A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 1 Feb 2010 11:45 Analogous to a line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 inch in the 90 degree angular direction to equal 1 square inch, and or a velocity in the linear direction x a velocity in the 90 degree angular direction to create a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces and circular motion measured as (F=mv^2/r = Gmm/r/2), (c^2) in equation (E=mc^2) can be considered, c in circular motion and the point on the EM spectrum, where energy equals, and turns to "matter/ rest mass". This is a simple explanation of why energy equals rest mass through mathematical conversion factor of (c^2), because (c^2) is an actual conversion frequency, where energy acquires rest mass, because it takes on a circular and or spherical form. "G" or the gravity constant, which is measured as "L/T^2" equals "c^2", on this quantum level because "c^2", is the ultimate velocity squared, and as energy in circular and or spherical motion, it is easy to see how it is at this point that energy acquires rest mass, because of a more balanced energy, mass, and momentum, around a center of rotation. As such, (c^2 = G and also has wavelength = c x 2pi, with angular momentum, which is inversely proportional to wavelength, at h/2pi). This has profound implication concerning the Planck scale because instead of combining, (c, h/2pi, and G), to get Planck scale of "length, mass, and time, excetra, which is also suposed to be level at which "Quantum Gravity" is revealed, we combine (c^2, G, h/2pi,) find that they are equal and see that this is indeed that level of "Quantum Gravity", which is within reach, and the "electron", searves as the physical manifestation of these basic dimensions If we take a line of 1 inch in linear direction and a line of 1 inch in 90 degree angular direction as such __| and draw an arc from beginning of horizontal line, to top end of vertical line, we get a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle with radius equal to h = c and thus the c x 2pi and the h / 2pi. Furthermore the equation for circular motion on macro scale of (F=mv^2/ r = F = mv/r^2 = F= Gmm/r^2) can apply if we substitute E for F, hf for mv, and r for c, as (E=hf/c^2) As the same force that contracts energy into rest mass at (E = hf / c^2) is the same that makes rest mass gravitate together at F=mv^2/r = F=mv/r^2 = Gmm/r^2. It is so simple yet so profound, and I am proud and honored to be the one to present it to the world. My name is "Conrad J Countess", and I have the utmost confidence in this.
From: Y.Porat on 1 Feb 2010 12:00 On Feb 1, 9:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ------------------------------ and i am still waiting to artful answer ie waht is your understanding of it not only the formal mathematics TIA Y.Porat --------------------- --------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 1 Feb 2010 12:15 On Feb 1, 6:45 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Analogous to a line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 > inch in the 90 degree angular direction to equal 1 square inch, and or > a velocity in the linear direction x a velocity in the 90 degree > angular direction to create a balance of centrifugal and centripetal > forces and circular motion measured as (F=mv^2/r = Gmm/r/2), (c^2) in > equation (E=mc^2) can be considered, c in circular motion and the > point on the EM spectrum, where energy equals, and turns to "matter/ > rest mass". This is a simple explanation of why energy equals rest > mass through mathematical conversion factor of (c^2), because (c^2) is > an actual conversion frequency, where energy acquires rest mass, > because it takes on a circular and or spherical form. "G" or the > gravity constant, which is measured as "L/T^2" equals "c^2", on this > quantum level because "c^2", is the ultimate velocity squared, and as > energy in circular and or spherical motion, it is easy to see how it > is at this point that energy acquires rest mass, because of a more > balanced energy, mass, and momentum, around a center of rotation. As > such, (c^2 = G and also has wavelength = c x 2pi, with angular > momentum, which is inversely proportional to wavelength, at h/2pi). > This has profound implication concerning the Planck scale because > instead of combining, (c, h/2pi, and G), to get Planck scale of > "length, mass, and time, excetra, which is also suposed to be level at > which "Quantum Gravity" is revealed, we combine (c^2, G, h/2pi,) find > that they are equal and see that this is indeed that level of "Quantum > Gravity", which is within reach, and the "electron", searves as the > physical manifestation of these basic dimensions > > If we take a line of 1 inch in linear direction and a line of 1 inch > in 90 degree angular direction as such __| and draw an arc from > beginning of horizontal line, to top end of vertical line, we get a 90 > degree arc which if constant creates a circle with radius equal to h = > c and thus the c x 2pi and the h / 2pi. > Furthermore the equation for circular motion on macro scale of (F=mv^2/ > r = F = mv/r^2 = F= Gmm/r^2) can apply if we substitute E for F, hf > for mv, and r for c, as (E=hf/c^2) > As the same force that contracts energy into rest mass at (E = hf / > c^2) is the same that makes rest mass gravitate together at F=mv^2/r = > F=mv/r^2 = Gmm/r^2. > > It is so simple yet so profound, and I am proud and honored to be the > one to present it to the world. > > My name is "Conrad J Countess", and I have the utmost confidence in > this. --------------------- Hi Conrad see my explanation to the above issue in the sketch called as (a stil unknown physics:(of ther Circlon ) you can see there that in microcosm for each mass in enormous movement you need another identical mass **to hold it in its microcosm volume** by constantly colliding with it otho in macrocosm it i snot needed !! big macrocosm masses can move * in slow movement )or not if a mass moves i t moves and leaving its location if it does not move it stays in its location ( it has only** inner** vigorous movement (( ATB Y.Porat ------------------------
