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: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:41 On Feb 1, 6:24 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 1:19 pm, 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] > > ------------------- > Mr artful (btw what is you real name > - > ie why should you be anonymous > ie what have you to hide or loose by coming with your real name ??) > > so anyway : > > please give us your explanation why is it: > (beside the 'dry mathematical formalism ) > > energy in macrocosm 1/2 m V ^2 > > and in microcosm mc^2 > > (for momentum m v and m c > is quite identical ) > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ Its simple maths .. series expansion. The 1/2mv^2 is what the formula for kinetic energy reduces to when v <<c .. the other terms in the series become insignificantly small
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:42 On Feb 1, 9:38 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 10:04 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 1:43 pm,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 8:16 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:23 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > If you are proud of your ignorance, then you have a lot to be proud > > > > of.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > You got jokes, but that is all you got, and the best joke is on you > > > Its not a joke .. you are ignorant of science, and think that what > > you're saying makes sense. It doesn't. Its just waffle and > > nonsense. Writing incorrect formulas and drawing little pictures and > > labeling things with the letters that real physicists use for > > properties and quantities they observe (like E and c) isn't science .. > > no matter how much you may fool yourself into believing it. > > > Not that that will stop you from continuing in your ignorance and > > polluting the forum with you nonsense. You're too much of a fool to > > realize that you are ignorant and that you can do something to remedy > > that by learning. Telling yourself your own nonsense and believing it > > has some sort of meaning isn't helping you at all.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Anyone can examine what you say with what I say and see who is correct > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electrons/matter > > 3) deBroglie discovered E=hf=mc^2 for electrons of -1 charge and that > electron is also a wave > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of an electron eequals the > circumfrence of a circle with an angular momentum of a mutiple > interger of h/2pi > > It logicaly follows from this and corresponding geometrical evidence > that I discovered independently making it twice suported that > (E=mc^2) =(E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1) > > c^2 on quantum level is "c in liniear direction x c in 90 degree > angular direction", creating a 90 degree arc which is constant creates > a circle of energy with wavelength cx2pi and angular momentum h/2pi. > If amplitude is constant wave makes two rotations to complete one wave > cycle making it a standing spherical wave of spin 1/2 and angular > momentum of h/2pi/2 and -1 charge if spin is counter tto trajectory. > > c in liniear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, creates a > balence of "centripital and centrifugal" forces, that create c in > circular motion (cx2pi with coresponding angular momentum h/2pi) for > spin 1/2 particles h/2pi/2 > > Resistence is futile, the evidence is overwealming > > Who is this un-artistic person, hiding behing that name artistic? > What is your claim to fame? Nothing I guess, or you would use your > real name. > > My name is Conrad J Countess, and I discovered (The Geometrical > Interpretation of E=mc^2), the most famous equation in the world. And > as there is more info in the geometry, this adds to the progression of > physics, which some people with opposing views, are threatened by. > > People, don't let anyone do your thinking for you. Examine the > evidence for yourself and you will see just who is telling you the > truth, and who is trying to hide it > Conrad J Countess Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it any more correct
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:43 On Feb 2, 3:45 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Analogous to a line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 > inch in the 90 degree angular direction to equal 1 square inch, and or > a velocity in the linear direction x a velocity in the 90 degree > angular direction to create a balance of centrifugal and centripetal > forces and circular motion measured as (F=mv^2/r = Gmm/r/2), (c^2) in > equation (E=mc^2) can be considered, c in circular motion and the > point on the EM spectrum, where energy equals, and turns to "matter/ > rest mass". This is a simple explanation of why energy equals rest > mass through mathematical conversion factor of (c^2), because (c^2) is > an actual conversion frequency, where energy acquires rest mass, > because it takes on a circular