A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:42 On Feb 1, 9:38 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it any more correct
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:43 On Feb 2, 3:45 am, 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. Then you are deluded .. seek help
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:44 On Feb 2, 4:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > --------------------- > -------------------------- Explain how circlons can create all the particles we see. What charge is a circlon .. what mass? How many in an electron> a proton? a quark?
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:45 On Feb 2, 7:59 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Your insanity is only a threat to yourself. Your 'work' is pure nonsense and has nothing to do with physics.
From: Y.Porat on 2 Feb 2010 01:31
On Feb 2, 1:44 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 4:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > --------------------- > > -------------------------- > > Explain how circlons can create all the particles we see. What charge > is a circlon .. what mass? How many in an electron> a proton? a > quark? ------------------- you still ddint get the idea btw i hope you noticed in my appendix my disclaimer prefacing that Appendix as usualat all my scientific work it starts witha sort of a guess based onmy intuition but my intuition is actually all the experience thqt i accumulated in my 70 years of life soi start with 'wild guesses' leting myimagination run is satge 2 i become a different personality i try to be the strictest critic of myself sonow to bussiness: sotheidea of the Circlon is it is the smallest point physical particle and as such it is the simplest possible it has no charge the only property it has is having mass !! inmy experience NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS (thatis what i learned after my 70years (:-) 2 its main proerty is that it moved naturally in a closed circle - if not disturbed by another circlon 3 and THAT is what making it a particle maker AND a force maker !! i hope i explained it in my appendix i showed here how it can be an attraction maker by being emmited for a particle and hiting theother mass more from its rare side making sort of a clamp that becomes stronger as distance becomes smaller tha tis because any mass is composed of those circlons and dont stop emmitingthem outside as sort of a fountain (and that is why he mass is not depleated of those Circlons !!! unlike the stupid paradigmod say photons that make the EM force by emiting photons in straight lines.. because by that way the particle should be depleted exhausted out of its photons ..during a few billon years of existence ..) 3 now how it can be aheavier aprticle builder see at the beginning of my site by ther chain of orbitals idea 4 now i have a problem that i cannot bet my head on it it is why is it that energy in macrocosm is E == 1/2 mv^2 while in microcosm it is E = mc^2 without that 1/2 fo r me it is not to be swept under the carpet as of other people here it is much moreimportant and less inocent as it looks like i have some 'wild guess' about it but i would like to heare so othetr peiople how do they see it before i spill out my answer (it seems to me like the title of this thread: A SIMPLE Q BUT NOT A SIMPLE A ......!! so what is your explanation to the above?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------- the circlon is may be the smallest poit particle |