Prev: * Hates US * admits failure in looking for his non-existent cite; PNAC of course NEVER said even remotely that it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks: COME SEE THE KOOKER FLAIL IN IMPOTENT RAGE!
Next: Debunking the Myths of Global Climate Change
From: cjcountess on 30 Jun 2010 11:10
The postulates

1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe

2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
observed

In Question

Doppler effect demonstrates that frequency reflected off object in
motion, increases in direction of motion, and decreases in opposite
direction in direct proportion to the said speed of object and that is
how radar detects direction and speed of objects.

It is as though motion of object is being added to or subtracted from
frequency of light.
Also along with increase of frequency comes increase of kinetic energy
relative mass and momentum.

Einstein was able to conclude that energy of photon is (E=m/c^2) that
energy of matter is (E=mc^2) and that if matter loses energy in form
of radiation its mass deceases by (m=E/c^2)

From all this one might conclude that higher frequency which
translates to higher relative mass and kinetic energy as we;ll as
higher momentum was due to higher speed of photon if not in linear
direction at least in angular direction as indeed there are more
cycles per time unit which can only mean higher speed in that
direction.

Planck discovered that (E=hv) later stated as (E=hf) that the higher
the frequency the higher the energy, the shorter the wavelength, and
more particle like the photon became as well as the harder it hit
photo- electric plates to dislodge electrons.
Thus the formula (E=hv) is analogous to and seemingly equal to (F=mv)
for force of material objects and its extended version (E=hf/c^2)
corresponds to (F=mv/r^2)

deBroglie latter realized that (E=hf=mc^2) at level of electron that
electron is also a wave and that the only thing separating them is
amount of momentum.

Why then are these postulate not amended to

1) The speed of light is constant and the highest in linear direction,
but varies in angular direction.

2) The higher the frequency, the higher the speed (cycles per time
unit) and at (c^2), which is (c in circular and or spherical
rotation), a particle attains rest mass.

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

were it states "The radiated power eventually goes to zero at infinite
frequencies" under solution
This indicates that at highest frequency which they thought of as
infinite, radiation stopped, which it does but for reasons that it
attains rest mass.

This would eliminate the idea of the ultraviolet catastrophe for
photon as well as quantum particles which require renormalization, the
idea of point particles and probability wave and that formula
{psi = (x, t)^2} become equal to (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) because it
is exactly the turning of the wave into a particle at (c^2) by giving
it circular and or spherical rotation that make the probability of
finding the particle within the wave equal to finding the wave in the
particle because at (c^2) the wave becomes the particle.

We might also include that frequency does not diverge to (v^2)
interpreted as infinity it converges to (c^2) which is rest mass

Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 30 Jun 2010 12:19
Hi this is Conrad J Countess, again

If you liked that first post you're really gonna like this one.

And if you didn't like that first one, you're really not going to like
this one either


The Speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
Actual the Slowest

This is why:


EM waves travel faster than c at c+f if we calculate right angular
motion of wave according to vector addition, c in the linear
direction
+ whatever the angular speed is that creates cycles per time unite.
In
other words c plus the angular part of the cycle. ( Correction I may
change that to (cxf) to match (hf) and vector addition to
sqrt(c^2+f^2).

This is why higher
frequency waves carry more momentum than lower frequency waves,
because they have higher kinetic energy from their higher speed. Rest
mass travels at c^2 which is also faster than c, even though it
appears at rest.


According to relativity, a light wave travels at c in linear
direction
from perspective of observer. But from the perspective of the light
wave, we are traveling at c in the opposite direction. On top of
that,
rest mass is also rotating. Furthermore if an object travels at a
constant rate in a strait line, it is equal to not moving at all,
according to Newton and currently accepted theory.


So there you have it.


What appears to be the fastest speed [c] is actually the slowest,
and
what appears to be the slowest.[rest mass] is actually the fastest
because c^2 is faster than c. Even if you take rest mass and add
additional motion according to relativity its internal motion or time
is suppose to slow down due to Lorentz contraction in direct
proportion to this, thereby canceling out any additional speed.
NEVERTHELESS we are ALL traveling FASTER than LIGHT ...... ENJOY THE
RIDE


Conrad J Countess


Why c^2 is faster than c
When two vectors of motion are of equal force, and at right angle to
each other, it creates a centripetal / centrifugal force balance
giving rise to circular and/or spherical motion. And of course those
who are familiar with me know that I have a theory / discovery that
c^2 is a frequency at high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to
matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical motion as the
energy gets trapped in a closed loop. This happens when the frequency
or angular speed is it's highest which is also at c. Analogous to a
line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 inch in the
right
angular direction to create a square inch, c in the linear direction
x c in the 90 degree or right angular direction will provide the
necessary centripetal / centrifugal force balance to trap energy in a
closed loop and create rest mass or matter.


