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 2 Feb 2010 21:01 On Feb 2, 8:15 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Simple math > > In arithmetic, "1 x 1 = 1" > > In geometry, (1 unit length x 1 unit length at 90 degree angle) = 1 > square inch > > Circular motion = (1 constant velocity in liniar direction x equal 90 > degree angular constant velocity = (v^2) and creates a balence of > centripital and centrifugal forces. > > (c^2) on quantum level = (c in liniear direction x c in 90 degree > angular direction) = energy in circular motion = (c x 2 pi) with > angular momentum of (h / 2pi), and is the conversion factor between > "E", or energy, and "m", or matter. > This shows geometricaly how energy equals and turns to matter at c^2. > Simply because energy attains rest mass by aquiring circular and or > spherical motion. > > (G), which is measured as (L/T^2), = (c^2), which is the highest > (v^2), and the ultimate (L/T^2), on the quantum level. > (G), equals (c^2), as the quantum of gravitational rest mass, simply > because (c^2) is smallest unit of energy in circlular motion, also > equal to (cx 2pi) with corresponding momentum of (h/2pi), and the > point on EM spectrum where energy attains rest mass > > (G = c^2 = h/2pi) > > Conrad J Countess This statement In geometry, (1 unit length x 1 unit length at 90 degree angle) = 1 square inch should read in geometry, (1 unit length x 1 unit length at 90 degree angle) = 1 square unit or (1 inch x 1 inch at 90 degree angle) = 1 square inch
From: Y.Porat on 3 Feb 2010 03:01 On Feb 2, 1:41 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 ----------------------- we have tounderstandit much deeper physically not only the dry amthematical formula just find out how is that 1/2 mv^2 is derived itis derived first of all frome some physical understanding and it as actually describes how that energy is acumulated from the **stationary* point to the maximum velocity!! (if i remember right by heart from long ago) by integration the dF X dx/ along from x =zero to x final now i would like to know in a parallel way th e physical story (on site !!) about how E=mc^2 is derived one difference i can see ie in the Microcosm case we do not have a stationary situation at all !! it start from motion and ends with motion actuallo the same motion !! the only difference i can see is that it seems that ONLY the mass- doubled ! (c is constant ) now what is behind that riddle ?? it grew exactly 2 times !! not 1.5 not 3 just 2 !! so what is the **physical secrete** behind it ??? TIA Y.Porat ---------------------
From: artful on 3 Feb 2010 05:43 On Feb 3, 7:01 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > we have tounderstandit much deeper physically > not only the dry amthematical formula > just find out how is that > 1/2 mv^2 is derived > itis derived first of all frome some > physical understanding > and it as actually describes how that energy > is acumulated from the **stationary* point to the maximum > velocity!! (if i remember right by heart from long ago) There is no reference to maximum velocities in KE = 1/2 mv^2 Also the formula E = mc^2 has to do with rest energy and rest mass .. no mention of things moving from stationary to maximum velocity And the formula E = gamma.mc^2 has to do with the energy a moving system .. at small values of v, the difference between this and the rest energy is given by KE = 1/2 mv^2 > by integration the dF X dx/ along from x =zero > to x final > now i would like to know in a parallel way > th e physical story (on site !!) > about how E=mc^2 is derived That is well presented already in the papers where the idea was first put forward .. and in many physics text since > one difference i can see ie > in the Microcosm case we do not have a stationary situation at > all !! > it start from motion and ends with motion No > actuallo the same motion !! > the only difference i can see is > that it seems that ONLY the mass- doubled ! > (c is constant ) No > now what is behind that riddle ?? > it grew exactly 2 times !! > not 1.5 not 3 > just 2 !! > so what is the **physical secrete** behind it ??? There is no secret .. if you read books on physics you would know this.
