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 25 Jan 2010 10:10 On Jan 25, 2:07 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 1:47 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 5:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:> "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >news:34c43ced-bc47-4bcc-a59e-5b88f9259435(a)e11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > There you have it folks > > > > No .. we do not > > > > > Even John Archibald Wheeler, agress with me, (E=hf/c^2), is valid > > > > equation. > > > > No .. he does not. Stop your lies. > > > This is beyond your comprehension > > > (c is natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1) and I have taken it out of > > the imaginary realm, into the real realm of natural units. > > This is so beyond you as your name is inertia and your mind is in a > > state of inertia > > > But you can snap out of it though. Just admit that you are wrong. > > You even deny that John Archinald Wheeler, uses the equation (E=hf/ > > c^2), in book, when it is right befor your eyes and the eyes of > > whitnesses to these post, or do you just think that even he is > > wrong? > > > > > Inertia, is an obstructionist, true to his name: Web definitions for > > > > inertia > > > > inactiveness: a disposition to remain inactive or inert; "he had to > > > > overcome his inertia and get back to work" > > > > wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context > > > > From search page Web definitions for inertia > > > > >http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1R2TSHB_enUS361&hl=en&source=hp&q=in... > > > > > You cannot stand in the way of an idea whose time has come > > > > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons > > > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter > > > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, > > > > and that electron was also a wave. > > > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to > > > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer > > > > of > > > > h/2pi > > > > 5) Therefore it follows from this and my geometrical evidence, that is > > > > independant > > > > of but supports above evidence, making it twice reinforced that > > > > (E=mc^2) = > > > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1) > > > > c does NOT equal the square root of -1. c is a real number > > > > you keep making stupid statements > > > > > If we draw progressively shorter waves, with progressively higher > > > > energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular > > > > energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which create a > > > > balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, and 90 degree arc, > > > > which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d.. > > > > This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, > > > > (spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half > > > > the > > > > cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of > > > > cases a forward spinning positron emerged. > > > > A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along > > > > the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/ > > > > matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically > > > > demonstrated. > > > > Photons do have constant mass/energy = to h, that come from kinetic > > > > energy of constant speed of c. > > > > Mass / energy increases with frequency increase at (E=hf/c^2) > > > > WRONG > > > > E = hf > > > > E does NOT = hf/c^2 > > > > Get it right > > > > > until > > > > it > > > > reaches (E=hf=c^2) or (E=hf=mc^2) as deBroglie stated, at which it > > > > attains rest mass. > > > > Rest mass is just relative mass in circular and or spherical > > > > rotation, > > > > such as a standing spherical waves, (electron). > > > > Therefore (E=hf /c2), the equation for quantum energy/ mass = (F=mm/ > > > > r2), Newtons equation for gravity, minus the big G, sense h is its > > > > own > > > > constant, and (F=mv2), the equation of force or energy of mass in > > > > motion = (E=mc2), the equation for energy/mass equivalence, on the > > > > quantum level and (a=v2/r) = (a=c2/c). And so the same force that > > > > compresses energy into rest mass particles at (E=hf/c2) = (E=mc2) > > > > pushes rest mass particles together at (F=mv/r2) = (F=Gmm/r2).. They > > > > are equivalent at quantum level and directly proportional at macro > > > > level. > > > >http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&revision=_latest > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > > As you can see, I use equation (E=hf/c^2) in last parragraph, > > > > Which is TOTALLY WRONG > > > > > to show > > > > equality and direct correspondence to (F=mm/r^2), which I can and have > > > > extended elsware to (F=mv/r^2) and even (F=Gmm/r^2) and (F=mv^2) = > > > > (E=mc^2), on quantum level, and the same force that compresses energy > > > > into rest mas particles, causes rest mass particles to gravitate > > > > togather. > > > It is all true inertia you need to get in step with it > > Are you still in denial that E=hf/c^2 is valid equation that even John > > Archibald Wheeler uses? > > > Conrad J Countess > > ------------------------- > you are right about circular movement > because there cant be such a highvelocity > in such a small volume > anyway it can be as well > vibrational movement!! > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I can see how such fast motion in small volume can be called vibration As I see it "c^2', as c in circular and/or spherical rotationis as fast as this motion can go, but I could be wrong. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 25 Jan 2010 10:44 SEE THERE IT IS HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU http://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=e%3Dhf/c2&source=bl&ots=Qx9MRLDwdP&sig=DKur3JsB7SbhuSSSo9boFhDyuWw&hl=en&ei=UrddS-eYJcfdlAf8nMX3BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=e%3Dhf%2Fc2&f=false How many post does it take for you to distort the truth. Too many, you cannot What is wrong with you man or girl, whatever you are, whoever you are? You keep denying what is right in front of you. Conrad J Countess P.S. And even if that equation is wrong that does not invalidate my discovery, it is revolutionary. And there is nothing you or anyone else can do to invalidate it, because it is true. The evidence is piling up exponentialy, and not even I, if I wanted to, could stop it. In a sense it is your opposite, you are inertia, and it is acceleration, and there is nothing you can do about it but try to divert and confuse.
From: cjcountess on 25 Jan 2010 14:31 From same book http://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=e%3Dhf/c2&source=bl&ots=Qx9MRLDwdP&sig=DKur3JsB7SbhuSSSo9boFhDyuWw&hl=en&ei=UrddS-eYJcfdlAf8nMX3BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=e%3Dhf%2Fc2&f=false
From: kado on 25 Jan 2010 20:00 On Jan 25, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > > that Uncle Al blasts > > He doesn't blast any of my posts. > > > and I > > choose to ignore. > > Ahh.. so you don't read them. Your ignorance is your problem. I do owe you an apology. Uncle Al did not blast your posts to my knowledge. I knew I shouldn't post stuff in this newsgroup when I'm tired and sleepy, but I foolishly did. I looked at my notes that I had written in long hand, not on my computer, and in transferring these to my computer, (after all my guests that came over to watch the football games left, and I got my place somewhat cleaned up) - and found that I left off a few very important words that changed the whole gist and validity of the last sentence. This should have been: "Furthermore the last 3 lines are certainly contrary to the gist and essence of all your other posts AND Uncle Al blasts SUCH FOOLISH IDEAS AND NOTIONS and I choose to ignore." So I admit I made a dumb mistake, for which I apologize. Nevertheless, do I stand by the corrected rendition and the balance of my post. Just because you wrote some words, that does not make the ideas, notions, and the message delineated/depicted by these words yours. You wrote a lot of stuff based on Newton's and Einstein's words. Does that make Newtonian Mechanics or Relativity YOUR CONCEPTS? Moreover, I did not ever state that I don't read your posts. If I did not ever read your posts, how could I have ever responded to your post in the first place? I just choose not to respond to your posts. Your logic and deductive/inductive thinking is very weak. D.Y.K.
From: artful on 26 Jan 2010 18:36
On Jan 26, 6:31 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > From same bookhttp://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=e... I've found a copy of the book and the relevant section. The formula is for the mass-equivalence of the photon energy, not the energy itself (ie it is a mass value, not an energy value) So with E = hf E = Mc^2 you get M = hf/c^2 It is unfortunate that Wheeler chose to use E for the mass-equivalence value, instead of (say) M. You usage of it as a formula for energy is incorrect, along with many other basic physics / logic / math mistakes. |