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: Y.Porat on 31 Jan 2010 07:15 On Jan 31, 12:41 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 5:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 11:25 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 3:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 31, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > > > > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > > > > > > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > > > > > > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > > > > > > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > > > > > > > "the mind of God". > > > > > > > > > D.Y.K. > > > > > > > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > > > > > > > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > > > > > > > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > > > > > > > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > > > > > > > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > > > > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > > > > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > > > > > > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > > > > > > > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > > > > > > > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > > > > > > > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > > > > > > > c^2. > > > > > > > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > > > > > > > discovery. > > > > > > > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > > > > > > > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > > > > > > > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > > > > > > > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > > > > > > > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > > > > > > > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > > > > > > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > > > > > > > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > > > > > > > their likeness also. > > > > > > > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > > > > > > > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > > > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > > > > > P.S. > > > > > > > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein..html > > > > > > > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > > > > > > > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > > > > > > > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > > > > > > > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > > > > > > > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > > > > > > > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > > > > > > > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > > > > > > > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > > > > > > > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit. > > > > > > > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > > > > > > > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > > > > > > > up of its mass times its velocity, s > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > Hi Conrad ! > > > > > > i liked that paragraph of yours > > > > > > > quote > > > > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > > > end of quote > > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > it is very compatible with my Circlon idea > > > > > > see the appendix of my abstract: > > > > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > > you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force > > > > > > and you can see there AS WELL > > > > > > HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON > > > > > > MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC > > > > > > HALF CIRCLES > > > > > > > collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND > > > > > > BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. > > > > > > it can be more than one oint particle like that > > > > > > and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons > > > > > > moving that way and becoming a heavier particle > > > > > > and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of > > > > > > linearly connection of such > > > > > > 'rings ' > > > > > > as you can see at the beginning of my abstract > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > -------------------. > > > > > > sorry again that site: > > > > > > http:/sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > hope i typed it right from my memory > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > common Porat you are getting older (:-) > > > > there was a miserable slash missing... > > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > may be it is more than time that > > > > Google or the net at all -- will be more forgiving for tiny > > > > typing mistakes ..... > > > > > hope at last ... > > > > sorry > > > > Y.Porat > > > > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Hi Porat > > > > I see you have continued to work on your theory > > > > that is good > > > > I will study it more > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > ------------------- > > HI Conrad !!! > > as time goes on (it is from at least 1993 > > copyrighted ) > > > i find more and more fortifications for > > my theory > > and i have a strange feeling that > > combining your above suggestion > > and insight > > with my old suggestion > > **is going to make an earth quake in physics ** > > dont you see it ??!! > > > both of us did it independently > > from completely different disciplines and 'directions' > > (and in a difference of time)- > > > and it seems to me that it fits > > as 'glove to the palm !!' > > > making one plus one- > > much more than two !! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Indeed, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. > It is a wonderful thing to discover something that no one else sees, > at least as far as you know, > argue its case in the face of even professional opposition, with > confidence, knowing that you will prevail in the end, because it is > correct, wheather they can see it, or not, > > Conrad J Countess ----------------- HI Conrad ddi you see my model in general and especially the Appendix?? (it is from 1993 !!) if not you must doit urgently !! (:-) now just concentrate about the scheme describing the circlon idea it is marked as 'the known physics' and an ''uknwon yet physics' in th e known physics particles collide and after collission retreat backwads in a straight line othoha (on the other hand ) in the unknown yet physics (the circlon physics ) the circlon is moving *naturally* is a curved path and colliding with a oposite direction (a mirror path) with another one like himself so after collission both of them retreat back in their reverse path that they came from and collide again (after 180 deg)and retreat back etc etc endlessly ! so it makes them actually to stay in a restricted location (as a particle) so what do we get there we get there two 'contradictory as it only seems to be contradictory) two properties one having an intrinsic enormous movement at c but inspight that movement actually **remaining at one spot -though not at one point !!** now we recall what you claimed you mensioned the difference between mometum and energy and why is it for colliding masses you get the 1/2 factor and as for energy you get it two times bigger ie without that 1/2 so you get it *tangibly* in my model if you look one one half of that ful circle that is split ed by two point of collision one half is at the 'right' side the other half is 'at the left side ' each half has HALF OF THE ENERGY OF THE TOTAL ASSEMBLY THAT WE SEE THERE altogether th e energy of both of them (as the energy of the whole particle ) is composed by both energies of each half 2 the second thing you see there is the momentum aspect you see there nonstop mometum exchange tha t remaines hidden internally !! 3 you see the spin aspect that you mentioned:: one half of our 'creature is rotating always to the opposite direction then its 'twin half "" and doing waht we mentioned not long ago that ---spin is actually** not** a full circle movement but only ** a half circle movement *** --190 deg !!! !! is it not remarkable ?? (or even sensational ) ??? TIA Y.Porat --------------------- TIA Y.Porat ----------------------