SEE:http://www.wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf




From: hanson on 30 Jun 2010 13:56
Yo, cj, the interns just informed me that you followed me
with 2 posts of yours, to my tripe that I posted, in response to
Androcles' beating up the besotted Wabnigga... ahahahaha...
So, what do you wish me to do with, or say about, your post
below? --
hanson
>
"cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:509b0f6e-3f77-42c9-b488-af848263d1cd(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi this is Conrad J Countess, again
> If you liked that first post you're really gonna like this one.
> And if you didn't like that first one, you're really not going to like
> this one either
> The Speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
> Actual the Slowest
> This is why:
> EM waves travel faster than c at c+f if we calculate right angular
> motion of wave according to vector addition, c in the linear
> direction
> + whatever the angular speed is that creates cycles per time unite.
> In other words c plus the angular part of the cycle.
> ( Correction, I may
> change that to (cxf) to match (hf) and vector addition to
> sqrt(c^2+f^2).
> This is why higher frequency waves carry more momentum
> than lower frequency waves, because they have highe
> r kinetic energy from their higher speed. Rest
> mass travels at c^2 which is also faster than c, even though it
> appears at rest.
> According to relativity, a light wave travels at c in linear
> direction from perspective of observer.
>But from the perspective of the light
> wave, we are traveling at c in the opposite direction. On top of
> that, rest mass is also rotating. Furthermore
> if an object travels at a
> constant rate in a strait line, it is equal to not moving at all,
> according to Newton and currently accepted theory.
> So there you have it.
> What appears to be the fastest speed [c] is actually the slowest,
> and what appears to be the slowest.[rest mass
> ] is actually the fastest because c^2 is faster than c.
> Even if you take rest mass and add
> additional motion according to relativity its internal motion or time
> is suppose to slow down due to Lorentz contraction in direct
> proportion to this, thereby canceling out any additional speed.
> NEVERTHELESS we are ALL traveling FASTER than LIGHT ...
> ... ENJOY THE RIDE -- Conrad J Countess
> Why c^2 is faster than c
> When two vectors of motion are of equal force, and at right angle to
> each other, it creates a centripetal / centrifugal force balance
> giving rise to circular and/or spherical motion. And of course those
> who are familiar with me know that I have a theory / discovery that
> c^2 is a frequency at high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to
> matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical motion as the
> energy gets trapped in a closed loop. This happens when the frequency
> or angular speed is it's highest which is also at c. Analogous to a
> line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 inch in the
> right angular direction to create a square inch,
> c in the linear direction
> x c in the 90 degree or right angular direction will provide the
> necessary centripetal / centrifugal force balance to trap energy in a
> closed loop and create rest mass or matter.
> SEE:http://www.wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf
> wherein it says: -- E= mc^2 = E= mc^(circled) and c = sqrt(-1)

From: Androcles on 1 Jul 2010 03:31

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
news:58fo2617m55pc0kn99ethrj505pdqs82kg(a)4ax.com...
| On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 07:56:10 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
|
| >

| >If we don't agree the speed of light is constant you'll scream and
| >stamp your feet and poop your diaper and throw your pacifier
| >on the ground! Right, wabnigga?
|
|
| No, Andro

So the speed of light is c but the speed of rays are c-v, so rays
are not light, right, wabnigga?

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v", little doubts nibbling on
Einstein's soul, hahaha, how funny.



From: cjcountess on 2 Jul 2010 09:19
On Jun 30, 1:56 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> Yo, cj, the interns just informed me that you followed me
> with 2 posts of yours, to my tripe that I posted, in response to
> Androcles' beating up the besotted Wabnigga... ahahahaha...
> So, what do you wish me to do with, or say about, your post
> below?  --
> hanson
>

Hi Hanson

I wish you to say noting in particular

I was just getting in on the conversation with a different perspective
on relativity.

Glad to see that the discussion is still going because lots of new
things are comming into view

Conrad J Countess
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: * Hates US * admits failure in looking for his non-existent cite; PNAC of course NEVER said even remotely that it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks: COME SEE THE KOOKER FLAIL IN IMPOTENT RAGE!
Next: Debunking the Myths of Global Climate Change