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 21 Jan 2010 13:06 On Jan 21, 10:46 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >< My Discovery (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled), (c=sqrt-1, in natural units), and (h/2pi/ 2) is measure of certainty of both, "momentum and wavelength", of particle. This discovery quantifies "Gravity", brings "sqrt-1", out of realm of "imaginary numbers", into real world of "natural units", and demysifies "The Uncertainty Principle" > 1. In what way is your discovery a measure of "the certainty" of mv and/or the number of fronts that pass a point per second, or anything else at all? 2. Newton quantified gravity centuries ago. Unless your discovery presents a better way than his or Einstein's, it is valueless. If it DOES; can it explain the mechanism of gravity. If not, it may give better answers on a minuscule level, but is otherwise useless. > This is such a beautiful discovery, and the petty arguments that go on > in the news group only take from the aesthetics of it. Some are petty; but others may be due to the lack of clarity in your words AND mathematics. > Blow your own horn, but not too loud - be confident and dignified, but > not to proud. Amen > Conrad J Countess glird
From: cjcountess on 21 Jan 2010 18:28 Inertia, your name represents your thought process right now. So I will apply some force or "F," to the "E" or energy in your mind, directing it to (hf=mc^2), so that you can overcome this inertia of thought of how energy attains rest mass at (c^2). I explained this to you before The speed of light as "c", is not highest speed because as frequency rises and wavelengths get shorter, the speed of light also increases in the angular direction, which increases the (wave/particles), "relative mass/ kinetic energy, and momentun". The higher the frequency, the more particle like the wave becomes, and at (c^2), the wave particle attains rest mass. In the process the )wave/particle), moves from (E=hf/c^2) to (E=hf=mc^2) At this point where the frequency or (hf = mc^2), "E", or energy, equals, and turns to "m" or (restmass/matter) Simple Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 21 Jan 2010 19:48 Do you think that the more you refute my arguments, the less true it will become? The truth of it is a constant, and the evidence and logic, will become ever more clear as I proceed. You still cannot see that (E=hf/c^2) is a valid equatuion = to (E=m/ c^2). You seem to be stuck here. A wave with "m", as relativistic mass, aquires rest at the "frquency/ wavelengh", where (hf = mc^2), orr (c^2) for short, sense it can be stated (Ec^2) or (mc^2). This is where "c" in liniear direction, equals and balences "c" in the 90 degree angular direction, for a balence of centrifugal and centripital forces, enabling circular and or spherical motion. This is a geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2), which contains more information than just the equation alone. It amazes me at how many people lack the imagination, based on sound logic and mathematics, that enables this plain and clear picture of (c^2), as the point on "EM spectrum", where energy turns to matter, because it takes on circular and or spherical form. It really isn't that hard to picture, is it ? Maybe it is for some. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 21 Jan 2010 23:05 Who are you hiding behind that stupid name? I know who you are Your one of those who attact theories that are threatening I have probably the most revolutionary discoveries to come about in years and someone is threatened by it. Identify yourself and the work you have contributed . I bet it is nothing but obstruction You call yourself inertia because you provide the function of weighing down other peoples ideas, but you have none of your own REVEAL YOURSELF FRAUD I showed you that E=hf/c^2 is just as valid as E=m/c2 but you have nothing to say about that My name is Conrad J Countess and I am not afraid to show my work SHOW YOURSELF AND YOUR WORK unless you realy are a fraud. Give us something besides nit picking and name calling
From: kado on 21 Jan 2010 23:20
On Jan 20, 11:06 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > In respect to the equation E = mc^2 > That's not remotely close to how he arrived at that equation. > I know that. I am looking for the truths, and in my frame of mind at the time I was writing the response, the manner that Einstein arrived at E = mc^2 was irrelevant. Einstein used a very convoluted and somewhat (to me) illogical means to arrive at E = mc^2. This logic of Einstein to justify this is long, but is covered in my treatise. If you believe in the truth of Occam's Razor, and that the simplest answer is the truth, (which I regorlously try to observe) I tried to find a simpler route to justify why E = mc^2 can be true, rather the moot manner that Einstein used. This is what I posted in my response. I am really sorry that thinking that for the sake of brevity, I could just get away with my simplistic derivation of how E = mc^2 could be true. For this I apologize. > In respect to my contention that statement 4 of Countess is BS, you stated > No; it is only slightly wrong. Countess should have said: > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of an electron = the > circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple > integer of h/2pir. Bohr based all his suppositions on suppositions, that are all based on Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty (basically that you can't be sure of anything), and the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, that is all Bullshit. I justify this in my manuscript. In respect to the equation for velocity, I stated that this is v = ds/dt (i.e., s is the distance of motion, the change of position), whereas you stated: > The expression dtau/dt is relativistic; but how is dt relativistic > all by itself? In other words; the numerator of the equation for velocity differs in our interpretation of the mathematics of velocity. That's why I stated to understand another's use of words; it's the understanding of the originator's definitions that are crucial. Anyway- the denominator dt is relativistic all by itself, because time is relativistic, and the numerator, distance, by itself is not a factor or function of time. There may be another truth (actually not a truth but a speculation) that may be pertinent to the equation that E = mc^2, and much of Einstein's thinking. As time passed, and Einstein learned more about 'the mind of God', he became less and less confidant about his theories formulated in 1904-1905 and 1915-1916. So his later writings do try to justify that E = mc^2 with a lot of different approaches. These are disclosed in my treatise. Furthermore, Einstein was not as adamant about the validity of his theories at the University of Leyden, as I posted earlier. These doubts about really knowing the workings of Nature and/or God prompted him to state: "The more I study physics, the more I am drawn to metaphysics." So if could just make a bit of tongue in cheek statement: The truth that Einstein placed in the realm of metaphysics, but that I place within the scope of the sciences (so physics), and that he sought was the truth that the nonphysical is very real. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to state one more thing my father impressed on me. "To argue with a fool may only demonstrate that there are two." D. Y. Kadoshima |