A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 25 Jan 2010 10:44 SEE THERE IT IS HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU http://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=e%3Dhf/c2&source=bl&ots=Qx9MRLDwdP&sig=DKur3JsB7SbhuSSSo9boFhDyuWw&hl=en&ei=UrddS-eYJcfdlAf8nMX3BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=e%3Dhf%2Fc2&f=false How many post does it take for you to distort the truth. Too many, you cannot What is wrong with you man or girl, whatever you are, whoever you are? You keep denying what is right in front of you. Conrad J Countess P.S. And even if that equation is wrong that does not invalidate my discovery, it is revolutionary. And there is nothing you or anyone else can do to invalidate it, because it is true. The evidence is piling up exponentialy, and not even I, if I wanted to, could stop it. In a sense it is your opposite, you are inertia, and it is acceleration, and there is nothing you can do about it but try to divert and confuse.
From: cjcountess on 25 Jan 2010 14:31 From same book http://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=e%3Dhf/c2&source=bl&ots=Qx9MRLDwdP&sig=DKur3JsB7SbhuSSSo9boFhDyuWw&hl=en&ei=UrddS-eYJcfdlAf8nMX3BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=e%3Dhf%2Fc2&f=false
From: kado on 25 Jan 2010 20:00 On Jan 25, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > > that Uncle Al blasts > > He doesn't blast any of my posts. > > > and I > > choose to ignore. > > Ahh.. so you don't read them. Your ignorance is your problem. I do owe you an apology. Uncle Al did not blast your posts to my knowledge. I knew I shouldn't post stuff in this newsgroup when I'm tired and sleepy, but I foolishly did. I looked at my notes that I had written in long hand, not on my computer, and in transferring these to my computer, (after all my guests that came over to watch the football games left, and I got my place somewhat cleaned up) - and found that I left off a few very important words that changed the whole gist and validity of the last sentence. This should have been: "Furthermore the last 3 lines are certainly contrary to the gist and essence of all your other posts AND Uncle Al blasts SUCH FOOLISH IDEAS AND NOTIONS and I choose to ignore." So I admit I made a dumb mistake, for which I apologize. Nevertheless, do I stand by the corrected rendition and the balance of my post. Just because you wrote some words, that does not make the ideas, notions, and the message delineated/depicted by these words yours. You wrote a lot of stuff based on Newton's and Einstein's words. Does that make Newtonian Mechanics or Relativity YOUR CONCEPTS? Moreover, I did not ever state that I don't read your posts. If I did not ever read your posts, how could I have ever responded to your post in the first place? I just choose not to respond to your posts. Your logic and deductive/inductive thinking is very weak. D.Y.K.
From: artful on 26 Jan 2010 18:36 On Jan 26, 6:31 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > From same bookhttp://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=e... I've found a copy of the book and the relevant section. The formula is for the mass-equivalence of the photon energy, not the energy itself (ie it is a mass value, not an energy value) So with E = hf E = Mc^2 you get M = hf/c^2 It is unfortunate that Wheeler chose to use E for the mass-equivalence value, instead of (say) M. You usage of it as a formula for energy is incorrect, along with many other basic physics / logic / math mistakes.
From: Androcles on 26 Jan 2010 19:05
"artful" <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2060cdf4-c3d9-42a2-b530-68990885a929(a)u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Jan 26, 6:31 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > From same > bookhttp://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=e... I've found a copy of the book and the relevant section. The formula is for the mass-equivalence of the photon energy, not the energy itself (ie it is a mass value, not an energy value) So with E = hf E = Mc^2 you get M = hf/c^2 It is unfortunate that Wheeler chose to use E for the mass-equivalence value, instead of (say) M. You usage of it as a formula for energy is incorrect, along with many other basic physics / logic / math mistakes. ================================================= So if f = Mc^2/h, and c^2/h is constant, is a gram B-sharp, C, E or F-flat? |