From: cjcountess on 31 Jan 2010 09:28 On Jan 31, 6:19 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 11:10 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > D.K.Y > > > Why should energy, momentum, and force, have different equations? > > They are different things > > > (F=mv^2), > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > > is essentialy (E=mc^2) and (1/2KE=mv^2) > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > > and (p=mv) is (F=mv) > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > Go back to school (if you ever went) and study some physics. You are > just posting utter nonsense > > [snip rest of drivel] Your ranting only proves that you are overly confident in accepting the difinitions of energy, momentum, and force, and probably anything else on face value. How can you discover anything like that? But if you look at them with a true scientific, objective eye, you will see that they are all the same thing with redundant, unjustified, slitely different definition, to disguise there sameness If (p=mv) and (F=mv) and (E=mc^2) and (F=mv^2) and (KE=1/2mv^2), logicaly and mathematicaly, although not nessearily difinitively if words are played with, but they are the same. Conrad J Countess P.S. Go back to school huh? I learned more than most who studied in school, and did so on my own. As testimony to that, I am presenting some of my most important and revolutionary discoveries to be examined and put on trial here and in other arenas. I am fully confident that they will stand because they are correct. The most profound obstecles that I have incountered so far, is the foolish, and I emphisize "foolish pride", of the formaly educated like yourself, who can't come up with new discoveries themselves. Perhaps, this is because of something you learned, or did not learn in school. Well, you are in school now, and I am going to teach you sonething that you could not learn in school. Why, because they did not even know this. And because like you, they are more interested in who is right, and gets credit for it, than what is objectively right, reguardless of title and degree. I am so glad that I did not learn this in school, because therein lies another lesson. All great discoveries don't come from accadimia, and as Einstien said of Farraday in his aricle on General Relativety, "it muses me to wonder if he could have discovered the things that he did, if he had been encombered by a formaal education" My friend, you and so many of your coleges are incombered, and I am going to enjoy showing you the powers of the natural mind, over the educated encumbered one. Not that I have something against education, because it gives us consistency in structure, and dicipline to work within this consistent. But often, overly complex structures lose there way and become wrongly routed structures, because of tunnel vision, and the foolish pride, that comes with acomplishing such rigoris and strenuous task, even such as being hazed to get into a fraternety, and it takes someone unprogramed, stands and thinks outside of the box to realize this, reach inside this "maze box" in which physics has found itself, and pull some out. You just don't know how important this is, but in time you will. Conrad J Countess
From: kado on 31 Jan 2010 16:07 On Jan 31, 6:28 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: A lot of BULLSHIT My father instilled on me, in addition to those already mentioned, to: "With the obvious, common sense exceptions; tell the TRUTH." So: You are an egotistical IDIOT! So keep any mutual admiration between you and schizoid Y.Porat (who claims to be expert No 1 about nuclear mass [see his post of Jan. 18, 3:48 AM]) to yourselves and save band width on this site. D.Y.K.
From: artful on 31 Jan 2010 16:43 On Feb 1, 1:28 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 6:19 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 11:10 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > D.K.Y > > > > Why should energy, momentum, and force, have different equations? > > > They are different things > > > > (F=mv^2), > > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > > > is essentialy (E=mc^2) and (1/2KE=mv^2) > > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > > > and (p=mv) is (F=mv) > > > Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > > > Go back to school (if you ever went) and study some physics. You are > > just posting utter nonsense > > > [snip rest of drivel] > > Your ranting only proves that you are overly confident in accepting > the difinitions of energy, momentum, and force, and probably anything > else on face value. How can you discover anything like that? But if > you look at them with a true scientific, objective eye, you will see > that they are all the same thing with redundant, unjustified, slitely > different definition, to disguise there sameness > If (p=mv) and (F=mv) and (E=mc^2) and (F=mv^2) and (KE=1/2mv^2), You got the formulas wrong. Again. You are just spouting nonsense and pontificating about how proud you are of your complete ignorance and lack of education. Sad.
From: cjcountess on 31 Jan 2010 18:23
On Jan 31, 4:07 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 31, 6:28 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > A lot of BULLSHIT > > My father instilled on me, in addition to those > already mentioned, to: "With the obvious, common > sense exceptions; tell the TRUTH." So: > > You are an egotistical IDIOT! > > So keep any mutual admiration between you and > schizoid Y.Porat (who claims to be expert No 1 about > nuclear mass [see his post of Jan. 18, 3:48 AM]) to > yourselves and save band width on this site. > > D.Y.K.. Remember, that the more you claim to know, the more you reveal what you don't know The evidence speaks for itself You what to prove that (E=mc^2), is wrong and my geometrical interpretation of it, which shows that energy attains rest mass at a frequency/wavelenth of (c^2), just adds one more obstical to your refutal, that you or anyone else did not count on. You thought you had all your basis covered by going to college and learning all you could about it. But research is going on all the time in and out of the schools and box. Today you are learning somethng that you did not in school, like it or not And yes artful, I am proud that I did this on my own, so far without any help from the accedemic institutions, and the whole world is going to know, because it is indeed something to be proud of. I will never let someone like "D.K.Y", and "artful", who is not artful, and who by the way, have not discovered anything, discourge me. All people like you do is express jealousy, resentment and anoyance. Both of you cannot even see the unification of energy, force, and momentum, which shows lack of incite into the underlying unity of all things, energy, force, and momentum, being a simple unity, already ointed out in the equations. And like I said The more you claim to know the more you reveal what you don't know, so be very carfull what you say and make sure you have evidence to back it Conrad J Countess |