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 20 Jan 2010 02:21 On Jan 20, 12:25 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > cjcountesswrote: > > On Jan 19, 9:49 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:f271ba93-3645-4c49-a424-c3f608008b6f(a)s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com.... > > >>> A new wave of physics is upon us > >>> ride the wave, or be washed up by it > > >>> Conrad J Countess > >>> Your Captain > > >> You've gone down with your ship .. its already sunk due to the huge > >> gaping holes in it. > > > Look at the things "Al" and "inertia" picked out to nit-pic, as they > > try to unravel my well nitted fabric. > > I tell them that > > > (E=mc^2), tells us, "that alot of energy is trapped inside of matter, > > and that they are equal through mathematical conversion factor c^2" > > . > > It is said that, "c or the speed of light", is highest possile speed > > in the universe. > > > Any child might even ask, "If the speed of light is the highest > > possile speed, than how can it be squared to make matter? > > ............................................______ __ > ....................................,.-'"...................``~., > .............................,.-"..................................."-., > .........................,/................................................":, > .....................,?........................... > ..........................., > .................../.................................................. > .........,} > ................./.................................................. > ....,:`^`..} > .............../.................................................. .,:"........../ > ..............?.....__............................ > .............:`.........../ > ............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ > .........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`..... ..._/ > ..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} > ...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ > ...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`..... }............../ > ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" > ............/.`~,......`-...................................../ > .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__ > ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|........... ...`=~-, > .....`=~-,__......`,................................. > ...................`=~-,,.,............................... > ................................`:,,.............. > .............`..............__ > .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` > ........................................_........ ..._,-%.......` > ...................................,- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Very Clever "The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2", not only expresses the unity of "energy and matter", and the various "constants", mentioned, but "truth and beauty" also. And it might offend me the way some attact it, as it is such an order of nature. But I know that it also posses one more thing that comforts me, as to its withstanding attacts, and that is its most important unity, that of endurance and strength. No matter how they try, they cannot defeat it, because it is the law of natural itself, and rules them all Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 20 Jan 2010 05:22 On Jan 18, 9:56 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > Although this is placed as a response to > cjcountess, it also applies to Inertia, > Y. Porat , all who read this thread, and > in fact, all of mainline science. > > For the sake of true science: heed the words > of the wise old sage, i.e.,: > > Learn the meanings of the words, and use > these correctly. This does not mean just > the dictionary definitions. This means when > reading Newtons writings, learn the > > On Jan 15, 5:09 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > snip > > > > > > > 1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons > > > 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for > > electrons (snip) > > in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation > > > 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is > > also wave, > > as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive > > interference, > > which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves > > This also indicated a smooth from waves to particles, energy to > > matter > > along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/ > > matter", > > as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum > > > 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron > > = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple > > integer of > > h/2pi. > > These are all wet. > > Planck SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf > applies to photons. > > Einstein SUPPOSED E=m/c^2 is a valid > concept due to the fundamental tenets > of Special Relativity. > > deBroglie accepted on FAITH that Einsteins > equation is gospel, and SUPPOSED that a > single particular photon has the properties > of both waves and particles, and also > SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf=mc^2 > applies to photons (not electrons). So > ASSUMED that this was demonstrated by > diffraction, constructive and destructive > interference, so MISTAKENLY BELIEVED that > the waves of light and other forms of waves > indicated a smooth from waves to particles, > or a smooth energy to matter exchange, > THAT MIGHT, (not IS) be called the > "energy/matter" duality. > > Your #4 is pure Bullshit. > You seem very offended that I used the equations of Planck, Einstein, deBroglie, and Bohr, and that they support my theory so smoothly. And although you are correct in that these ideas and equations are not absolute, they do support my theory so seamlessly and likewise, mine in turn supports the equations and the stated interpretations. My theory must be a threat to yours because you are attacking it in the most trvial ways. Even if each of the stated equations, and their stated meanings, are not perfect, as you pointed out, still, all togather with my geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), they gain more support and collaboration. and likewise does mine, exponentily, because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 20 Jan 2010 05:47 In other words, I can take the listed works of Planck, Einstien, deBroglie, and Bohr, to independantly arive at conclusion that (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), in natural units, as well as my "Geometrical Interpretation", independantly, to arrive at the same conclusions .. Arriving at this same conclusion independantly, from two very different avenues, only makes it more likely to be true. If not, what a Cosmic Coincidence? The evidence is overwelming and there is realy no way around it, although I am sure you guys will come up with all sorts of stalling tactics for non exceptence, such as mispelled words, double meaning or imprecise equations, and so on, but the more evidence that is used to build this model, the more precise its meaning within that more supported context. Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 20 Jan 2010 07:19 On Jan 20, 12:22 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 9:56 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > Although this is placed as a response to > > cjcountess, it also applies to Inertia, > > Y. Porat , all who read this thread, and > > in fact, all of mainline science. > > > For the sake of true science: heed the words > > of the wise old sage, i.e.,: > > > Learn the meanings of the words, and use > > these correctly. This does not mean just > > the dictionary definitions. This means when > > reading Newtons writings, learn the > > > On Jan 15, 5:09 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > snip > > > > 1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons > > > > 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for > > > electrons (snip) > > > in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation > > > > 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is > > > also wave, > > > as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive > > > interference, > > > which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves > > > This also indicated a smooth from waves to particles, energy to > > > matter > > > along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/ > > > matter", > > > as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum > > > > 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron > > > = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple > > > integer of > > > h/2pi. > > > These are all wet. > > > Planck SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf > > applies to photons. > > > Einstein SUPPOSED E=m/c^2 is a valid > > concept due to the fundamental tenets > > of Special Relativity. > > > deBroglie accepted on FAITH that Einsteins > > equation is gospel, and SUPPOSED that a > > single particular photon has the properties > > of both waves and particles, and also > > SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf=mc^2 > > applies to photons (not electrons). So > > ASSUMED that this was demonstrated by > > diffraction, constructive and destructive > > interference, so MISTAKENLY BELIEVED that > > the waves of light and other forms of waves > > indicated a smooth from waves to particles, > > or a smooth energy to matter exchange, > > THAT MIGHT, (not IS) be called the > > "energy/matter" duality. > > > Your #4 is pure Bullshit. > > You seem very offended that I used the equations of Planck, Einstein, > deBroglie, and Bohr, and that they support my theory so smoothly. And > although you are correct in that these ideas and equations are not > absolute, they do support my theory so seamlessly and likewise, mine > in turn supports the equations and the stated interpretations. > > My theory must be a threat to yours because you are attacking it in > the most trvial ways. > > Even if each of the stated equations, and their stated meanings, are > not perfect, as you pointed out, still, all togather with my > geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), they gain more support and > collaboration. and likewise does mine, exponentily, because the whole > is greater than the sum of its parts. > > Conrad J Countess --------------------- please note that the harmonic equations of a vibrating mass are the same (i dint check it to scrach)-- or quite the same as those of an orbiting mass !! so may be your and my models have something in common .... ATB Y.Porat -----------
From: cjcountess on 20 Jan 2010 08:05
On Jan 20, 7:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 12:22 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 18, 9:56 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > > Although this is placed as a response to > > > cjcountess, it also applies to Inertia, > > > Y. Porat , all who read this thread, and > > > in fact, all of mainline science. > > > > For the sake of true science: heed the words > > > of the wise old sage, i.e.,: > > > > Learn the meanings of the words, and use > > > these correctly. This does not mean just > > > the dictionary definitions. This means when > > > reading Newtons writings, learn the > > > > On Jan 15, 5:09 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > snip > > > > > 1) Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons > > > > > 2) Einstein discovered (E=m/c^2) for photons and (E=mc^2) for > > > > electrons (snip) > > > > in 1905 thought experiment, yielding that famous equation > > > > > 3)deBroglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2) for electrons, and that electron is > > > > also wave, > > > > as demonstrated by diffraction, constructive and destructive > > > > interference, > > > > which is also know for waves light and other forms of waves > > > > This also indicated a smooth from waves to particles, energy to > > > > matter > > > > along the same EM spectrum, which might even be called the "energy/ > > > > matter", > > > > as well as "electromagnetic", spectrum > > > > > 4) Bohr discovered, that wavelength of electron > > > > = circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of, a multiple > > > > integer of > > > > h/2pi. > > > > These are all wet. > > > > Planck SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf > > > applies to photons. > > > > Einstein SUPPOSED E=m/c^2 is a valid > > > concept due to the fundamental tenets > > > of Special Relativity. > > > > deBroglie accepted on FAITH that Einsteins > > > equation is gospel, and SUPPOSED that a > > > single particular photon has the properties > > > of both waves and particles, and also > > > SUPPOSED that the equation E=hf=mc^2 > > > applies to photons (not electrons). So > > > ASSUMED that this was demonstrated by > > > diffraction, constructive and destructive > > > interference, so MISTAKENLY BELIEVED that > > > the waves of light and other forms of waves > > > indicated a smooth from waves to particles, > > > or a smooth energy to matter exchange, > > > THAT MIGHT, (not IS) be called the > > > "energy/matter" duality. > > > > Your #4 is pure Bullshit. > > > You seem very offended that I used the equations of Planck, Einstein, > > deBroglie, and Bohr, and that they support my theory so smoothly. And > > although you are correct in that these ideas and equations are not > > absolute, they do support my theory so seamlessly and likewise, mine > > in turn supports the equations and the stated interpretations. > > > My theory must be a threat to yours because you are attacking it in > > the most trvial ways. > > > Even if each of the stated equations, and their stated meanings, are > > not perfect, as you pointed out, still, all togather with my > > geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), they gain more support and > > collaboration. and likewise does mine, exponentily, because the whole > > is greater than the sum of its parts. > > > Conrad J Countess > > --------------------- > please note that the harmonic equations > of a vibrating mass > are the same (i dint check it to scrach)-- > or quite the same > as those of an orbiting mass !! > > so may be your and my models > have something in common .... > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I too, am aware of that. The harmonic equations.(U=1/2 kx^2), is the same as the frequency equation (E=hf/c^2) and and mass equation (F= mv/r^2).except the 1/2 which aplies to KE=1/2 mv^2. As a matter of fact, alot of these equations are the same, just the letters or symbols are different. It is as if scientist just take an existing equation, for say photon energy, and change the symbols and/or rearrange it slitely, and claim to have discovered, or invented something new, when all they realy have done is to rewrite and reapply the universal inverse squar law equation, which applies to so many things. Conrad J Countess |