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: glird on 10 Jan 2010 17:29 On Jan 10, 3:22 pm, cjcountess wrote: > >< (E=mc^2) tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter, and that they are exqxuxaxl related through a mathematical conversion factor (c^2), but does not explain how. Neither can physicists. > True. >< Now would not it be more information and more interesting to have a geometrical interpretation of e=mc^2 that not only tells us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter and that they are oxnxe related through a mathematical conversion factor of c^2, but actually shows us HOW, by giving this equation physical form, a geometrical shape of circular and or spherical motion. > E = mc^2 says that the energy in a mass is equal to its weight times (the speed of light in a vacuum)^2. >< Now, not only do we know that (E=hf=mc^2) at the level of the electron, indicating a smooth transition between energy and matter- waves and parxticlxes, but we have a picture of it, revealing more of how the âEM spectrumâ is not just the âelectromagneticâ but the âenergy/matterâ, spectrum as well. > From page 6 of The Anpheon: << "Energy" is the ability to do work. The following equations prove this: F = ma, so m = F/a. Therefore, by substituting equals for equals we see that e = mc2 = (F/a)c2 = F(cm2/sec2)/(cm/sec2) = Fd = gm cm = ergs = work. That which possesses this ability is matter. That which provides matter with the ability to do work is the difference in degree of organization of different portions of matter. That difference is the result of the interplay of the motions, pressures, densities, and ontropy, of matter. Being a complex product, energy is not a basic item. >> From page 93 of that book: << Using the following data values and the equation e=hf we will now derive the numerical data value of h by simple arithmetic. The empirical numerical values of the mass m of an electron, the radius r of its orbit, the velocity c of light in a vacuum, the Fine structure constant Fs, and the speed câ of an electron in its orbital path (taken herein as the speed of light in an outer ponitron) are: m = 9.1094^-28 gm, the radius of an average atom is r = 5.29177^-9 cm, c = 2.997934^10 cm/sec, Fs = 137.03604, and câ = c/Fs = 2.1876975^8. An electron will take 2pir/câ seconds per orbit, so the frequency is f = 1/(2pir/câ) = 6.5797053^15 beats per second. Since e = mc2 and the local speed of light in a pon is câ, we thus have e = hf = mcâ2, from which we get h = mcâ2/fï Solving the latter equation we get, h = (9.1093603^-28 gm)(2.1876975^8 cm/sec)^2/(6.5797053^15/sec) = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. That is precisely âthe empirical measured valueâ of h reported on the Internet in 2006. >> On page 18 that book says, << Putting all the above bits and pieces together we reach *The Equation of Everything* e = Fd = ma x d = mv2 = (mc2 â>m(c/Fs)2 = mcâ2 = (2pirmcâ)f = hf = eo. >> >< I read somewhere that some die hard, old school, physicist. may have to die out before new revolutionary ideas and discoveries are generally accepted. Oh well; too bad. It doesnât have to be that way.> From your pen to God's. >< And so yes: (c^2), as a rotation of energy is more fundamental than (c^2) as just a mathematical conversion factor with no geometrical meaning, because the xlxatxtexr {former) is incomplete and simply not exnxtxixrxexlxy true. > My discovery will be around when I hope you still are, Countess J Conrad. glird
From: Inertial on 10 Jan 2010 17:56 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:99161734-6553-4672-8ebf-487cdddb2eb8(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... > 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 My relevant questions from your other thread on kinds of mass remains unanswered .. lets see if you'll answer here Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. Is there more than one 'kind' of length? Is height a different 'kind' of length to width? Is the measured contracted length (in SR) of a rod by a moving observer a different 'kind' of length to the rest length of the rod? Or is it a different value for the same thing, due to differences in frame of reference? Is the proper interval length of a rod a different 'kind' of length? That length is invariant (ie the same in all frames of reference).
From: kado on 11 Jan 2010 02:36 On Jan 10, 2:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > My relevant questions from your other thread on kinds of mass remains > unanswered .. lets see if you'll answer here > > Define what you mean by a "kind" of mass. > Maybe I can shed a little a bit of light on the subject of mass. Then I will let you guys decide who is right and who is not. I'm not going to get into this tussel, because I seem to be having enough problems with what should be the simpler Ideas of Newton's Laws. Einstein had 3 different concepts of mass within Special Relativity. There is the mass at the state of being stationary that he called rest mass. There is the mass moving well below the speed of light that he called gravitational mass. Both these did not differ greatly from the mass defined in Classical Newtonian Mechanics. Then there was the relativistic mass (also called at times the inertial mass) that increases as a function of gamma, and wherein its length in the direction of motion (but not height or width, i.e. wherein tensor mechanics apply) and also time contracts as the inverse of gamma when the speeds increase and approach that of light. On the other hand, the empirical 'modern' Eotvos experiment by Dr. Robert H. Dicke at Princeton University confirmed the independently conceived notion V.W. Hughes and R.P. Drever that the mass of a body remains isotropic, and that the inertial mass remains the equivalent of the rest mass. Dickes experiment demonstrated that the mass remains constant to better than 99,999,999,997 and 1/2 parts in 100 billion! So most modern post Einsteinian Relativists abandoned Einstein's relativistic mass and instilled the idea of invariant mass (i.e., the concept that mass remains constant), but wherein the relativistic momentum and/or energy increases as the speeds increase and approaches that of light. Furthermore, these relativists retain all of Einstein's tensor and field mechanics intact and without modification. What these relativists do not seem to realize or accept is that there is no fundamental difference in principle between the invariant mass of post Einsteinian Relativity and the mass defined by Isaac Newton in Principia. Now the matter of tensor mechanics, relativistic momentum and energy, and the notion that time is relativistic requires the true understanding of time. Please note that I stated mainline science does not yet truly understand mass, force or time in an earlier post. Nevertheless, I did do a pretty good job as to how Einstein and mainline science reached these conundrums in my book. A lot of the solutions has to do with the fact that both Einstein and mainline scientists adhere to the Philosophy of Idealism. Logical and rational thinking, and the rejection of a lot of dogmas also helps a lot. D.Y.K.
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jan 2010 02:52 On Jan 10, 10:58 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 10, 1:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 !!) > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > Thank you Y.Porat > > Its only a matter of time before the right people in the right > position, with a truly objective perspective, valuing what is right, > over who is right, sees this. > > Than it will become apparent, both who is revealing the truth, and who > is trying to conceal it. > > Conrad J Countess ------------------ right !! and even so no one should consider himself free of mistakes anyone of us migth be right about one issue and wrong about the other one!! so the name of the good game is ---- MODESTY !!! (and nonstop self checking ) ATB Y.Porat --------------------
From: Y.Porat on 11 Jan 2010 03:01
On Jan 10, 9:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 10, 1:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > do you think that there are more than one mass > > physical entity ??? > > For instance 'gravitational mass' or 'relativistic mass' > > **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined > > To Newton and me a mass as a quantity of matter. > The difference is this: > He thought the mass of a body is the sum of the > mass of an atom times the number of atoms in that > body; where -- if you study his words carefully, > ALL atoms were identical thus had the same weight. > To me, mass is a quantity of matter whether or not > it is formed into atoms and whether or not it has any > weight. > > glird ---------------- nice !! now about relativistic mass: 1 as some of us said it was abandoned long ago for cleaver people not for dunb mathematiocians and we saw it ion my thread: 'there is jsut one kind of mass' one of my main clames was at th3e momentum case i showed that **no one has any way to show that in Gamma m v the gamma does not belongs to the mass IT BELONGS TO MV AS *** ONE*** PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!** and no one has a prove that it belongs *only to the mass*!!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------- |