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: cjcountess on 12 Jan 2010 13:41 On Jan 10, 5:29Â pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Â 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 > Â Â e = mc2 = (F/a)c2 > Â Â Â = F(cm2/sec2)/(cm/sec2) > Â Â Â = 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. > Â 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. >> > > Â 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. > Â 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. > Â 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, > Â h = (9.1093603^-28 gm)(2.1876975^8 cm/sec)^2/(6.5797053^15/sec) > Â Â = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. > That is precisely âthe empirical measured valueâ of h reported on the > Internet in 2006. >> > > Â On page 18 that book says, > << Putting all the above bits and pieces together we reach > Â Â *The Equation of Everything* > Â e = Fd = ma x d = mv2 > Â Â = (mc2 â>m(c/Fs)2 = mcâ2 > Â Â = (2pirmcâ)f = hf = eo. >> > This is very interesting, although I would say that (h=c) instead of (h=c^2/f) to simplify things.but there is something interesting about the way you stated it. As far as quantum linear length of a particle is concerned (h=c^2/f) may =(h/2pi/2) and = reduced Compton wavelength = radius of electron = Schwarzschild radius, and (h/2pi) the full Compton wavelength. Have to look at this more.
From: cjcountess on 12 Jan 2010 14:27 Just thought of something inspired form this: ..>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. >> As it pertains to systems unwinding and winding in its simplest form such system would be: As energy moves from (E=hf/c^2) to (E=mc^2), it is as if it is being winded up into a particle. In other words a rest mass particle store the potential energy of mc^2 which if released by unwinding the rest mass which is (relative mass, kinetic energy), confined to a small sphere rotating about an axis with acceleration of a=c^2/c to photons of energy equal to c^2 but as radiation. And thus energy to mass conversion, is as a winding up and unwinding of energy. But of course I am not the first to say that, just thought it goes with what you have said. As for  >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. >> I do agree that the frequency would be c in circular motion = to reduced Planck's constant (h/2pi = hx2pi = c/2pi = cx2pi ) if I interpreted (2pir/c'), correctly >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 really have to study this one. Again I say, âvery interestingâ Conrad J Countess
From: glird on 12 Jan 2010 15:15 On Jan 12, 1:41Â pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 10, 5:29Â pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Â 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 > > Â Â e = mc2 = (F/a)c2 > > Â Â Â = F(cm2/sec2)/(cm/sec2) > > Â Â Â = 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. > > Â 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. >> > > > Â 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. > > Â 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. > > Â 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, > > Â h = (9.1093603^-28 gm)(2.1876975^8 cm/sec)^2/(6.5797053^15/sec) > > Â Â = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. > > That is precisely âthe empirical measured valueâ of h reported on the > > Internet in 2006. >> > > > Â On page 18 that book says, > > << Putting all the above bits and pieces together we reach > > Â Â *The Equation of Everything* > > Â e = Fd = ma x d = mv2 > > Â Â = (mc2 â>m(c/Fs)2 = mcâ2 > > Â Â = (2pirmcâ)f = hf = eo. >> > > This is very interesting, although I would say that (h=c) instead of > (h=c^2/f) to simplify things.but there is something interesting about > the way you stated it. > > As far as quantum linear length of a particle is concerned (h=c^2/f) > may =(h/2pi/2) and = reduced Compton wavelength = radius of electron = > Schwarzschild radius, and (h/2pi) the full Compton wavelength. Have to > look at this more. Concentrate on h=(9.1093603^-28gm)(2.1876975^8cm/sec)^2/6.5797053^15/sec = 6.6260693^-27 gm cm2/sec. I got it from studying Planck" paper. He said something about the resonators in a black box being stationary. That made me wonder, If the resonators are stationary then how can they resonate, i.e. vibrate? They couldn't vibrate back and forth from a given point. Having long ago worked out the intricate structure of matter units, from atoms to the entire universe, I knew that there are density shells of matter around every nucleus, including an atom's, and that pressure-density nodes circulate in them. So i said to myself, I wonder if his "stationary resonators" could be the circulating nodes themselves. (If so, the atom could be stationary even though its nodes -- called "electrons" -- orbited inside it.) Thinking the electron was a particle, I therefore looked up its mass (m) and orbital speed (c') and the radius of its orbit. Putting them together I proceeded thus: Well, if r is the size of the radius, then 2 x pi x r is the length of one orbital path. Since energy is the ability to do work, and work is mass x distance moved, why not try multiplying 2pir by m, and then that by c'. The fact that the result PRECISELY fit the experimental value of h -- which Planck's almost mystical mathematical treatment did not -- led me to consider the