A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: artful on 31 Jan 2010 20:28 On Jan 18, 5:46 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 17, 7:46 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Porat > > > here is something to collaborate your circlo idea > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gox8PpNOPY&NR=1 > > > Conrad J Countess > > ---------------------- > Thank you Countess!!!! > > a few remarks: > > 1 > of course > while i was coining my assertion that > Energy is = mass in motion even in microcosm > > you bet that my 'Circlon' was well in my mind > (BTW it isCirclon' not Circlo' as you wrote > anyway > may be i will chngeits name afer your suggestion > because i erealozed that there are other 'circlons' in use of > completely different > issues) > > i intentionally didnt mension it here in this > issue > *beause i was usre i cam prove that > energy isd mass in motion even in microcosm > **without mentioning my Circlonidea **!! > > even an inertial mass hes iinside it > a lot of 'mass ion motion' only an idiot will not > remember it !!! the electrons > th e nuke and itsd inner activity etc etc!! > 3 > mycirclonis not as hawking one in your video > ie > it is not positive and negative ones > > IT I S MUCH SIMPLER > it is nt charged at all !! > ITS SPECIAL; MOVEMENT AND BEHAVIOUR > "" > THAT IS CHARGE!! > A OR ANY FORCE MaKER > gravitation eelctric magnetic > stroong forces > it is just a matter of waht is its > RADIUS OF MOVEMENT!! > if it is ahuge radius it makes the gravity > if it is a tiny radius it makes the stron force > inside the nuke !! > now > the circlonis not only a force naker > IT IS A MATTER MAKER AS WELL! > if circlons move in closed circles > and a huge numerof them at he same > orbit > and is such link is connected to anoter link like that > to a 'cain of orbitals'youget a more complexed > particle in the hierarchy of particles !! > that nonstop circular moveemnt explaines why > simple particles are so ilusive!! > thje real mass - circlonparticle > is not existing all the time at any point of the circle!! (i hope you > see what i mean .. > > and i could goon and on with it > but not in a singe net post !! > > anyway > my intention is todo it step by step > my first intention at this satge is > toprove and getthe recognition that > > ENERGY IS MASSIN MOTION > EVEN IN MICROCOSM > > A THANK YOU AGAIN COUNTESS!! > > Y.Porat > -------------------- How many cirlon's are there in an electron? How many in a proton? How many in a charm quark? What charge is a circlon? What mass?
From: cjcountess on 31 Jan 2010 21:43 On Jan 31, 8:16 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 10:23 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 4:07 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 6:28 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > A lot of BULLSHIT > > > > My father instilled on me, in addition to those > > > already mentioned, to: "With the obvious, common > > > sense exceptions; tell the TRUTH." So: > > > > You are an egotistical IDIOT! > > > > So keep any mutual admiration between you and > > > schizoid Y.Porat (who claims to be expert No 1 about > > > nuclear mass [see his post of Jan. 18, 3:48 AM]) to > > > yourselves and save band width on this site. > > > > D.Y.K.. > > > Remember, that the more you claim to know, the more you reveal what > > you don't know > > > The evidence speaks for itself > > > You what to prove that (E=mc^2), is wrong and my geometrical > > interpretation of it, which shows that energy attains rest mass at a > > frequency/wavelenth of (c^2), just adds one more obstical to your > > refutal, that you or anyone else did not count on. > > > You thought you had all your basis covered by going to college and > > learning all you could about it. But research is going on all the time > > in and out of the schools and box. Today you are learning somethng > > that you did not in school, like it or not > > > And yes artful, > > > I am proud that I did this on my own, so far without any help from the > > accedemic institutions, and the whole world is going to know, because > > it is indeed something to be proud of. > > > I will never