From: Y.Porat on 3 Feb 2010 06:32 On Feb 3, 12:43 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 7:01 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > we have tounderstandit much deeper physically > > not only the dry amthematical formula > > just find out how is that > > 1/2 mv^2 is derived > > itis derived first of all frome some > > physical understanding > > and it as actually describes how that energy > > is acumulated from the **stationary* point to the maximum > > velocity!! (if i remember right by heart from long ago) > > There is no reference to maximum velocities in KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > Also the formula E = mc^2 has to do with rest energy and rest mass .. > no mention of things moving from stationary to maximum velocity -------------------- i ddint claim that for microcosm and that is one of the differences tha** i** whanted to assert ! ------------- > > And the formula E = gamma.mc^2 has to do with the energy a moving > system .. at small values of v, -------------------- you forgot to mention that THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY TO PARTICLES THAT MOVE AT C IE PHOTONS !! because while v=c gamma becomes infinity !! ------------------------ -------------------------- the difference between this and the > rest energy is given by KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > > by integration the dF X dx/ along from x =zero > > to x final > > now i would like to know in a parallel way > > th e physical story (on site !!) > > about how E=mc^2 is derived > > That is well presented already in the papers where the idea was first > put forward .. and in many physics text since > ---------------------- the current books deal with it only mathematically!! it is not good enough for me!! i told you i would like to know waht happence 'in site - the physical 'site' i want some ADVANCE !!! ie not just parroting !! btw even the current mathematics canot rely only on the magic toughof marthematics it must insert in some belive it or not some assumptions for instance the notion of coseravtion of momentum or conservation of energy *8is not derived from the net mathematics** it is **inserted into that mathematics !!!** based on experimental observations !! and while you do it by guessing you can get the **common mistake** that in microcosm '' MASS IS NOT CONSERVED" and that is one of the huge mistakes of 'modern physics to say for instance that photons the photon has no mass'!!! it is only a person like me that was not cheated to to fall into parroting traps and insuisted to understand it better than the parroting came to the conclusion that NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS ! because mass is conserved even in microcosm !! (and there is no EM without mass (that makes microcosm physics much simpler and while i see mc^2 i see MASS IN MOTION ! just as simple as that !! ------------------ > > one difference i can see ie > > in the Microcosm case we do not have a stationary situation at > > all !! > > it start from motion and ends with motion > > No yes (:-) to say no is not enough !! my yes is not less valuable than your NO ... ---------- >--- > > actually the same motion !! > > the only difference i can see is > > that it seems that ONLY the mass- doubled ! > > (c is constant ) > > No yes .... ---------- > > > now what is behind that riddle ?? > > it grew exactly 2 times !! > > not 1.5 not 3 > > just 2 !! > > so what is the **physical secrete** behind it ??? > > There is no secret .. if you read books on physics you would know > this. -------------------- so just tel me about it in physics argments (in site') not in mathematical parroting iow we need a better PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT !! (if we want some real advance !!) (do you feel that existing theory does not need any advance ??!! (and now you will tell me :---- it really needs 'BUT NOT BY YOU' (:-) !! so may be by you (:-)) ?? ATB Y.Porat ---------------------
From: artful on 3 Feb 2010 07:00
On Feb 3, 10:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 3, 12:43 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 3, 7:01 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > we have tounderstandit much deeper physically > > > not only the dry amthematical formula > > > just find out how is that > > > 1/2 mv^2 is derived > > > itis derived first of all frome some > > > physical understanding > > > and it as actually describes how that energy > > > is acumulated from the **stationary* point to the maximum > > > velocity!! (if i remember right by heart from long ago) > > > There is no reference to maximum velocities in KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > > Also the formula E = mc^2 has to do with rest energy and rest mass .. > > no mention of things moving from stationary to maximum velocity > > -------------------- > i ddint claim that for microcosm I didn't say you did > and that is one of the differences tha** i** whanted to > assert ! The formula is the same for all. E = mc^2 is rest energy of a system of