and or spherical form. "G" or the > gravity constant, which is measured as "L/T^2" equals "c^2", on this > quantum level because "c^2", is the ultimate velocity squared, and as > energy in circular and or spherical motion, it is easy to see how it > is at this point that energy acquires rest mass, because of a more > balanced energy, mass, and momentum, around a center of rotation. As > such, (c^2 = G and also has wavelength = c x 2pi, with angular > momentum, which is inversely proportional to wavelength, at h/2pi). > This has profound implication concerning the Planck scale because > instead of combining, (c, h/2pi, and G), to get Planck scale of > "length, mass, and time, excetra, which is also suposed to be level at > which "Quantum Gravity" is revealed, we combine (c^2, G, h/2pi,) find > that they are equal and see that this is indeed that level of "Quantum > Gravity", which is within reach, and the "electron", searves as the > physical manifestation of these basic dimensions > > If we take a line of 1 inch in linear direction and a line of 1 inch > in 90 degree angular direction as such __| and draw an arc from > beginning of horizontal line, to top end of vertical line, we get a 90 > degree arc which if constant creates a circle with radius equal to h = > c and thus the c x 2pi and the h / 2pi. > Furthermore the equation for circular motion on macro scale of (F=mv^2/ > r = F = mv/r^2 = F= Gmm/r^2) can apply if we substitute E for F, hf > for mv, and r for c, as (E=hf/c^2) > As the same force that contracts energy into rest mass at (E = hf / > c^2) is the same that makes rest mass gravitate together at F=mv^2/r = > F=mv/r^2 = Gmm/r^2. > > It is so simple yet so profound, and I am proud and honored to be the > one to present it to the world. > > My name is "Conrad J Countess", and I have the utmost confidence in > this. Then you are deluded .. seek help
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:44 On Feb 2, 4:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 9:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 1:19 pm, 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] > > > ------------------- > > Mr artful (btw what is you real name > > - > > ie why should you be anonymous > > ie what have you to hide or loose by coming with your real name ??) > > > so anyway : > > > please give us your explanation why is it: > > (beside the 'dry mathematical formalism ) > > > energy in macrocosm 1/2 m V ^2 > > > and in microcosm mc^2 > > > (for momentum m v and m c > > is quite identical ) > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------ > > and i am still waiting to artful answer > ie > waht is your understanding of it > not only the formal mathematics > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------- > -------------------------- Explain how circlons can create all the particles we see. What charge is a circlon .. what mass? How many in an electron> a proton? a quark?
From: artful on 1 Feb 2010 18:45
On Feb 2, 7:59 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 12:15 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 6:45 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Analogous to a line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 > > > inch in the 90 degree angular direction to equal 1 square inch, and or > > > a velocity in the linear direction x a velocity in the 90 degree > > > angular direction to create a balance of centrifugal and centripetal > > > forces and circular motion measured as (F=mv^2/r = Gmm/r/2), (c^2) in > > > equation (E=mc^2) can be considered, c in circular motion and the > > > point on the EM spectrum, where energy equals, and turns to "matter/ > > > rest mass". This is a simple explanation of why energy equals rest > > > mass through mathematical conversion factor of (c^2), because (c^2) is > > > an actual conversion frequency, where energy acquires rest mass, > > > because it takes on a circular and or spherical form. "G" or the > > > gravity constant, which is measured as "L/T^2" equals "c^2", on this > > > quantum level because "c^2", is the ultimate velocity squared, and as > > > energy in circular and or spherical motion, it is easy to see how it > > > is at this point that energy acquires rest mass, because of a more > > > balanced energy, mass, and momentum, around a center of rotation. As > > > such, (c^2 = G and also has wavelength = c x 2pi, with angular > > > momentum, which is inversely proportional to wavelength, at h/2pi). > > > This has profound implication concerning the Planck scale because > > > instead of combining, (c, h/2pi, and G), to get Planck scale of > > > "length, mass, and time, excetra, which is also suposed to be level at > > > which "Quantum Gravity" is revealed, we combine (c^2, G, h/2pi,) find > > > that they are equal and see that this is indeed that level of "Quantum > > > Gravity", which is within reach, and the "electron", searves as the > > > physical manifestation of these basic dimensions > > > > If we take a line of 1 inch in linear direction and a line of 1 inch > > > in 90 degree angular direction as such __| and draw an arc