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: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 18:48 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8f956f92-2768-4e7e-98d0-26acbe180ad6(a)p12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > Inertia > > here are just a couple of examples of hf/c^2 That is mass .. not energy > http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Publications/TPT11.pdf That is mass .. not energy > http://isaac.exploratorium.edu/~pauld/summer_institute/summer_day4+5light/what_is_light_quantum.html That is mass .. not energy > I realy don't blame anyone if they don't get this right away. Because its nonsense. > It is revolutionay No .. it is just nonsense > and I am not delusional although I am enthusiastic > and of course my own fanatical fan. And delusional > How would you feel if you discovered something that is as great as I > proport this to be? Even if you don't think my idea is, just imagine > that it is. I'd be excited and would get the idea peer reviewed and published in a physics journal But that doesn't mean you are not delusional > And I get to put myself out there in the line of fire, which if I am > wrong, will make me look like a fool, and be laughed at. Already has > BUT if I am > right... You're not > I get the last laugh. And he who laughs last--- laugh will > last --- a long long time. > We are making history people. No .. just making a fool of yourself
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 18:50 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3a097b91-b034-44c5-8eed-77a29e9050b1(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > Everyone > The opposition is welcome. > > 1) First, it shows the contrast between pre-existing theories, old and > new, making it very clear that this one is unique and original. And > places all or most, blame or credit on me. What theory? > 2) It forces me to be as simple and complete as possible, so that the > evidence speaks for itself. So far what your present only says that you don't understand physics. > This is nessesary for at least two reasons: > > a] Because I don't have a title or degree, and so "the evidence > itself," will have to speak for itself and myself. That is all that needs to speak .. though you need to put it into words and fomrulas > b] Because it is a very nessesary lesson to be learned in this, which > is that the evidence should be veiwed in as "objective and open > minded", way as possible, Yeup > free of all peconcieved notions, even those > postulates or axioms that have been taken for granet to be self > evidently true. But not what experimental evidence has shown to be the case. You have to rdeal with nature as it is .. not hw you'd like it to be. > Only in this way can we liberate ourselves from the rut of reason, and > mathematics, Well .. you certainly are not bogged down by reason .. what you post is nonsense > which has us bogged down in this present physics impass. > > And this may be the most important lesson of all. Shame you can't learn that if you abandon reason and logic, you end up with things that are unreasonable and illogical .. and wrong.
From: Inertial on 19 Jan 2010 18:53 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8c735443-a7dd-4f17-867f-84f51b695c4c(a)z40g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > Al, you probably would feel "delusional", if you discovered something > as simple yet as profound as I did. > Who would have thought it was so simple that even a child or non > professional physicist can understand it, but professonal physicist, > if they are to ridgit of thinkers cannot seem to. > All the time, education, and money, spent on trying to understand > "Quantum Gravity", has to a degree, deflected some from the true and > simple path that lead to a simple reintertpretation, of a simple > equatuion, that was right under our noses all the time, The > geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2). > > This Geometrical Interpretation, show such a clear and complete > picture, of not only "that" energy and matter are "one" related > through the mathematical conversion factor of (c^2), That's old hat > but exactly how > it is so. A picture really is "worth a thousad words", in this case, > and mayby a million dollar "Nobel Prize" See .. you're delusional again > Following a simple analogy of "a line of 1 inch in the horizontal > direction, times a line of 1 inch, in the vertical direction, to equal > a square inch, c in the linear direction x c in the 90 degree angular > direction equals c^2. Nonsense .. c is not a length. Squaring a velocity doesn't give you anything useful or meaningful. > This creates a 90 degree arc trejectory of > energy, BAHAHA .. nonsense > which if constant creats a circle of energy = cx2pi, BAHAHA .. nonsense > with > angular momentum, = h/2pi. BAHAHA .. nonsense > If amplitude is constant, it will make two > rotations at right angle, to eachother to complete one wave > cycle ,which creates a standing spherical wave, of (spin 1/2), and > angular momentum of (h/2pi/2). BAHAHA .. nonsense > Furthermore if it spins backward, > counter to its trejectory, will have (-1 charge). BAHAHA .. nonsense > Wow how simple - yet how profound. And how totally nonsensical > (Quantum Gravity), (The square root of -1) and (Uncertainty Principle) > all solved. BAHAHA .. nonsense > Renormalization and running coupling constants also solved BAHAHA .. nonsense > Unity of constants (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (c = h = i = 2pi = reduced > Compton wavelength = Schwartzchild radius = electron radius). BAHAHA .. nonsense > redefining Planck scale putting it within reach of experimental > verification. BAHAHA .. nonsense You really are a deluded fool.
From: cjcountess on 19 Jan 2010 20:10 Uncle Al, is a defeated old fighter who refuses to give up, resorting to childish behavior. I read your paper Al, and its not bad, but mine is just more revealing. I think that you are jealous that I, a self taught individual, came on the seen and turned the physics world upside down, making all your hard work, time, and money, you put into your research, worth less. I do not mean completely worthless, but nevertheless it is worth less than you thought it would be. Don't take this personally, but if you open your mind maybe you can ride the cutting edge of this wave with me. There is really no way around it, it is a tsunami, and will wash you and your work up, unless you get in step with the reality of this wave of discoveries and evidence. There is just too much evidence for it to be wrong. It may not be as perfectly stated as possible, but it is correct. Inertia you You mean to tell me that you did not see this: In the case of a photon, we replace m by E/c2, where E = hf is the photon's energy. If the photon travels downward in Earth's gravitational field, it therefore loses potential energy of (hf /c2)ÄV and gains an equal amount of kinetic2 energy hÄf. First page, first column, bottom of page 424 You cannot admit when you are wrong either. And I am sure I can find plenty more examples. The evidence is overwhelming and you cannot escape its truth. Try as you may to distract us with your petty nitpicking, trying to buy yourself time, while you amend your theory, so that you can save face, and act as though you meant to say something else. You will change your mind You are the fool inertia, and I am going to enjoy showing you. Not that I take pleasure in showing people up, but you attempted to insult me and I don't like that. I am a very insightful person, and it may be like boxing with a blind person the way I can show you up because you have so little incite. I would rather shine a light to show you the way, but your foolish pride may just make it necessary to be a little tough with you You think you are so smart, but you are not. It would have been better to admit that you are wrong, but maybe you really don't see this. Maybe you really are blind or dim sighted . Oh well, get ready for your lessons I can turn the world of physics upside down, in more ways than one. First, by showing that "the speed of light", which appears to be the fastest, is actually the slowest, and that "rest mass," which appears to be the slowest, is actually the fastest, as (c^2) is faster than c. And than by making some of the most perplexing ideas in physics so plain and clear, that a child can understand it, but people like you cannot, thereby exalting the child over you. You and your ideas are obsolete. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 19 Jan 2010 20:19
A new wave of physics is upon us ride the wave, or be washed up by it Conrad J Countess Your Captain |