A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
From: whoever on 10 Jan 2010 06:21 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fb1eee45-5265-4336-81db-d1715d2367a7(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 3, 10:01 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Look �h�, is the constant kinetic or relativistic, call it what you >> prefer, �mass/energy�, of the photon due to constant velocity of �c�. >> It is still mass, and it is mass due to motion. And as I demonstrated, >> even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical >> rotation. They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe >> is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a >> constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion, >> even rest mass, which is energy in rotation. >> Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2), �h� is constant mass/ >> energy due to constant velocity of, �c� and, �f� is variable mass/ >> energy, due to variable frequency. And higher mass/energy is due to >> higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from >> higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more >> speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy. In the old days the >> equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv), showing its direct >> correspondence to (F=mv), as indeed they are equal on the quantum >> level and directly proportional on macro level. And they updated >> equation E=hf/c^2 is equal to F=mv/r^2. >> Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it >> does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as >> deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2. >> >> On Dec 30 2009, 6:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:bdd1649a-aa33-4ac9-b17c-38428f2ede65(a)37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons >> > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter >> > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, >> > > and that electron was also a wave. >> > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to >> > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer >> > > of >> > > h/2pi >> > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) >> > > = >> > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) >> >> > You were going well up until you started with that last line of >> > nonsense. >> >> > If c=(square root of -1), then c is no longer a real number, and cannot >> > be >> > the speed of anything measured. Further, if c=(square root of -1), >> > then c^2 >> > = -2, so E = mc^2 becomes E = -m, and that is absolute nonsense. >> >> c = the natural unit, sqrt of the natural unit -1, and is no longer >> just an imaginary number, but a real natural unit just as the electron >> is the real natural unit -1. >> And yes E= -m in this special case. >> Ever heard of the unity of the constants? As everything in the >> universe come from a unified source as we get to the constants in >> nature we find that they too extend from a unity. >> (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (h = c= i = 2pi) so far I�ve found that all >> constants can be traced to a unity with c >> In equation E=hf/c^2 and F=mv/r^2, c = r >> >> Conrad J Countess > > ----------------------- > good for you Countless !! > anyway i forgot whop said it first that > > 'ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!! > EVEN IN MICROCOSM' !! > > can you remember who said it first (:-) Probably whoever first came up with the notion of kinetic energy .. which is due to mass in motion. Whether or no he used those exact particular words is irrelevant, of course.. I think that idea has been around for a looong time. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 10 Jan 2010 06:22 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f3c108c-5347-4237-b4a2-51301fb4533e(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 9, 9:37 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct >> > > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. >> >> > The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant >> > degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea >> > that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening >> > is even more absurd. >> >> > Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. >> >> > It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to >> > that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. >> >> > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do >> > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? >> >> > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed >> > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is >> > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit >> > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units >> > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. >> >> I don�t care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your >> case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made >> him look foolish and so now you want to join him. >> When I first encountered Al >> here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en >> >> He stated: >> >> > Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same >> > predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place - >> > as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have >> > it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars >> > and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and >> > pseudotensors with spacetime torsion. >> >> > Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force. >> >> Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force, >> which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into >> spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated. >> Just because you cannot see that �c^2�, is not just a mathematical >> conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level, >> where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it >> takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense. >> I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and >> statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it, >> except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow >> your foolish pride. >> Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it. >> I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to >> be confident. >> I don�t blame anyone if they don�t see this right away because it is a >> new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for >> itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face. >> >> And oh yea, as for �advancing physics on sci physics�, even Al is >> trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream >> physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his >> link:http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm >> >> And if you think that the so called big boys like �Stephen Hawkings�, >> don�t have teams �data mining�, sites like these for ideas, than your >> a fool. And furthermore, if they truly don�t than they are fools. >> Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box >> thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the >> greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to >> enjoy proving it. >> >> You both think your so smart. >> >> I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise. >> >> Conrad J Countess >> >> Remember my name > > ------------------- > Good for you Countless !!!! > > dont let all the imbecile parrot gangsters > hold you back > we are going to win not them!! > (that is why they are in panic !!) Who is in a panic? The only one panicing is you .. when you go flying off the handle throwing insults at those who counter your nonsense and mistakes with physics. