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 23 Feb 2010 20:01 On Feb 24, 4:16 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. All fine so far, discussing metaphysics and the philosophy of science. > 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). And that is all utter nonsense .. shame .. it was off to a good start until the preceding paragraph [snip even more nonsense from that nonsense] I think you should stick to philosophy .. your physics sucks.
From: cjcountess on 24 Feb 2010 11:13 Artfull you are an obstructionist, with no incite or vision, and belong to the party of, NO! And so I expect this kind of response from you, but I am so sure of this, and see this so clearly, that your comments only amuse me. New incites are sometimes hard to frame in language and mathematics of the old, and so this revelation too, may not be framed in the best of these. But the main idea is correct Geometrically (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled), and (c=i) (c^2) is the point on EM spectrum where energy or (E) = (m) or (rest mass/matter) as a electron of (1- charge). Therefore, (c=i). Just as (E=mc^2) = (m=Ec^2), because of (energy/mass) equivalence ( m=Ec^2) = (G = Ec^2) because of the inertia mass gravity mass equivalence. Because of space/energy equivalence, (E=mc^2) = (L= mc^2) also = Einstein and Minkowsky's (cti), Therefore the "Cosmological Constant", as most basic ground state energy = c also. Because of the space/time equivalence (L=mc^2) = (T=mc^2), and the most basic time unit becomes the spin cycle of the electron. Because a particle only becomes charged at (mc^2) or (Ec^2) as both are interchangeable here, these also = (Q=mc^2). And finally, because temperature is just a matter of frequency, (temp= m/c^2). I am choosing (m/c^2) instead of (mc^2), although they are both interchangeable at this level because (1x1=1/1=1), because when we speak of radiant heat, it refers to EM waves below frequency of (mc^2) as a division of c^2. But c^2 is the frequency at which EM waves cease to radiate and attain rest mass, although they do radiate a charge which is felt by other charged particles which might also be quantified as a division of c^2. The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 is a GOLD MINE of discoveries!!! Conrad J Countess
From: artful on 24 Feb 2010 18:10 On Feb 25, 3:13 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Artfull > > you are an obstructionist, Nope > with no incite or vision, and belong to the > party of, NO! I have all the insight required to see what you post is just plain gibberish > And so I expect this kind of response from you, but I am so sure of > this, and see this so clearly, that your comments only amuse me. I'm sure you laugh insanely from your straight-jacket > New incites are sometimes hard to frame in language and mathematics of > the old, and so this revelation too, may not be framed in the best of > these. That does not mean that what you right is not gibberish .. it is > But the main idea is correct > > Geometrically (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled), and (c=i) There is no such thing as a "^circled" .. that is just gibberish And .. c CANNOT be i, i is an imaginary number .. c is a real number. so claiming c=i is nonsense [snip rest of nonsense unread... no point in reading gibberish that follows from other gibberish]
From: cjcountess on 25 Feb 2010 10:38 On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 3:13 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Artfull > > > you are an obstructionist, > > Nope > > > with no incite or vision, and belong to the > > party of, NO! > > I have all the insight required to see what you post is just plain > gibberish > > > And so I expect this kind of response from you, but I am so sure of > > this, and see this so clearly, that your comments only amuse me. > > I'm sure you laugh insanely from your straight-jacket > > > New incites are sometimes hard to frame in language and mathematics of > > the old, and so this revelation too, may not be framed in the best of > > these. > > That does not mean that what you right is not gibberish .. it is > > > But the main idea is correct > > > Geometrically (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled), and (c=i) > > There is no such thing as a "^circled" .. that is just gibberish > > And .. c CANNOT be i, i is an imaginary number .. c is a real number. > so claiming c=i is nonsense > > [snip rest of nonsense unread... no point in reading gibberish that > follows from other gibberish] Artful I am not going to argue this with you anymore, because it gets personal and degenerates into childishness. The evidence is clear and speaks for itself. With that said I rest my case Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on 25 Feb 2010 17:51
"cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:08c71179-61ec-43ea-9037-840b0caf5091(a)d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 25, 3:13 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > Artfull >> >> > you are an obstructionist, >> >> Nope >> >> > with no incite or vision, and belong to the >> > party of, NO! >> >> I have all the insight required to see what you post is just plain >> gibberish >> >> > And so I expect this kind of response from you, but I am so sure of >> > this, and see this so clearly, that your comments only amuse me. >> >> I'm sure you laugh insanely from your straight-jacket >> >> > New incites are sometimes hard to frame in language and mathematics of >> > the old, and so this revelation too, may not be framed in the best of >> > these. >> >> That does not mean that what you right is not gibberish .. it is >> >> > But the main idea is correct >> >> > Geometrically (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled), and (c=i) >> >> There is no such thing as a "^circled" .. that is just gibberish >> >> And .. c CANNOT be i, i is an imaginary number .. c is a real number. >> so claiming c=i is nonsense >> >> [snip rest of nonsense unread... no point in reading gibberish that >> follows from other gibberish] > > Artful > > I am not going to argue this with you anymore, > > because it gets personal and degenerates into childishness. > > The evidence is clear and speaks for itself. > > With that said I rest my case indeed it does .. your nonsense is nonsense as anyone can see. |