Obsticales to scientific progress
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Whats happening in Ceramics Field?
Next: Relativity Researcher: Increase Your Research Productivity with the Leading Web 2.0 Research Portal
From: cjcountess on 22 Dec 2009 15:21 Go tell it on the Mountain - Go Tell it on the Internet This is such a SIMPLE, yet PROFOUND Discovery, it must be told A new REVOLUTION in physics, revolves around THIS (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c= sqrt-1) By CONRAD J COUNTESS Quantum Gravity in 3 STEPS 1) c in linear direction 2) x c in 90 degree angular direction 3) = 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle and balence of centripital and centrifugal forces = c in circular motion, with wavelength = (cx2pi) with angular momentum (h/2pi) and rest mass = to G. After this simple geometrical discovery, everything just falls into place naturaly. c^2 as the ultimate L/T^2 = G which also = L/T^2. And so c^2 = h/2pi = G and c = h = r or radius of circle = sqrt-1 = 2pi in this special case. All constants of nature, that I examined so far, can be directly related to c. This seems to be a law of nature, which too, may have profound effects. I am so completely in awe. I do not have to fabricate anything, the idea has a momentum of its own. The style of my writing at time may be not just to develop the idea but also to sell it. But it seems to me to be selling itself starting with me. If I believe it to be true it radiates confidence, if I believe it to be beautiful it adiates adoration, if sound it radiates paitience. If all the above is true than it radiates wisdom. If this appears to be circular reasoning than the point of all my reasoning is to be circular as a self explanitory process. To connect the cause and effect with the objective itself. To make it so clear that it speks for itself and I can get out of the way. In this way the argument will attain rest mass, having stibility in motion and the gravitational attraction to attract you and be attracted to you and to reasonate with what you know to be. When it attains rest mass, I can get out of the way, let the truth speak for itself, and rest my case. The truth has its own beauty, confidence, and wisdom. This project has put me in a state of "Zen". It to me, is so wonderful. I am simply expressing an idea as ancient as that of Zen, that matter is just a form of high vibrational formless primordial energy, irculating at the speed of light in circular and or spherical motion. E=mc^2 and m=Ec^2 as the universe expands and contracts coming into and out of form. Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 17:32 "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:4385fb19-d268-4fe8-b1e8-8815a3cfcd60(a)u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 19, 10:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:cd10333f-ae80-4da1-85ae-c15a7e4b8cbc(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> > On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons >> >> --------------------------- >> > just a little example of wrong paradigm: >> >> > E=hv ..... >> >> Yeup >> >> > and here you have the profe that >> > photon energy has mass !!! >> >> No .. it does show the energy of a photon is completely proportional to >> the >> frequency of light(and so frame dependent). Which would imply that there >> is >> no amount of the energy that come from a non-zero mass. Also, a non-zero >> mass cannot be accelerated to a speed of c with a finit amount of energy. > > Cough, I already proved a mass can reach celerity within one lambda. Your sentence is nonsense as it stands, as you've neither defined a value of celerity, nor to what lambda refers. If you mean you have proven a particle with mass can achieve a speed of c, then I'd like to see how. If you mean instead that it can achieve a speed as close to 'c' as you want, then thats fine .. all you need is enough energy.