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 11:41 On Jan 10, 1:22 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6f3c108c-5347-4237-b4a2-51301fb4533e(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 9, 9:37 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct > >> > > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. > > >> > The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant > >> > degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea > >> > that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening > >> > is even more absurd. > > >> > Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. > > >> > It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to > >> > that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. > > >> > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do > >> > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? > > >> > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed > >> > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is > >> > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit > >> > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units > >> > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. > > >> I dont care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your > >> case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made > >> him look foolish and so now you want to join him. > >> When I first encountered Al > >> here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en > > >> He stated: > > >> > Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same > >> > predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place - > >> > as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have > >> > it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars > >> > and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and > >> > pseudotensors with spacetime torsion. > > >> > Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force. > > >> Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force, > >> which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into > >> spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated. > >> Just because you cannot see that c^2, is not just a mathematical > >> conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level, > >> where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it > >> takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense. > >> I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and > >> statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it, > >> except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow > >> your foolish pride. > >> Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it. > >> I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to > >> be confident. > >> I dont blame anyone if they dont see this right away because it is a > >> new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for > >> itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face. > > >> And oh yea, as for advancing physics on sci physics, even Al is > >> trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream > >> physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his > >> link:http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > >> And if you think that the so called big boys like Stephen Hawkings, > >> dont have teams data mining, sites like these for ideas, than your > >> a fool. And furthermore, if they truly dont than they are fools. > >> Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box > >> thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the > >> greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to > >> enjoy proving it. > > >> You both think your so smart. > > >> I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise. > > >> Conrad J Countess > > >> Remember my name > > > ------------------- > > Good for you Countless !!!! > > > dont let all the imbecile parrot gangsters > > hold you back > > we are going to win not them!! > > (that is why they are in panic !!) > > Who is in a panic? The only one panicing is you .. when you go flying off > the handle throwing insults at those who counter your nonsense and mistakes > with physics. > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- ---------------- Hi Feuerbacher with his other name if you dont like me go discuss with your friends ----------------
From: glird on 10 Jan 2010 12:21 k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > ><Another site has, "Fortunately, expressing the formulas mathematically helps resolve any ambiguities of language. That's why 'laws' in physics are expressed mathematically." Again I say Bullshit. Only the 4th site quotes from Motte's or Cajori's translations. ... In fact all the current text and reference books leave off ... all the ideas .... found in the quote. This omission has a tremendous impact on the correct understanding of the Third Law. > And on everything else Newton wrote. >There are many reasons why mainline science got >this Law so screwed up. Not only "this Law". Insofar as the structure of the physical universe is concerned, mainline science, via physics, got EVERYTHING screwed up. ><There are many other points, ideas, concepts, etc., of the Classical Newtonian Mechanics that deviate from those presented in the Principia. These are covered in detail the treatise 'The Search for Reality and the Truths'. This book addresses even more about Newton's Second Law. > Where can that book be found? glird
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 13:06
On Jan 10, 7:21 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > > ><Another site has, "Fortunately, expressing the formulas > > mathematically helps resolve any ambiguities of language. > That's why 'laws' in physics are expressed mathematically." > Again I say Bullshit. Only the 4th site quotes from > Motte's or Cajori's translations. ... In fact all the current > text and reference books leave off ... all the ideas > ... found in the quote. This omission has a tremendous > impact on the correct understanding of the Third Law. > > > And on everything else Newton wrote. > > >There are many reasons why mainline science got > >this Law so screwed up. > > Not only "this Law". Insofar as the structure of the > physical universe is concerned, mainline science, via > physics, got EVERYTHING screwed up.><There are many other points, ideas, concepts, etc., > > of the Classical Newtonian Mechanics that deviate > from those presented in the Principia. These are covered > in detail the treatise 'The Search for Reality and the > Truths'. > This book addresses even more about Newton's Second Law. > > > Where can that book be found? > > glird --------------------- anyway do you think that there are more than one mass physical entity ??? fo r instance 'gravitational mass'' 'or 'relativistic mass' **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined TIA Y.Porat ---------------------- |