A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: artful on 2 Feb 2010 05:32 On Feb 2, 5:31 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 So .. you've still not answered. Are electrons and protons etc made up of circlons? If so .. how many? And how do you get the various properties of them (such as charge) if circlons do not have such properties? How can circlons (that have mass) be continually emitted and there be no decrease in mass?
From: cjcountess on 2 Feb 2010 08:15 Simple math In arithmetic, "1 x 1 = 1" In geometry, (1 unit length x 1 unit length at 90 degree angle) = 1 square inch Circular motion = (1 constant velocity in liniar direction x equal 90 degree angular constant velocity = (v^2) and creates a balence of centripital and centrifugal forces. (c^2) on quantum level = (c in liniear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction) = energy in circular motion = (c x 2 pi) with angular momentum of (h / 2pi), and is the conversion factor between "E", or energy, and "m", or matter. This shows geometricaly how energy equals and turns to matter at c^2. Simply because energy attains rest mass by aquiring circular and or spherical motion. (G), which is measured as (L/T^2), = (c^2), which is the highest (v^2), and the ultimate (L/T^2), on the quantum level. (G), equals (c^2), as the quantum of gravitational rest mass, simply because (c^2) is smallest unit of energy in circlular motion, also equal to (cx 2pi) with corresponding momentum of (h/2pi), and the point on EM spectrum where energy attains rest mass (G = c^2 = h/2pi) Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 2 Feb 2010 10:12 On Feb 2, 8:15Â am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Simple math > > In arithmetic, "1 x 1 = 1" > > In geometry, Â (1 unit length x 1 unit length at 90 degree angle) = 1 > square inch > > Circular motion = (1 constant velocity in liniar direction x equal 90 > degree angular constant velocity = (v^2) and creates a balence of > centripital and centrifugal forces. > > (c^2) on quantum level = (c in liniear direction x c in 90 degree > angular direction) = energy in circular motion = (c x 2 pi) with > angular momentum of (h / 2pi), and is the conversion factor between > "E", or energy, and "m", or matter. > This shows geometricaly how energy equals and turns to matter at c^2. > Simply because energy attains rest mass by aquiring circular and or > spherical motion. > > (G), which is measured as (L/T^2), = (c^2), which is the highest > (v^2), and the ultimate (L/T^2), on the quantum level. > (G), equals (c^2), as the quantum of gravitational rest mass, simply > because (c^2) is smallest unit of energy in circlular motion, also > equal to (cx 2pi) with corresponding momentum of (h/2pi), and the > point on EM spectrum where energy attains rest mass > > (G = c^2 = h/2pi) > > Conrad J Countess Additionaly: Just as (c^2) or (c x c) = (c x 2pi) with angular momentum of (h/2pi). (c = h = r or radius = 2pi = i or sqrt-1) on quantum level. Why does c = Square Root -1 1) First of all, quite simply because "c" x "c", or c2, leads to a (-1 charged), standing spherical wave, making 2 rotations, to complete 1 wave cycle, or (spin 1/2), and angular momentum of (h/2pi/2), which directly matches "empirically" measured, properties of Electron, which is the natural unit quantum of -1 charge. 2) Second, because it matches the description referenced below: An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1 by Paul J. Nahin page 53 paragraph 2: âsquare root of -1 is directed line segment of length 1 pointing straight up along the vertical axis or at long last, [i = sqrt-1 = 1 â 90 degree angle]. This is so important a statement that it is the only mathematical expression in the entire book that I have enclosedâ page 54 paragraph 2: âmultiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.