mean 'mass per unit volume whether or not any of it has weight". Rather recently I realized that since I had defined "mass" as "a quantity of matter"; the word "dinsity" is superfluous. That led me to an immensely important discovery: The m in many of our equations does NOT denote mass, it denotes the WEIGHT of a given mass. Here are a few examples which show why it is important: In the following three equations, 1. e = mc^2; 2. longitudinal mass = m/q^3; 3. transverse mass = m/q^2, in which q = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2); the symbol m denotes the weight of a given mass. Once physicists understand that they will instantly know that it isn't matter that converts into the e of equation 1; it is the weight of a given quantity of matter. [That's because matter becomes weightless when it is released from its organized pattern in an atom.] They will also realize that it isn't the quantity of matter in a body that depends on who's looking (i.e. the relative speed of looker versus looked at) it is its WEIGHT -- in kilograms. As to F = ma, since a is a constant for all values of m, in a given g-field, it is simple algebra to realize that the force of gravity is a function of the mass of an embedded body (or something like that). >< Furthermore, incorporating this idea into tenets of science does not at all contradict or conflict with any Natural Phenomenon demonstrated by Nature and/or God, so is still in accord with Newtons Philosophy of Nature. Therefore I do not just state that forces are nonphysical, I POSTULATE that forces are of a nonphysical quality. So this statement (i.e., postulate) needs no further justification. > And i POSTULATE that your statement is false. ;-) glird |