Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc2 and "The Tipping Point"
in [Physics]
|
Prev: really predicting the masses of elementary particles #569 Correcting Math
Next: More on why the cosmic ray/cloud cover connection is more importantthan greenhouse gases
From: cjcountess on 9 Apr 2010 10:50 Thank you spudnik, this is a great place to start. I came across a site that uses (sqrt logarithm of 2), to describe limits, which may also be called tipping points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY And this brings both our ideas into correspondence, as well as demonstrates very well, examples of what I mean by the exponential increase, such as increase in energy in the electromagnetic spectrum, is not infinite, because frequency converges to rest mass at c^2, it does not diverge to infinity, as so many currently believe. And likewise, so many things related to exponential growth on the macro scale, in our world, that effect us, does not either. The afore mentioned video articulates this very well I think, as well as uses something similar,or it may be the same, as that you mentioned. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 9 Apr 2010 16:57
Al why are you listing these dimensions as if they are evidence against me? If they are, be specific. Is not c^2, the ultimate v^2, and L/T^2. This makes (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) on the quantum level? And is not G measured as L/T^2, which makes c^2, which is the ultimate L/T^2, = to G, as the point on the EM spectrum where energy turns to matter, because it attains 1 quantum of gravity rest mass = to G? I use the equivalence principle to deduce this, and as I understand from your paper, you do not agree with the equivalence of gravity, acceleration, and inertial mass, or am I mistaken? Just what exactly is it that you disagree with in my most simple theory? Because I thought it was as simple and self explanatory as it can be. Do you believe that frequency is infinite yes or no? If so why? Is it because this is the current mainstream believe? If it is, I understand. It is hard to accept something that the mainstream physics community does not, at this time. One has to be very sure of believing something that the mainstream physics dont or risk looking like a fool. I am so sure of this though, and this is why I state and stand by it. As you can see, I do not believe that frequency is infinite. I stated that frequency converges to c^2, which is rest mass, as a circular and or spherical frequency/wavelength, such as binding energy, and standing spherical waves, the electron, being the prime example. This is where (E=hf), which a frequency measurement, = (E=mc^2), which is a matter measurement. And just as deBroglie stated, at the level of the electron, (E=hf=mc^2), and electron is also a wave. Even Einstein reasoned from the difference in frequency measurements of light coming from a moving frame of reference and a relatively still frame, that the mass of the emanating body decreased by L/c^2 or E/c^2, in todays terms. He also reasoned that rest mass had energy of E=mc^2. Both deBroglie and Einstein could have logically deduced from this that if photon energy is E=hf or M=L/^2, and matter has energy of E=mc^2 that c^2 is a frequency/wavelength where energy equals and turns to matter. Why they did not make that connection I do not know. But I find it to be an extremely interesting question. See Al, I dont mind discussing our differences. And if I am wrong, I will admit it. Will you? I am very confident that I am correct about this. and the evidence is piling up in support of it exponentially. Evidentially you will have to acknowledge it. You can save face now if you admit it, or you can continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper into denial of a truth you or anyone else cannot avoid for much longer. (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c = sqrt-1) Conrad J Countess PS People, you are witnessing a quite revolution in Physics, taking place in an off the mainstream physics site. Who would have thought? |