A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: Y.Porat on 31 Jan 2010 03:20 On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > "the mind of God". > > > D.Y.K. > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > c^2. > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > discovery. > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > their likeness also. > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > Conrad J Countess > > P.S. > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit. > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > up of its mass times its velocity, s --------------------- Hi Conrad ! i liked that paragraph of yours quote (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum end of quote ------------ it is very compatible with my Circlon idea see the appendix of my abstract: http://sites.google .com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force and you can see there AS WELL HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC HALF CIRCLES collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. it can be more than one oint particle like that and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons moving that way and becoming a heavier particle and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of linearly connection of such 'rings ' as you can see at the beginning of my abstract ATB Y.Porat -------------------.
From: Y.Porat on 31 Jan 2010 03:24 On Jan 31, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > > "the mind of God". > > > > D.Y.K. > > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > > c^2. > > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > > discovery. > > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > > their likeness also. > > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > > Conrad J Countess > > > P.S. > > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html > > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit. > > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > > up of its mass times its velocity, s > > --------------------- > Hi Conrad ! > i liked that paragraph of yours > > quote > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > end of quote > > ------------ > it is very compatible with my Circlon idea > see the appendix of my abstract: > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force > and you can see there AS WELL > HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON > MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC > HALF CIRCLES > > collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND > BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. > it can be more than one oint particle like that > and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons > moving that way and becoming a heavier particle > and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of > linearly connection of such > 'rings ' > as you can see at the beginning of my abstract > > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------. sorry again that site: http:/sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract hope i typed it right from my memory Y.P ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 31 Jan 2010 03:33 On Jan 31, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > > > "the mind of God". > > > > > D.Y.K. > > > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > > > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > > > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > > > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > > > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > > > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > > > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > > > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > > > c^2. > > > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > > > discovery. > > > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > > > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > > > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > > > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > > > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > > > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > > > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > > > their likeness also. > > > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > > > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > P.S. > > > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html > > > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > > > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > > > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > > > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > > > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > > > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > > > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > > > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > > > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit. > > > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > > > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > > > up of its mass times its velocity, s > > > --------------------- > > Hi Conrad ! > > i liked that paragraph of yours > > > quote > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > end of quote > > > ------------ > > it is very compatible with my Circlon idea > > see the appendix of my abstract: > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force > > and you can see there AS WELL > > HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON > > MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC > > HALF CIRCLES > > > collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND > > BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. > > it can be more than one oint particle like that > > and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons > > moving that way and becoming a heavier particle > > and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of > > linearly connection of such > > 'rings ' > > as you can see at the beginning of my abstract > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > -------------------. > > sorry again that site: > > http:/sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > hope i typed it right from my memory > > Y.P > ---------------------- common Porat you are getting older (:-) there was a miserable slash missing... http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract may be it is more than time that Google or the net at all -- will be more forgiving for tiny typing mistakes ..... hope at last ... sorry Y.Porat --------------------------
From: cjcountess on 31 Jan 2010 04:03 I publised a book entitled "Cosmic Alignment with the Cosmic Mind and the Cosmic Pattern" in 2004 Besides outlining a "Cosmic Pattern," that pervades everyhing in the Universe, from the furthest regions of space and time, to what is happening right here and now, in our lives as individials, and a collective society, it also points out, a parelell between the Universe and the mind, as if the Universe is a universal mind, and the mind a miniature universe. And last but not least, it points out a "Cosmic Alignment", between the Universe, the mind, and society This "Cosmic Alignment", coincides with the scientific aspect of the "2012 Cosmic Alignment", and can add greatly to the understanding, demistification and dispell superstitions that are perpetuated by some, around this subject. It also coincides with "the Cosmic Pattern and Alignment" of the "Cosmic Microwave Background", that Smoot and Mathers won the "2006 Nobel Prize" for discovering, and called, "the greatest discovery of the milinium, or perhaps all time", by Stephen Hawking, because it contains the seeds of all cosmic structure. I discovered this same "Cosmic Pattern and Alignment", and had it copyrighted and published in 1982. And so I can prove that I discovered the very pattern that directs all cosmic structure, from the furthest reagions of space and time, to what is happening right here and now on earth, in our lives as individials, and a collective society. I am as close as any, to understanding "The Mind of God'" as far as an individial can. But nethertheless, we are just individials in this vast universe, and it is a wonder that we can understand to the extent that we do. The cosmic pattern, reveals that this is in part because, the development of our minds follow the same pattern as the development of the Universe itself, on the largest scales, and that is why we must also understand our own minds in this process. http://cjc123.com/ Beside being where I first introduced the idea that "c^2" in equation "E=mc^2", is a frequency where energy turns to matter, The Cosmic Pattern is also the true geometrcal structure of the universe, and coincides with some of General Relativity, although I am sure it surpasses it. Written in more philisophical than mathematical terms, (which can be seamlesly inserted, because it is already a geometrical structure), it is easy to understand by lay people. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 31 Jan 2010 04:25
On Jan 31, 3:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > > > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > > > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > > > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > > > > "the mind of God". > > > > > > D.Y.K. > > > > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > > > > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > > > > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > > > > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > > > > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > > > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > > > > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > > > > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > > > > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > > > > c^2. > > > > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > > > > discovery. > > > > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > > > > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > > > > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > > > > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > > > > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > > > > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > > > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > > > > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > > > > their likeness also. > > > > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > > > > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > > P.S. > > > > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html > > > > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > > > > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > > > > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > > > > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > > > > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > > > > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > > > > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > > > > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > > > > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit.. > > > > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > > > > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > > > > up of its mass times its velocity, s > > > > --------------------- > > > Hi Conrad ! > > > i liked that paragraph of yours > > > > quote > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > end of quote > > > > ------------ > > > it is very compatible with my Circlon idea > > > see the appendix of my abstract: > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force > > > and you can see there AS WELL > > > HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON > > > MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC > > > HALF CIRCLES > > > > collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND > > > BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. > > > it can be more than one oint particle like that > > > and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons > > > moving that way and becoming a heavier particle > > > and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of > > > linearly connection of such > > > 'rings ' > > > as you can see at the beginning of my abstract > > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------------. > > > sorry again that site: > > > http:/sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > hope i typed it right from my memory > > > Y.P > > ---------------------- > > common Porat you are getting older (:-) > there was a miserable slash missing... > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > may be it is more than time that > Google or the net at all -- will be more forgiving for tiny > typing mistakes ..... > > hope at last ... > sorry > Y.Porat > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi Porat I see you have continued to work on your theory that is good I will study it more Conrad J Countess |