ramifications of my way of doing it. As time went on, I gradually changed my mind as to an electron being a particle, ven inside an atom. I proceeded somewhat like this: If a circulating electron escaped from an atom it would shoot out at c'. Why, then does a "photon" always travel between atoms at c? Well, suppose the electron is a wavicle, a pd node traveling in the dense medium inside its layer at c'. Suppose that when it linearly escaped from its shell layer, it represented a rather large excess pressure in the surrounding space-filling matter. That +p would instantly push surrounding matter away, in all directions from any point it was at. The +pd GRADIENT (NOT the tiny bit of matter that escaped) would then radiate outward in all directions at c. A year or so later, I began to wonder: Why is the decrease in the remaining mass of the atom equal to that of the escaped electron if the electron isn't a particle? (Forget about Heisenberg's wave- particle duality; which says that if it can't be a particle and can't be a wave system it is therefore both. That's like saying that if light can't be a particle and can't be a wave it is therefore both. Which is like saying that the mass of a photon is zero except when it isn't.) That led me to ponder about what "mass" actually is, and how it is measured. i DID figure that out and the answer led to a change in my own nomenclature in several of my books. (For instance, I deleted the word "dinsity" because I realized that: Rather than non-particulate matter having no "mass" in a g-field, it has no WEIGHT; so "density" DOES means "mass per unit volume". Enuf 4 now. If intrested let me know. glird
From: Inertial on 12 Jan 2010 16:53 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d6f5e6da-9ec4-413c-aab4-4459f53786a6(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 12, 2:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a079b72c-0891-4f32-a744-ad1b6b364c75(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jan 11, 9:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 11, 12:48 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jan 11, 7:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > On Jan 11, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > On Jan 11, 2:01 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > 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!!!** >> >> >> > > > The gamma doesn't belong to anything. I don't know where you got >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > idea that factors in a product can be assigned to belong to each >> >> > > > other. >> >> >> > > > > and no one has a prove that it belongs >> >> > > > > *only to the mass*!!! >> >> >> > > > > ATB >> >> > > > > Y.Porat >> >> > > > > ------------------- >> >> >> > > no PD >> >> > > YOU are telling ME that ??? >> >> > > dont youthink that anything is documented >> >> > > to the last word ??? >> >> > > i said it in my hread >> >> > > 'THEERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS' >> >> > > anyone can see it there it is from a few weeks before only so no >> >> > > one >> >> > > can cj >> >> > > heat about it !! >> >> > > (you count too much on my short memory or on your short memory >> >> > > !!!) >> >> > > i explaned it before you !!! >> >> > > and explined it unprecedented !! >> >> > > that the gamma factor belongs to the >> >> > > mv!! **as one physical entity** >> >> > > to the mass only !!! >> >> > > 2 >> >> > > if so there is no relativistic mass ! >> >> > > no prove that the gamma belongs to mass only >> >> > > there is no precedence to that explanation of mine !!! >> >> > > UNLESS you bring former evidence >> >> > > (anyway i ddint hear it from nobody before me >> >> > > it was cooked in my mind during the above thread !!) >> >> > > and still >> >> > > you dont understand its very revolutionary meaning >> >> > > that i will bring later >> >> > > that will shake all your past claimes like >> >> >> > > ""the photon has no mass etc etc ""!! >> >> > > you refused to answer my last question to you >> >> > > whther there is jsut one kind of mass >> >> > > and tomorow you willtell every body that >> >> > > you toght me that >> >> > > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' !! >> >> > > and the conclusion of it is that >> >> > > ** THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!** >> >> > > AND THAT >> >> > > ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION EVEN IN MICROCOSM !!! >> >> > > SO TO MOROW YOU WILL SAY THAT >> >> > > EVEN THAT - it was claimed 50 years ago ) >> >> >> > > there is a limit to impertinence !! >> >> > > (AT THE AGE OF GOOGLE !!) >> >> > > and then you wil tell every body that it was done >> >> > > 80 years before me !!! >> >> > > **or even better** >> >> >> > > that you explained it to me first !!! >> >> > > Y.Porat >> >> > > -------------------- >> >> >> > -------------------- >> >> > IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE >> >> >> > just see post NO 15 of the thread >> >> > 'there is jsut one kind of mass' >> >> > quote from it >> >> > ''why is it that your first entrance to this thread >> >> > you ddint say LOUD AND CLEAR >> >> > PORAT YOU ARE RIGTHT -- >> >> > THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS ??!! >> >> >> Porat you are right, there is just one kind of mass. >> >> Congratulations for stumbling on something that has already been known >> >> for 50 years. >> >> >> Please also tell me that you'd like to be told that, yes, indeed, you >> >> are right when you say that 3+3=6. >> >> >> > and youcame with it >> >> > only after some new explaantions of mine?? >> >> > can you quote another place >> >> > in whichthose explanations are given??!! >> >> >> > that we can only measure momentum >> >> > and we cant measure th e mass *in that growing momentum!!