from > > > beginning of horizontal line, to top end of vertical line, we get a 90 > > > degree arc which if constant creates a circle with radius equal to h = > > > c and thus the c x 2pi and the h / 2pi. > > > Furthermore the equation for circular motion on macro scale of (F=mv^2/ > > > r = F = mv/r^2 = F= Gmm/r^2) can apply if we substitute E for F, hf > > > for mv, and r for c, as (E=hf/c^2) > > > As the same force that contracts energy into rest mass at (E = hf / > > > c^2) is the same that makes rest mass gravitate together at F=mv^2/r = > > > F=mv/r^2 = Gmm/r^2. > > > > It is so simple yet so profound, and I am proud and honored to be the > > > one to present it to the world. > > > > My name is "Conrad J Countess", and I have the utmost confidence in > > > this. > > > --------------------- > > Hi Conrad > > see my explanation to the above issue > > in the sketch called as > > (a stil unknown physics:(of ther Circlon ) > > > you can see there that in microcosm > > for each mass in enormous movement > > you need another identical mass > > **to hold it in its microcosm volume** > > > by constantly colliding with it > > > otho > > in macrocosm it i snot needed !! > > big macrocosm masses can move * in slow movement )or not > > if a mass moves i t moves and leaving its location > > if it does not move > > it stays in its location ( it has only** inner** vigorous movement > > (( > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > O.K. Porat > > I will need more time to study it. > > I do appreciate your civility and your willingness to discuss this > respectfully. > > artful, D.Y. K., inertia, and others seem to be threatened by my work > and they should be. > > I am going to expose them for the frauds that they are > > I had more respect for D.Y.K at first because he used his real name > and spoke politely. But now he seems to be so threatened by my > geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2, because it shows in picturest > form, that energy and matter are equal, and related through conversion > factor of c^2, plain and simple > > He is goin to go back to the drawing board, as his whole foundation > has been shaken. He is probably in a mental and philosophical > earthquake. > > He and the others are going to try and win the debate on > technicalities, like precision of definitions, spelling, and grama, > but I will stick to the evidence itself, as it is supreme. > > I am tempted to rest my case now because I know that I have more than > enough evidence to defeat them > > They seem to belong to the debate class of, "if you cannot convence, > then confuse, and win at all cost" but they are debating with nature > itself, and nature has spoken clearly, although not very loud, And > this is where they will try to loud talk the debate, and divert > attention from what is clearly, simple and true, probably under the > guse that nature and understanding of it is complex. But do not > believe them. > > First examing the evidence yourself I assure you that it is alot > simpler than most of these foolishly proud people will have us > believe. This is how they eliet gain and maintain power. > > But I am going to expose the truth of the simplicity of it and also > those who are still trying to conceal it. > > In the mean time, I will have a little fun with them, and get some > debate practice. > > Out of respect for this forum, I will not stoop to their level of > confusing and deciet, but I do intend on not pulling any more punches > with them > > I have lost respect for them and they will feel my displeasure > > For the rest of you, I do maintain respect, and am greatful that we > have a forum such as this, with which we can introduce new and > revolutionary ideas. > > This may be a valuable lesson for us all, as some take this subject so > seriously, that disagreeing with them is like defiling their religion, > or critisizing their artwork, for which they can and are becoming very > hostil. > > But the cooler heads will prevail, and to the rest of the audience, > please maintain you judgement till all the evidence is presented in > its clearest and complete form. > > I am sure you will not be disapointed, as we all may learn something, > as well as be intertained. > > Conrad J Countess > > P.S. > > Has anyone else expeirenced any dificulties with posting, and have > their post, which appear on other sites been sabataged or corruped. > Because it seems that I am have these problems, and I do not want to > accuse anyone until I am sure, but there seems to be dirt being > spilled into the game, as these post sometimes appear to be altered. > > So watch out everyone, the truth may be the first casualty of this > debate, if these people have the type of access to distort and change > what they cannot successfuly argue against. > > If they cannot win the debate they will distort it, so just be > vigialent > > Thank you and look out for echother, and those who are more concerned > with what is right, than who is right. > > Conrad J Countess Your insanity is only a threat to yourself. Your 'work' is pure nonsense and has nothing to do with physics. |