given mass. > ------------- > > > > > And the formula E = gamma.mc^2 has to do with the energy a moving > > system .. at small values of v, > > -------------------- > you forgot to mention that > THE GAMMA FACTOR DOES NOT APPLY > TO PARTICLES THAT MOVE AT C > IE PHOTONS !! > because while v=c gamma becomes infinity !! Neither I not you were talking about photons. That formula is indeterminate for photons, instead one should use E = hf. But that is beside the point. > ------------------------ > -------------------------- > > the difference between this and the> rest energy is given by KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > > > by integration the dF X dx/ along from x =zero > > > to x final > > > now i would like to know in a parallel way > > > th e physical story (on site !!) > > > about how E=mc^2 is derived > > > That is well presented already in the papers where the idea was first > > put forward .. and in many physics text since > > ---------------------- > > the current books deal with it > only mathematically!! Which books? You do realise that mathematics is simply the most efficient and precise way to express the relationships. Just because you express something mathematically doesn't mean it is 'only mathematics'. That would be like saying that if you read a description of it, it was only words > it is not good enough for me!! What do you need then? > i told you i would like to know waht happence > 'in site - the physical 'site' > i want some ADVANCE !!! Advance from what? E = mc^2 has been derived, and shown to be valid > ie not just parroting !! > > btw > even the current mathematics > canot rely only on the magic toughof marthematics > it must insert in some > belive it or not > some assumptions > for instance the notion of coseravtion of momentum > or conservation of energy > *8is not derived from the net mathematics** > it is **inserted into that mathematics !!!** > based on experimental observations !! > and while you do it by guessing No .. you do it from observation and experimental evidence. We find that total energy is always conserved. You do realize that the mathematics is just a language for expressing the physics. It still has to relate to the physical model and the physical laws we find that hold true > you can get the **common mistake** that > > in microcosm '' MASS IS NOT CONSERVED" Noone says it is conserved (other than in the most elementary physics books for simplistic cases) > and that is one of the huge mistakes of 'modern physics > to say for instance that photons > the photon has no mass'!!! It is supported experimentally, as well as following logically from existing non-refuted theories. > it is only a person like me that was not cheated to > to fall into parroting traps > and insuisted to understand it better than the > parroting > came to the conclusion that > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS ! > because mass is conserved even in microcosm !! No .. it is not conserved anywhere, except under special conditions > (and there is no EM without mass > (that makes microcosm physics much simpler Not really. > and while i see > mc^2 > i see MASS IN MOTION ! Except E = mc^2 is the formula for REST energy .. not energy of something in motion. If you wnat energy of something in motion it is E = gamma.mc^2 > just as simple as that !! Just because it is simple, doesn't mean it is correct > ------------------ > > > > one difference i can see ie > > > in the Microcosm case we do not have a stationary situation at > > > all !! > > > it start from motion and ends with motion > > > No > > yes (:-) > to say no is not enough !! > my yes is not less valuable than your NO ... Except your yes is wrong :) > ---------->--- > > > actually the same motion !! > > > the only difference i can see is > > > that it seems that ONLY the mass- doubled ! > > > (c is constant ) > > > No > > yes .... There is no doubling of mass. You are wrong. > ---------- > > > > now what is behind that riddle ?? > > > it grew exactly 2 times !! > > > not 1.5 not 3 > > > just 2 !! > > > so what is the **physical secrete** behind it ??? > > > There is no secret .. if you read books on physics you would know > > this. > > -------------------- > so just tel me about it Read about it. I do not have the time or space to write a physics text in reply to your questions. Go to a library, look up on the net. > in physics argments (in site') > not in mathematical parroting Mathematics is the best language for physics > iow > we need a better PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT !! No .. YOU need a better understanding of it. As clearly you do not havea clear understanding of what current physics says > (if we want some real advance !!) Then you need to know where we are now .. that requires you reading and learning about current modern physics > (do you feel that existing theory > does not need any advance ??!! Of course.. but it cannot advance by going backwards. > (and now you will tell me :---- > it really needs > 'BUT NOT BY YOU' (:-) !! > so may be by you (:-)) ?? Say what? |