let someone like "D.K.Y", and "artful", who is not > > artful, and who by the way, have not discovered anything, discourge > > me. All people like you do is express jealousy, resentment and > > anoyance. > > > Both of you cannot even see the unification of energy, force, and > > momentum, which shows lack of incite into the underlying unity of all > > things, energy, force, and momentum, being a simple unity, already > > ointed out in the equations. > > > And like I said > > > The more you claim to know the more you reveal what you don't know, so > > be very carfull what you say and make sure you have evidence to back > > it > > > Conrad J Countess > > If you are proud of your ignorance, then you have a lot to be proud > of.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You got jokes, but that is all you got, and the best joke is on you
From: artful on 31 Jan 2010 22:04 On Feb 1, 1:43 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 8:16 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:23 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 4:07 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 6:28 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > A lot of BULLSHIT > > > > > My father instilled on me, in addition to those > > > > already mentioned, to: "With the obvious, common > > > > sense exceptions; tell the TRUTH." So: > > > > > You are an egotistical IDIOT! > > > > > So keep any mutual admiration between you and > > > > schizoid Y.Porat (who claims to be expert No 1 about > > > > nuclear mass [see his post of Jan. 18, 3:48 AM]) to > > > > yourselves and save band width on this site. > > > > > D.Y.K.. > > > > Remember, that the more you claim to know, the more you reveal what > > > you don't know > > > > The evidence speaks for itself > > > > You what to prove that (E=mc^2), is wrong and my geometrical > > > interpretation of it, which shows that energy attains rest mass at a > > > frequency/wavelenth of (c^2), just adds one more obstical to your > > > refutal, that you or anyone else did not count on. > > > > You thought you had all your basis covered by going to college and > > > learning all you could about it. But research is going on all the time > > > in and out of the schools and box. Today you are learning somethng > > > that you did not in school, like it or not > > > > And yes artful, > > > > I am proud that I did this on my own, so far without any help from the > > > accedemic institutions, and the whole world is going to know, because > > > it is indeed something to be proud of. > > > > I will never let someone like "D.K.Y", and "artful", who is not > > > artful, and who by the way, have not discovered anything, discourge > > > me. All people like you do is express jealousy, resentment and > > > anoyance. > > > > Both of you cannot even see the unification of energy, force, and > > > momentum, which shows lack of incite into the underlying unity of all > > > things, energy, force, and momentum, being a simple unity, already > > > ointed out in the equations. > > > > And like I said > > > > The more you claim to know the more you reveal what you don't know, so > > > be very carfull what you say and make sure you have evidence to back > > > it > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > If you are proud of your ignorance, then you have a lot to be proud > > of.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > You got jokes, but that is all you got, and the best joke is on you Its not a joke .. you are ignorant of science, and think that what you're saying makes sense. It doesn't. Its just waffle and nonsense. Writing incorrect formulas and drawing little pictures and labeling things with the letters that real physicists use for properties and quantities they observe (like E and c) isn't science .. no matter how much you may fool yourself into believing it. Not that that will stop you from continuing in your ignorance and polluting the forum with you nonsense. You're too much of a fool to realize that you are ignorant and that you can do something to remedy that by learning. Telling yourself your own nonsense and believing it has some sort of meaning isn't helping you at all.