From: cjcountess on 1 Feb 2010 15:59 On Feb 1, 12:15 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 6:45 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Analogous to a line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 > > inch in the 90 degree angular direction to equal 1 square inch, and or > > a velocity in the linear direction x a velocity in the 90 degree > > angular direction to create a balance of centrifugal and centripetal > > forces and circular motion measured as (F=mv^2/r = Gmm/r/2), (c^2) in > > equation (E=mc^2) can be considered, c in circular motion and the > > point on the EM spectrum, where energy equals, and turns to "matter/ > > rest mass". This is a simple explanation of why energy equals rest > > mass through mathematical conversion factor of (c^2), because (c^2) is > > an actual conversion frequency, where energy acquires rest mass, > > because it takes on a circular and or spherical form. "G" or the > > gravity constant, which is measured as "L/T^2" equals "c^2", on this > > quantum level because "c^2", is the ultimate velocity squared, and as > > energy in circular and or spherical motion, it is easy to see how it > > is at this point that energy acquires rest mass, because of a more > > balanced energy, mass, and momentum, around a center of rotation. As > > such, (c^2 = G and also has wavelength = c x 2pi, with angular > > momentum, which is inversely proportional to wavelength, at h/2pi). > > This has profound implication concerning the Planck scale because > > instead of combining, (c, h/2pi, and G), to get Planck scale of > > "length, mass, and time, excetra, which is also suposed to be level at > > which "Quantum Gravity" is revealed, we combine (c^2, G, h/2pi,) find > > that they are equal and see that this is indeed that level of "Quantum > > Gravity", which is within reach, and the "electron", searves as the > > physical manifestation of these basic dimensions > > > If we take a line of 1 inch in linear direction and a line of 1 inch > > in 90 degree angular direction as such __| and draw an arc from > > beginning of horizontal line, to top end of vertical line, we get a 90 > > degree arc which if constant creates a circle with radius equal to h = > > c and thus the c x 2pi and the h / 2pi. > > Furthermore the equation for circular motion on macro scale of (F=mv^2/ > > r = F = mv/r^2 = F= Gmm/r^2) can apply if we substitute E for F, hf > > for mv, and r for c, as (E=hf/c^2) > > As the same force that contracts energy into rest mass at (E = hf / > > c^2) is the same that makes rest mass gravitate together at F=mv^2/r = > > F=mv/r^2 = Gmm/r^2. > > > It is so simple yet so profound, and I am proud and honored to be the > > one to present it to the world. > > > My name is "Conrad J Countess", and I have the utmost confidence in > > this. > > --------------------- > Hi Conrad > see my explanation to the above issue > in the sketch called as > (a stil unknown physics:(of ther Circlon ) > > you can see there that in microcosm > for each mass in enormous movement > you need another identical mass > **to hold it in its microcosm volume** > > by constantly colliding with it > > otho > in macrocosm it i snot needed !! > big macrocosm masses can move * in slow movement )or not > if a mass moves i t moves and leaving its location > if it does not move > it stays in its location ( it has only** inner** vigorous movement > (( > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - O.K. Porat I will need more time to study it. I do appreciate your civility and your willingness to discuss this respectfully. artful, D.Y. K., inertia, and others seem to be threatened by my work and they should be. I am going to expose them for the frauds that they are I had more respect for D.Y.K at first because he used his real name and spoke politely. But now he seems to be so threatened by my geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2, because it shows in picturest form, that energy and matter are equal, and related through conversion factor of c^2, plain and simple He is goin to go back to the drawing board, as his whole foundation has been shaken. He is probably in a mental and philosophical earthquake. He and the others are going to try and win the debate on technicalities, like precision of definitions, spelling, and grama, but I will stick to the evidence itself, as it is supreme. I am tempted to rest my case now because I know that I have more than enough evidence to defeat them They seem to belong to the debate class of, "if you cannot convence, then confuse, and win at all cost" but they are debating with nature itself, and nature has spoken clearly, although not very loud, And this is where they will try to loud talk the debate, and divert attention from what is clearly, simple and true, probably under the guse that nature and understanding of it is complex. But do not believe them. First examing the evidence yourself I assure you that it is alot simpler than most of these foolishly proud people will have us believe. This is how they eliet gain and maintain power. But I am going to expose the truth of the simplicity of it and also those who are still trying to conceal it. In the mean time, I will have a little fun with them, and get some debate practice. Out of respect for this forum, I will not stoop to their level of confusing and deciet, but I do intend on not pulling any more punches with them I have lost respect for them and they will feel my displeasure For the rest of you, I do maintain respect, and am greatful that we have a forum such as this, with which we can introduce new and revolutionary ideas. This may be a valuable lesson for us all, as some take this subject so seriously, that disagreeing with them is like defiling their religion, or critisizing their artwork, for which they can and are becoming very hostil. But the cooler heads will prevail, and to the rest of the audience, please maintain you judgement till all the evidence is presented in its clearest and complete form. I am sure you will not be disapointed, as we all may learn something, as well as be intertained. Conrad J Countess P.S. Has anyone else expeirenced any dificulties with posting, and have their post, which appear on other sites been sabataged or corruped. Because it seems that I am have these problems, and I do not want to accuse anyone until I am sure, but there seems to be dirt being spilled into the game, as these post sometimes appear to be altered. So watch out everyone, the truth may be the first casualty of this debate, if these people have the type of access to distort and change what they cannot successfuly argue against. If they cannot win the debate they will distort it, so just be vigialent Thank you and look out for echother, and those who are more concerned with what is right, than who is right. Conrad J Countess
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:41
On Feb 1, 6:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ------------------------------ Its simple maths .. series expansion. The 1/2mv^2 is what the formula for kinetic energy reduces to when v <<c .. the other terms in the series become insignificantly small |