A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 21 Jan 2010 23:05 Who are you hiding behind that stupid name? I know who you are Your one of those who attact theories that are threatening I have probably the most revolutionary discoveries to come about in years and someone is threatened by it. Identify yourself and the work you have contributed . I bet it is nothing but obstruction You call yourself inertia because you provide the function of weighing down other peoples ideas, but you have none of your own REVEAL YOURSELF FRAUD I showed you that E=hf/c^2 is just as valid as E=m/c2 but you have nothing to say about that My name is Conrad J Countess and I am not afraid to show my work SHOW YOURSELF AND YOUR WORK unless you realy are a fraud. Give us something besides nit picking and name calling
From: kado on 21 Jan 2010 23:20 On Jan 20, 11:06 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > In respect to the equation E = mc^2 > That's not remotely close to how he arrived at that equation. > I know that. I am looking for the truths, and in my frame of mind at the time I was writing the response, the manner that Einstein arrived at E = mc^2 was irrelevant. Einstein used a very convoluted and somewhat (to me) illogical means to arrive at E = mc^2. This logic of Einstein to justify this is long, but is covered in my treatise. If you believe in the truth of Occam's Razor, and that the simplest answer is the truth, (which I regorlously try to observe) I tried to find a simpler route to justify why E = mc^2 can be true, rather the moot manner that Einstein used. This is what I posted in my response. I am really sorry that thinking that for the sake of brevity, I could just get away with my simplistic derivation of how E = mc^2 could be true. For this I apologize. > In respect to my contention that statement 4 of Countess is BS, you stated > 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. Bohr based all his suppositions on suppositions, that are all based on Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty (basically that you can't be sure of anything), and the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, that is all Bullshit. I justify this in my manuscript. In respect to the equation for velocity, I stated that this is v = ds/dt (i.e., s is the distance of motion, the change of position), whereas you stated: > The expression dtau/dt is relativistic; but how is dt relativistic > all by itself? In other words; the numerator of the equation for velocity differs in our interpretation of the mathematics of velocity. That's why I stated to understand another's use of words; it's the understanding of the originator's definitions that are crucial. Anyway- the denominator dt is relativistic all by itself, because time is relativistic, and the numerator, distance, by itself is not a factor or function of time. There may be another truth (actually not a truth but a speculation) that may be pertinent to the equation that E = mc^2, and much of Einstein's thinking. As time passed, and Einstein learned more about 'the mind of God', he became less and less confidant about his theories formulated in 1904-1905 and 1915-1916. So his later writings do try to justify that E = mc^2 with a lot of different approaches. These are disclosed in my treatise. Furthermore, Einstein was not as adamant about the validity of his theories at the University of Leyden, as I posted earlier. These doubts about really knowing the workings of Nature and/or God prompted him to state: "The more I study physics, the more I am drawn to metaphysics." So if could just make a bit of tongue in cheek statement: The truth that Einstein placed in the realm of metaphysics, but that I place within the scope of the sciences (so physics), and that he sought was the truth that the nonphysical is very real. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to state one more thing my father impressed on me. "To argue with a fool may only demonstrate that there are two." D. Y. Kadoshima
From: cjcountess on 22 Jan 2010 05:29 It might be fruitless to argue or discuss any further with you Your puopose seems to be to obstruct and block the truth But I will state one more time E=hf/c^2 is just as valid as E=m/c^2, and is demonstrated in paper: Relativistic Effects on Clocks Aboard GPS Satellites Carl E. Mungan, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD Containing on "first page, third paragraph" If the photon travels downward in Earths gravitational field, it therefore loses potential energy of (hf /c2 This equation at end of statement, is clearly equivalent to E=hf/c^2 from http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Publications/TPT11.pdf Conrad J Countess What is you contribution beside obstruction? What is your constructive contribution if any?
From: cjcountess on 22 Jan 2010 06:05 I am addressing "Inertia" also Who is this obstructionist? He or she is hiding something Show your true self and your work Coward I am Conrad J Countess who are you?
From: Inertial on 22 Jan 2010 07:24
"cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5fbc028e-7b1e-4d06-879a-cd945c4564d8(a)c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > It might be fruitless to argue or discuss any further with you When you are posting nonsense .. yes. Unless you fix your nonsense and start talking valid physics again. > Your puopose seems to be to obstruct and block the truth No .. it is to expose your lies > But I will state one more time > > E=hf/c^2 is just as valid as E=m/c^2 Yes .. both just as invalid. The CORRECT formulas are E = hf E = mc^2 NOT E = hf/c^2 And NOT E = m/c^2 You can't just make up random combinations of letters and call it a physics formula > and is demonstrated in paper: Nope > Relativistic Effects on Clocks > Aboard GPS Satellites > Carl E. Mungan, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD > Containing on "first page, third paragraph" You mean where is says: "E = hf is the photon's energy" .. which proves you wrong. > If the photon travels downward in Earth�s gravitational > field, it therefore loses potential energy of (hf /c2 You just dishonestly cut out half of the formula, which in full is (hf/c^2).deltaV Where deltaV is a change in gravitational potential. > This equation at end of statement, is clearly equivalent to E=hf/c^2 No .. it is clearly not. > from http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Publications/TPT11.pdf You really need to understand physics before reading other papers .. otherwise you make mistakes like the above. > Conrad J Countess > > What is you contribution beside obstruction? Pointing out your mistakes so you can fix them > What is your constructive > contribution if any? Pointing out your mistakes so you can fix them |