From: Autymn D. C. on 23 Dec 2009 08:00 On Dec 22, 2:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:4385fb19-d268-4fe8-b1e8-8815a3cfcd60(a)u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 10:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:cd10333f-ae80-4da1-85ae-c15a7e4b8cbc(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > >> > On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons > >> >> --------------------------- > >> > just a little example of wrong paradigm: > > >> > E=hv ..... > > >> Yeup > > >> > and here you have the profe that > >> > photon energy has mass !!! > > >> No .. it does show the energy of a photon is completely proportional to > >> the > >> frequency of light(and so frame dependent). Which would imply that there > >> is > >> no amount of the energy that come from a non-zero mass. Also, a non-zero > >> mass cannot be accelerated to a speed of c with a finit amount of energy. > > > Cough, I already proved a mass can reach celerity within one lambda. > > Your sentence is nonsense as it stands, as you've neither defined a value of > celerity, nor to what lambda refers. Those are standard terms. > If you mean you have proven a particle with mass can achieve a speed of c, > then I'd like to see how. If you mean instead that it can achieve a speed > as close to 'c' as you want, then thats fine .. all you need is enough > energy. The proof is in a link in my "gimme money" thread; sith then, I learnd the Planck units are a limiting condition, and any ol wavespan would work; a convenient wavespan is of your ranging probe's peak--microwave or infrared, and therefore a mote's coherent width would be greater and its packet longer matches its signal speed. -Aut
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 08:22 "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:aa6cda93-82e4-48f0-936d-f16693883482(a)f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 22, 2:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in >> messagenews:4385fb19-d268-4fe8-b1e8-8815a3cfcd60(a)u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 19, 10:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>news:cd10333f-ae80-4da1-85ae-c15a7e4b8cbc(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons >> >> >> --------------------------- >> >> > just a little example of wrong paradigm: >> >> >> > E=hv ..... >> >> >> Yeup >> >> >> > and here you have the profe that >> >> > photon energy has mass !!! >> >> >> No .. it does show the energy of a photon is completely proportional >> >> to >> >> the >> >> frequency of light(and so frame dependent). Which would imply that >> >> there >> >> is >> >> no amount of the energy that come from a non-zero mass. Also, a >> >> non-zero >> >> mass cannot be accelerated to a speed of c with a finit amount of >> >> energy. >> >> > Cough, I already proved a mass can reach celerity within one lambda. >> >> Your sentence is nonsense as it stands, as you've neither defined a value >> of >> celerity, nor to what lambda refers. > > Those are standard terms. No, they aren't >> If you mean you have proven a particle with mass can achieve a speed of >> c, >> then I'd like to see how. If you mean instead that it can achieve a >> speed >> as close to 'c' as you want, then thats fine .. all you need is enough >> energy. > > The proof is in a link in my "gimme money" thread; As if I'd read a thread with that title .. ha! > sith then, I learnd > the Planck units are a limiting condition, and any ol wavespan would > work; a convenient wavespan is of your ranging probe's peak--microwave > or infrared, and therefore a mote's coherent width would be greater > and its packet longer matches its signal speed.
From: Autymn D. C. on 23 Dec 2009 09:46
On Dec 23, 5:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:aa6cda93-82e4-48f0-936d-f16693883482(a)f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in > >> messagenews:4385fb19-d268-4fe8-b1e8-8815a3cfcd60(a)u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Dec 19, 10:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >>news:cd10333f-ae80-4da1-85ae-c15a7e4b8cbc(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons > >> >> >> --------------------------- > >> >> > just a little example of wrong paradigm: > > >> >> > E=hv ..... > > >> >> Yeup > > >> >> > and here you have the profe that > >> >> > photon energy has mass !!! > > >> >> No .. it does show the energy of a photon is completely proportional > >> >> to > >> >> the > >> >> frequency of light(and so frame dependent). Which would imply that > >> >> there > >> >> is > >> >> no amount of the energy that come from a non-zero mass. Also, a > >> >> non-zero > >> >> mass cannot be accelerated to a speed of c with a finit amount of > >> >> energy. > > >> > Cough, I already proved a mass can reach celerity within one lambda. > > >> Your sentence is nonsense as it stands, as you've neither defined a value > >> of > >> celerity, nor to what lambda refers. > > > Those are standard terms. > > No, they aren't How would you know? Here're more foreign terms for you: sigma, hilfensvariable, freedom, O(x), attractor, plasmòn, evanescent, fibre bundle, residue, hýpergheometric, conformal. > >> If you mean you have proven a particle with mass can achieve a speed of > >> c, > >> then I'd like to see how. If you mean instead that it can achieve a > >> speed > >> as close to 'c' as you want, then thats fine .. all you need is enough > >> energy. > > > The proof is in a link in my "gimme money" thread; > > As if I'd read a thread with that title .. ha! Troll, leave. |