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 15 Feb 2010 22:22 On Jan 30, 7:10 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > The evidence is overwhelming and there is really no way around it. > (c^2 = h/2pi = G) and (c = h = i = 2pi) as new Planck relations.. > THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING {!} Yes it does, including the value of c or pi or h or 2. Proof: Their values are c = 2.997928 x 10^10 cm. pi = 3.1415927.... Via your first equation, the value of h is (2.997928^10)^2 = h/(2 x 3.14158) --> h = 2 x 3.14159(8.9875723^20 = 5.640582 x 10^21 cm which is about (1.35) x 10^47 MORE than the experimental value: h = 6.4 x 10^-27 (ergs) x (seconds). Via your second equation, the value of 2 is 2.997928^10 = 2.997928^10 = i = 2 x 3.14159 --> 2 = 2.997928^10/3.14159 = 9.547012 x 10^9. As to the value of i, which usually signifies (-1)^.5, your equation sets it equal to two unrelated things, "2pi" and "c =h". Either way, if c^2 = h/2pi = G and c = h = i = 2pi, then if we use eq 2's values in eq 1 we get (2pi)^2 = 2pi/2pi = i = 2pi --> 39.478418... = 1 = i = 6.28....................................... . How can we trust your logic when your equations contradict themselves? glird
From: Inertial on 15 Feb 2010 22:27 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:f5fb7fb9-d00c-41b7-a7e1-ce08de2d92c5(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 30, 7:10 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> The evidence is overwhelming and there is really no way around it. >> (c^2 = h/2pi = G) and (c = h = i = 2pi) as new Planck relations. >> THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING {!} Note .. all that choosing natural units does (or any choice of units) is to change the numerical values of some constants (not all) and calculated values. It doesn't 'CHANGE EVERYTHING' at all .. only the numbers we use to describe 'EVERYTHING'. However, you NEVER end up with c = i, or h = i, or 2pi = i. i is an imaginary number .. it can never be equal to real numbers like 2pi. > Yes it does, including the value of c or pi or h or 2. > Proof: Their values are > c = 2.997928 x 10^10 cm. > pi = 3.1415927.... > Via your first equation, the value of h is > (2.997928^10)^2 = h/(2 x 3.14158) --> > h = 2 x 3.14159(8.9875723^20 > = 5.640582 x 10^21 cm > which is about (1.35) x 10^47 MORE than the experimental value: > h = 6.4 x 10^-27 (ergs) x (seconds). > Via your second equation, the value of 2 is > 2.997928^10 = 2.997928^10 = i = 2 x 3.14159 --> > 2 = 2.997928^10/3.14159 = 9.547012 x 10^9. > As to the value of i, which usually signifies (-1)^.5, > your equation sets it equal to two unrelated things, "2pi" > and "c =h". > > Either way, if c^2 = h/2pi = G and c = h = i = 2pi, > then if we use eq 2's values in eq 1 we get > (2pi)^2 = 2pi/2pi = i = 2pi --> > 39.478418... = 1 = i = > 6.28....................................... . > > How can we trust your logic when your equations contradict > themselves? Hehehe .. maths was never cjcountess strong point. Nor physics for that matter :)
From: glird on 15 Feb 2010 22:31 On Jan 29, 6:55 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 5:17 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Not that I disagree with you, Art, but how did you know on Jan 29 what I would write on Jan 30, about 12 hours later? glird
From: cjcountess on 21 Feb 2010 16:28 On Feb 15, 10:31 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 29, 6:55 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 30, 5:17 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Not that I disagree with you, Art, but how did you know on Jan 29 > what I would write on Jan 30, about 12 hours later? > > glird If G = c = h/2pi = 1/4piE0 = kB = 1, then lp = mp = qp = tp = =1 (nondimensional) This is According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units My version of the unity of the constants is (G = h/2pi = c^2) and (c = h = 2pi = r "electron radius" = i) and will be made more accurate as time goes by and research continues. According to the historical record, Planck first united (h = c = G,) and this later became (h/2pi = c = G), to supposedly make it more accurate. Now at least 5 constants are included, the Planck length, and time, as well as other quantities, has changed, and the evolution continues. I am sure that if you apply the same analysis to the already established version stated in "Wikipidia", you can find something critical to say about that also. Both sets of unity are not strictly linear and commutable and so will not be immediately noticeable and it will take further explanation. It is a work in progress and I am glad to be among those who can see this unity and work on its clearification. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 23 Feb 2010 12:16
On Feb 21, 4:28 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 10:31 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 6:55 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 30, 5:17 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Not that I disagree with you, Art, but how did you know on Jan 29 > > what I would write on Jan 30, about 12 hours later? > > > glird > > If G = c = h/2pi = 1/4piE0 = kB = 1, then lp = mp = qp = tp = =1 > (nondimensional) > > This is According tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units > > My version of the unity of the constants is (G = h/2pi = c^2) and (c = > h = 2pi = r "electron radius" = i) and will be made more accurate as > time goes by and research continues. > > According to the historical record, Planck first united (h = c = G,) > and this later became (h/2pi = c = G), to supposedly make it more > accurate. Now at least 5 constants are included, the Planck length, > and time, as well as other quantities, has changed, and the evolution > continues. > > I am sure that if you apply the same analysis to the already > established version stated in "Wikipidia", you can find something > critical to say about that also. > > Both sets of unity are not strictly linear and commutable and so will > not be immediately noticeable and it will take further explanation. > > It is a work in progress and I am glad to be among those who can see > this unity and work on its clarification. > > Conrad J Countess I have been experiencing difficulty recently when trying to log onto this group Hope the administration is not deliberately trying to screen me out. A few more things on the importance of the unity of the constants 1) People including scientist, have known for millennium that everything is interrelated and suspected to be made of some basic particles. 2) (E=mc^2), tells us that all matter, including the most basic building block particles, is built up from energy through conversion factor c^2 3) Various fields of science has attempting to break their subject down to most basic form have discovered certain constants among the building blocks of their subject, as well as certain mathematical laws, that are analogous to mathematical laws in other fields, the inverse square law for example, which includes constants, and is applicable to so many fields. 4) It is only logical to conclude that, these various constants, in these various fields are related to this unity. The Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) reveals that at the quantum level (c^2 = G = h/2pi = cti) and that (c = h = i = 2pi = r "radius of electron") geometrically, although they may not commute with each other in linear form. Therefore it follows that (m=E/c^2) (G=E/c^2) (L=E/c^2) (T=E/c^2) (Q=E/c^2) (temp = E/c^2). In the past I stated that (m=Ec^2) (G=mc^2) but at this level where (1x1=1/1=1), and (E=m) these are sometimes interchangeable. It is not necessarily the best case with temp, because we associate temp with frequencies of EM waves below c^2, and c^2 is the frequency where radiation attains rest mass. This introduces two more revolutionary ideas. 1) On quantum level, matter is the result of the raising of frequency to (c^2) not the lowering or cooling off of frequency 2) Quantum temp, is no longer just a statistical measurement, as it has now been quantified, as temp = E/c^2 It is also my strong suspicion that all constants are related, and I do have evidence to support this also Conrad J Countess |