A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Inertial on 24 Jan 2010 17:11 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:00b0f298-b668-43b3-b849-e8142a4abb53(a)q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 24, 6:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> E = hf/c^2 is utter nonsense .. hf/c^2 is a formula for mass only NOT for >> energy. Basic dimensional analysis as taught in high school proves that. >> >> E = hf is the correct formula, as well you should know. >> >> You can't divide energy by c^2 and still have energy .. that is just >> nonsense. > > The reason you can devide photon energy by c^2 is because photon > energy only comes as a division of c^2, That statement is nonsense > because energy = to c^2, is > (matter/rest mas), therefore photon energy, which is less than rest > mass at c^2, is just a division of c^2. That statement is nonsense
From: Inertial on 24 Jan 2010 17:13 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:f77c9769-1cb5-4eb7-8c08-c3c5a523fa2a(a)e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 19, 7:25 am, "Inertial" wrote: >> >>< As I have said several times now, I don't think one can say electrons >>in a nucleus 'move'. I never claimed that the increase in mass due to >>heat was due to electrons moving faster etc, > >> > Porat: >>< Now we know from E=mc^2 that > the Atom has energy *AND* HAS MASS! > >> >>< Yes .. rest energy and rest mass. And every particle within it has rest >>energy and rest mass. Some of the mass is converted to binding energy (as >>I understand) > >> >>>< (Do you know that other people know how much movement it has and - not >>>the least - **can calculate it quantitatively ??**) > >> >>< Fine .. tell me how fast an electron moves in an atom. > > > It moves at v = 2.1876923 x 10^8 cm/second. > >> > SO HOW is THAT MASS HAVING ENERGY? >> > AND HOW SPECIFICALLY is its >> > *RELATIVISTIC MASS* - as you said above - >> > BIGGER THAN ITS REST MASS? >> >>< AFAIK the nucleus doesn't move significantly inside the atom. > The atom itself may move though. There may be some movement of > particles within the nucleus, I don't know. > > > Neither do you know that there are NO particles within the nucleus. > >> Apparently from my reading, there are relativistic effects due to >> electron movement in an atom. But then, electrons in orbital may not be >> thought of as actually 'moving' (not like a planet around the sun). I >> don't know enough about it to give you a quantitative answer. > > That's partly because you don't know what an electron physically IS > nor that it isn't a "particle" when in or out of an atom; nor that > atoms are made of the same compressible matter that fills the space > inside AND between them. If you did, you might have understood - via > *Planck's* quantum theory - that when inside an atom an electron DOES > move in an orbital path just like a planet does around a star. > >>< My claim was that heating an object, makes its atoms and molecules move >>more rapidly, which increases their relativistic mass, and so contributes >>to a larger rest mass of the object as a whole. > > > Change the word "mass" to "weight" and I'd agree with the resulting > statement. Why? Because the mass [i.e. the quantity of matter in an > object] is independent of the state of rest or motion as viewed by > differently moving people. It is its WEIGHT that changes, not its > mass. Proof
From: cjcountess on 24 Jan 2010 18:47 On Jan 24, 5:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:34c43ced-bc47-4bcc-a59e-5b88f9259435(a)e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > There you have it folks > > No .. we do not > > > Even John Archibald Wheeler, agress with me, (E=hf/c^2), is valid > > equation. > > No .. he does not. Stop your lies. This is beyond your comprehension (c is natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1) and I have taken it out of the imaginary realm, into the real realm of natural units. This is so beyond you as your name is inertia and your mind is in a state of inertia But you can snap out of it though. Just admit that you are wrong. You even deny that John Archinald Wheeler, uses the equation (E=hf/ c^2), in book, when it is right befor your eyes and the eyes of whitnesses to these post, or do you just think that even he is wrong? > > > > > > Inertia, is an obstructionist, true to his name: Web definitions for > > inertia > > inactiveness: a disposition to remain inactive or inert; "he had to > > overcome his inertia and get back to work" > > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context > > From search page Web definitions for inertia > > >http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1R2TSHB_enUS361&hl=en&source=hp&q=in... > > > You cannot stand in the way of an idea whose time has come > > > 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 my geometrical evidence, that is > > independant > > of but supports above evidence, making it twice reinforced that > > (E=mc^2) = > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) > > c does NOT equal the square root of -1. c is a real number > > you keep making stupid statements > > > > > > > If we draw progressively shorter waves, with progressively higher > > energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular > > energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which create a > > balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, and 90 degree arc, > > which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d. > > This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, > > (spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half > > the > > cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of > > cases a forward spinning positron emerged. > > A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along > > the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/ > > matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically > > demonstrated. > > Photons do have constant mass/energy = to h, that come from kinetic > > energy of constant speed of c. > > Mass / energy increases with frequency increase at (E=hf/c^2) > > WRONG > > E = hf > > E does NOT = hf/c^2 > > Get it right > > > > > > > until > > it > > reaches (E=hf=c^2) or (E=hf=mc^2) as deBroglie stated, at which it > > attains rest mass. > > Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical > > rotation, > > such as a standing spherical waves, (electron). > > Therefore (E=hf /c2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/ > > r2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its > > own > > constant, and (F=mv2), the equation of force or energy of mass in > > motion = (E=mc2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the > > quantum level and (a=v2/r) = (a=c2/c). And so the same force that > > compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c2) = (E=mc2) > > pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r2) = (F=Gmm/r2). They > > are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro > > level. > >http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest > > > Conrad J Countess > > > As you can see, I use equation (E=hf/c^2) in last parragraph, > > Which is TOTALLY WRONG > > > to show > > equality and direct correspondence to (F=mm/r^2), which I can and have > > extended elsware to (F=mv/r^2) and even (F=Gmm/r^2) and (F=mv^2) = > > (E=mc^2), on quantum level, and the same force that compresses energy > > into rest mas particles, causes rest mass particles to gravitate > > togather. > It is all true inertia you need to get in step with it Are you still in denial that E=hf/c^2 is valid equation that even John Archibald Wheeler uses? Conrad J Countess
From: Uncle Al on 24 Jan 2010 20:02 glird wrote: > > On Jan 23, 7:12 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > On Jan 23, 5:45 am, Spencer Spindrift > > > > <spencerspindr...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > I started this thread 251 posts ago with a simple question. [snipc rap] There is no quality in quantity. Ask Saddam Hussein about the most extraordinary quantity and concentration of anti-aircraft fire in the history of the world - Bagdhad falling to Dr. Pyotr Ufimtsev's musings in a single night. Exactly Zzro hits scored. The Russians thought "Moskva" and were not amused. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Y.Porat on 25 Jan 2010 02:07
On Jan 25, 1:47 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 5:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:> "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:34c43ced-bc47-4bcc-a59e-5b88f9259435(a)e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > > > There you have it folks > > > No .. we do not > > > > Even John Archibald Wheeler, agress with me, (E=hf/c^2), is valid > > > equation. > > > No .. he does not. Stop your lies. > > This is beyond your comprehension > > (c is natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1) and I have taken it out of > the imaginary realm, into the real realm of natural units. > This is so beyond you as your name is inertia and your mind is in a > state of inertia > > But you can snap out of it though. Just admit that you are wrong. > You even deny that John Archinald Wheeler, uses the equation (E=hf/ > c^2), in book, when it is right befor your eyes and the eyes of > whitnesses to these post, or do you just think that even he is > wrong? > > > > > > Inertia, is an obstructionist, true to his name: Web definitions for > > > inertia > > > inactiveness: a disposition to remain inactive or inert; "he had to > > > overcome his inertia and get back to work" > > > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context > > > From search page Web definitions for inertia > > > >http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1R2TSHB_enUS361&hl=en&source=hp&q=in... > > > > You cannot stand in the way of an idea whose time has come > > > > 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 my geometrical evidence, that is > > > independant > > > of but supports above evidence, making it twice reinforced that > > > (E=mc^2) = > > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) > > > c does NOT equal the square root of -1. c is a real number > > > you keep making stupid statements > > > > If we draw progressively shorter waves, with progressively higher > > > energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular > > > energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which create a > > > balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, and 90 degree arc, > > > which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d. > > > This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, > > > (spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half > > > the > > > cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of > > > cases a forward spinning positron emerged. > > > A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along > > > the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/ > > > matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically > > > demonstrated. > > > Photons do have constant mass/energy = to h, that come from kinetic > > > energy of constant speed of c. > > > Mass / energy increases with frequency increase at (E=hf/c^2) > > > WRONG > > > E = hf > > > E does NOT = hf/c^2 > > > Get it right > > > > until > > > it > > > reaches (E=hf=c^2) or (E=hf=mc^2) as deBroglie stated, at which it > > > attains rest mass. > > > Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical > > > rotation, > > > such as a standing spherical waves, (electron). > > > Therefore (E=hf /c2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/ > > > r2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its > > > own > > > constant, and (F=mv2), the equation of force or energy of mass in > > > motion = (E=mc2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the > > > quantum level and (a=v2/r) = (a=c2/c). And so the same force that > > > compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c2) = (E=mc2) > > > pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r2) = (F=Gmm/r2). They > > > are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro > > > level. > > >http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > As you can see, I use equation (E=hf/c^2) in last parragraph, > > > Which is TOTALLY WRONG > > > > to show > > > equality and direct correspondence to (F=mm/r^2), which I can and have > > > extended elsware to (F=mv/r^2) and even (F=Gmm/r^2) and (F=mv^2) = > > > (E=mc^2), on quantum level, and the same force that compresses energy > > > into rest mas particles, causes rest mass particles to gravitate > > > togather. > > It is all true inertia you need to get in step with it > Are you still in denial that E=hf/c^2 is valid equation that even John > Archibald Wheeler uses? > > Conrad J Countess ------------------------- you are right about circular movement because there cant be such a highvelocity in such a small volume anyway it can be as well vibrational movement!! ATB Y.Porat --------------------------- |