From: Y.Porat on 1 Feb 2010 02:24 On Jan 31, 1:19 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 11:10 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > D.K.Y > > > Why should energy, momentum, and force, have different equations? > > They are different things > > > (F=mv^2), > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > > is essentialy (E=mc^2) and (1/2KE=mv^2) > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > > and (p=mv) is (F=mv) > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > Go back to school (if you ever went) and study some physics. You are > just posting utter nonsense > > [snip rest of drivel] ------------------- Mr artful (btw what is you real name - ie why should you be anonymous ie what have you to hide or loose by coming with your real name ??) so anyway : please give us your explanation why is it: (beside the 'dry mathematical formalism ) energy in macrocosm 1/2 m V ^2 and in microcosm mc^2 (for momentum m v and m c is quite identical ) TIA Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: cjcountess on 1 Feb 2010 05:38
On Jan 31, 10:04 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 1:43 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 8:16 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 1, 10:23 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 4:07 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 31, 6:28 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > A lot of BULLSHIT > > > > > > My father instilled on me, in addition to those > > > > > already mentioned, to: "With the obvious, common > > > > > sense exceptions; tell the TRUTH." So: > > > > > > You are an egotistical IDIOT! > > > > > > So keep any mutual admiration between you and > > > > > schizoid Y.Porat (who claims to be expert No 1 about > > > > > nuclear mass [see his post of Jan. 18, 3:48 AM]) to > > > > > yourselves and save band width on this site. > > > > > > D.Y.K.. > > > > > Remember, that the more you claim to know, the more you reveal what > > > > you don't know > > > > > The evidence speaks for itself > > > > > You what to prove that (E=mc^2), is wrong and my geometrical > > > > interpretation of it, which shows that energy attains rest mass at a > > > > frequency/wavelenth of (c^2), just adds one more obstical to your > > > > refutal, that you or anyone else did not count on. > > > > > You thought you had all your basis covered by going to college and > > > > learning all you could about it. But research is going on all the time > > > > in and out of the schools and box. Today you are learning somethng > > > > that you did not in school, like it or not > > > > > And yes artful, > > > > > I am proud that I did this on my own, so far without any help from the > > > > accedemic institutions, and the whole world is going to know, because > > > > it is indeed something to be proud of. > > > > > I will never let someone like "D.K.Y", and "artful", who is not > > > > artful, and who by the way, have not discovered anything, discourge > > > > me. All people like you do is express jealousy, resentment and > > > > anoyance. > > > > > Both of you cannot even see the unification of energy, force, and > > > > momentum, which shows lack of incite into the underlying unity of all > > > > things, energy, force, and momentum, being a simple unity, already > > > > ointed out in the equations. > > > > > And like I said > > > > > The more you claim to know the more you reveal what you don't know, so > > > > be very carfull what you say and make sure you have evidence to back > > > > it > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > If you are proud of your ignorance, then you have a lot to be proud > > > of.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > You got jokes, but that is all you got, and the best joke is on you > > Its not a joke .. you are ignorant of science, and think that what > you're saying makes sense. It doesn't. Its just waffle and > nonsense. Writing incorrect formulas and drawing little pictures and > labeling things with the letters that real physicists use for > properties and quantities they observe (like E and c) isn't science .. > no matter how much you may fool yourself into believing it. > > Not that that will stop you from continuing in your ignorance and > polluting the forum with you nonsense. You're too much of a fool to > realize that you are ignorant and that you can do something to remedy > that by learning. Telling yourself your own nonsense and believing it > has some sort of meaning isn't helping you at all.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Anyone can examine what you say with what I say and see who is correct 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electrons/matter 3) deBroglie discovered E=hf=mc^2 for electrons of -1 charge and that electron is also a wave 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of an electron eequals the circumfrence of a circle with an angular momentum of a mutiple interger of h/2pi It logicaly follows from this and corresponding geometrical evidence that I discovered independently making it twice suported that (E=mc^2) =(E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1) c^2 on quantum level is "c in liniear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction", creating a 90 degree arc which is constant creates a circle of energy with wavelength cx2pi and angular momentum h/2pi. If amplitude is constant wave makes two rotations to complete one wave cycle making it a standing spherical wave of spin 1/2 and angular momentum of h/2pi/2 and -1 charge if spin is counter tto trajectory. c in liniear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, creates a balence of "centripital and centrifugal" forces, that create c in circular motion (cx2pi with coresponding angular momentum h/2pi) for spin 1/2 particles h/2pi/2 Resistence is futile, the evidence is overwealming Who is this un-artistic person, hiding behing that name artistic? What is your claim to fame? Nothing I guess, or you would use your real name. My name is Conrad J Countess, and I discovered (The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2), the most famous equation in the world. And as there is more info in the geometry, this adds to the progression of physics, which some people with opposing views, are threatened by. People, don't let anyone do your thinking for you. Examine the evidence for yourself and you will see just who is telling you the truth, and who is trying to hide it Conrad J Countess |