* >> >> > (because we have no gauge connected to that mass >> >> > or whatever another way -- >> >> > to get in that growing momentum to tell us that the mass was >> >> > growing !!! >> >> > and another argument that i brought >> >> > that th e 'relativistic mass is **disappearing** >> >> > imediately while the movement STOPES etc etc >> >> > were are explanations preceding it >> >> > ------------------------ >> >> > end of quote >> >> > i explain why the gamma cannot be related to mass in the momentum!! >> >> >> > not only say that it belongs to the momentum >> >> > BUT EXPLAIN WHY NOT !! >> >> >> > becuse we have no experimental way >> >> > to meaure the mass separately !! >> >> >> > and that explanatin is unprecedented !! >> >> > we have no little guage attached to the mass >> >> > to tell us that the mass was inflatiing !! >> >> > that is in addition that i claimed that >> >> > WE CAN ATTACHE THE GAMMA FACTOR TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FORMULA >> >> >> > P =gamma m v >> >> > we can do itas >> >> >> > P/Gamma = mv!! >> >> > ie >> >> > belongs to the mv >> >> > AND NOT ONLY TO THE m !!!! >> >> > i ddi it many years ago by >> >> > writing >> >> >> > F/Gamma = mv >> >> > instead >> >> > F= gamma m a >> >> > iow >> >> > and that is an old claime and explanation of mine to >> >> > attaching the gamma to the force !!! >> >> > ie to m a as one unit !!! >> >> >> > AND IN ADDITION I EXPLAINED THAT >> >> > GAMMA IS A SCALAR >> >> > so it makes no no physical >> >> > QUALITATIVE change TO THE mv >> >> > if we put it on the right or left side of the >> >> > eqauation >> >> > it makes only a **quantitative** chane !! >> >> > it is as well documented in my above thread !! >> >> > in all those examples >> >> > mv or ma are >> >> > ONE UN SEPARATED UNIT !!! >> >> >> > i call anyone here to bring evidence >> >> > that such explanations are ever precedented !!! >> >> >> > TIA >> >> > Y.Porat >> >> > ------------------------- >> >> >> > to attache >> >> > -------------------- >> > very nice!! >> > now just tell it toall the blockhead parrote >> >> Who? >> >> > (you ar wrong if you think that the aboveis common knowlwdge >> >> Yes .. it is. The 'm' used in physics formula is the rest (or invariant) >> mass. It does not change with speed. I've been telling you that for >> ages. >> >> > now still you have no idea how *revolutionary* it is >> > fo r thinking people !! >> >> There is nothing revolutionary at all about what you say. mass has been >> mass for a looong time >> >> > lets see if you can read my thoughts >> > (as often you do !!) >> >> I've better things to read. > > --------------------- > psychopath Feuerbacher > i was talking to PD You were posting on a public newsgroup > im ready topay you a monthly rent > in order that > YOU WILL NOT READ MY POSTS (:-) Then if you want private conversations, send an email. If you want anyone in the world able to read your posts and reply to them, use a newsgroup.
From: Y.Porat on 13 Jan 2010 03:28
On Jan 12, 8:13 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > D. Y. K. > You said that light is a force, which I understand and agree with, but > you also said that light is not wave, nor particle, nor energy, nor > physical. I am curious, why? >------------------- if you see the 'tree' of posts you can see that you responed to someone else not to me Porat anyway i willtry to answer sosome of your interesting questions see folowing -------------- > I also found your mass post interesting, I never really believed that > rest mass increases as an object moves and that this is only > noticeable at speeds close to c but I do know that relative (mass = > kinetic energy), increases by the square of the velocity same as > photons. In other words just as a photons relative mass = kinetic > energy increases at (E=hf/c^2 = E=m/c^2), so too rest mass increases it is not because of the photon mass there are in those equations OTHER VARIABLES!! ---------------- > at (F=mv^2), in other words, as evident by the foot pound energy of > bullets, and other projectiles, energy increases 4x each time velocity > doubles, and this is noticeable way below light speeds just ask a gun ----- right there is there a whole system involved in it notonly the mass of the bullet now i as well asked myself why is it the energy is not incresing linearily with velocity and evennot 4 times at very high speeds it is even more than 4 times it is multiplied by an additional gamma my ansewr to myself is may be it is becuse if you MEASURE ***velocity** IN ANOTHER FRAME THAN YOURS -- IT IS THAT **MEASURED LENGTH** IS DECREASING !!! (measured !!) it is only a problem of** measurements** in differnt frames and confused interpretations of** attaching unjustified and prejudiced **- ---- the wrong cause to the wrong entity !!! how about that ?? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- > shot victim.. But first things first, why the above statements? > > Conrad J Countess |