â If "c", in linear direction x "c" pointing straight up in 90 degree angular direction, creates 90 degree counter clockwise rotation or arc, which if constant creates a counter-clockwise circle, and if this is also what creates the foundation for the backward spinning, standing spherical wave, such as electron, of (-1 charge), than (c = sqrt-1 ). And last but not least, Einstein's and Minkowski's, (ct x sqrt-1 ) or (c x sqrt-1), as measure of quantum of space-time = (E=mc^2), as the cut off frequency counterpart, as waves cease to propagate at the inter granular space between substance that makes up the medium of propagation. So as EM waves cease to propagate at c in linear direction, because they attain rest mass at (c^2), which is c in circular and/or spherical rotation, and = the inter granular space between rest mass particles = to (ct x sqrt-1), as quantum of space- time, postulated by Einstein and Minkowsky 3) And last but not least, because, (square root -1), works so well in solving, "otherwise intractable situations", in electronics problems, which involve electrons, Square root-1, must be intimately connected to the electron, which is the natural unit -1, and so c, must be the "natural unit" square root of "the natural unit -1", which is the electron itself. page 104 paragraph 2: âIn a revealing article criticizing Einstein's and Minkowski's, c x (sqrt-1) , a national bureau of Standards physicist admitted that Square root of -1 has a legitimate application in pure mathematic, where it forms a part of various ingenious devices for handling otherwise intractable situationsâ Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 2 Feb 2010 12:01 On Feb 2, 12:32 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 5:31 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > So .. you've still not answered. > > Are electrons and protons etc made up of circlons? > ----------------- charge is an attarction force right to see how i explain attarction force byu the circlon now it is not a single one it is alot of themcombined in'chain of orbitals i tols you to look at trhe beginningof my site yousee there the Alpha aprticle compsed of 2 protons (marked while) and two neuteons (marked black) and each proton or neutron is su compsed of a long chain of orbitals (suggestively) composed of cain of orbitals compsed of Circlons!! theend of that chain of orbitas is the electron marked schematically as a dotted line (even that electronmightnot be the last link on that chain the last one might be the neutrino ??) yet please note that alol those liks are cobnnected **linearly **!! -------------- > If so .. how many? i dont know > > And how do you get the various properties of them (such as charge) if > circlons do not have such properties? se above Circlons are emmited constantly and come gack sort of a fountain no other model will explain it better or more tangibly !! -------------- > > How can circlons (that have mass) be continually emitted and there be > no decrease in mass? ------------- see above it is recycled !! that is why i called it called Circlon it moves in closed circles (if not disturbed on its way) that is a much better explanation than the *photon* as a force agent because the photon is moving in straight lines and if not hitting the target it is lost forever! so you have to address your above question to yourself .. with your 'Photon attraction force maker !!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: cjcountess on 2 Feb 2010 21:01
On Feb 2, 8:15 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Simple math > > In arithmetic, "1 x 1 = 1" > > In geometry, (1 unit length x 1 unit length at 90 degree angle) = 1 > square inch > > Circular motion = (1 constant velocity in liniar direction x equal 90 > degree angular constant velocity = (v^2) and creates a balence of > centripital and centrifugal forces. > > (c^2) on quantum level = (c in liniear direction x c in 90 degree > angular direction) = energy in circular motion = (c x 2 pi) with > angular momentum of (h / 2pi), and is the conversion factor between > "E", or energy, and "m", or matter. > This shows geometricaly how energy equals and turns to matter at c^2. > Simply because energy attains rest mass by aquiring circular and or > spherical motion. > > (G), which is measured as (L/T^2), = (c^2), which is the highest > (v^2), and the ultimate (L/T^2), on the quantum level. > (G), equals (c^2), as the quantum of gravitational rest mass, simply > because (c^2) is smallest unit of energy in circlular motion, also > equal to (cx 2pi) with corresponding momentum of (h/2pi), and the > point on EM spectrum where energy attains rest mass > > (G = c^2 = h/2pi) > > Conrad J Countess This statement In geometry, (1 unit length x 1 unit length at 90 degree angle) = 1 square inch should read in geometry, (1 unit length x 1 unit length at 90 degree angle) = 1 square unit or (1 inch x 1 inch at 90 degree angle) = 1 square inch |