Post Taken out of Context and Placed on Other Sites
in [Physics]
|
Prev: I am Isaac Newton, I am a spammer, do you want to know more abut Easter and Passover?
Next: Inside planets and stars masses
From: cjcountess on 14 Apr 2010 18:40 Historical Progression 1) In 1900 Planck discovered (E=hf), for photons 2) In 1905 Einstein discovered (E=mc^2), for electrons/matter 3) In 1924 deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) or (E=hf=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge, and that electron was also a wave. 4) In 1913 a few years earlier, Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi 5) Therefore it follows from this and following geometrical evidence, making it twice reinforced, that (E=mc^2) = (E= mc^circled) and c=(sqrt-1 ) If we draw progressively shorter waves on a graph, with progressively higher energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which create a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, and 90 degree arc, which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d, which happens if amplitude is constant, or we start with circular polarized wave.. This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle, (spin1/2) with angular momentum (h/2pi/2), and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half the cases, which is how electron gets its (-1 charge). In the other half of cases a forward spinning positron emerged of (+1 charge). A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/ matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically demonstrated. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 15 Apr 2010 12:08 Al What is wrong with you, you sound like a kid having a temper tantrum. If you do not agree with me, as is well known, than just say so, stop disrespecting me, yourself, and this whole forum, with your tantrums. You have argued yourself into a conner, which you cannot get out of, without stepping on the truth, and than still not without leaving tell tail foot prints. You are caught, dead wrong, and might as well admit it. I won, and nothing you can say will make you appear anything less than an old, bitter, washed up, idiot, fool, beaten by a unknown newcomer, after being a champion in so many eyes, for so long. It is kind of said to see old fighters who refuse to admit when they are beat, lose their dignity. You had better quit while you still have a touch of sanity left as you seem to be on the edge of a breakdown. I will not take pity on you if you continue to disrespect me and this forum, I will pin you down and expose you for the fraud that you are. Why don,t you present my ideas to Mensa, Al, lets see their response, and to Nova, lets see theirs also. I am a confident person, ain't I? Wonder where that comes from, or dont you know, knowledge of truth generates its own confidence. When you know that you have discovered something great, such as The Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), (c^2 = G = h/2pi or more accurately h/2pi/2), which unites Special and General Relativity as well as Quantum Theory, and (c = h = i), demystifying Quantum Gravity, The Uncertainty Principle, and the sqrt-1, three of the most interesting concepts in the world, and this is just a start, the energy and confidence is sometimes overwhelming. I can argue with the top theorist in the world on this, and feel confident that I will succeed, and that is why I am issuing a challenge to all top theorist to debate me, in a national or international forum, so there will be no excuses, opportunities to sabotage me, and no escape for either of us. My theory is correct Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 15 Apr 2010 12:22 E=mc^2, is the most famous equation in the world, by the most famous scientist, Albert Einstein. But the equation alone, reveals that energy and matter are equal and related through mathematical conversion factor ,c^2, but does not explain how. This geometrical interpretation does, raising the art and science of it, to a higher level. Is there anyone out there with the connections and the guts to debate this, or just to discuss this, pro or con, in a forum, more accessible to the public and mainstream scientist? Come on people this is an important subject and discovery if it is correct. And we are on the internet which is the most connected entity in the world. Or is everyone just afraid Ill make you famous!! Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 15 Apr 2010 12:48 Al, you must live on the computer, it did not take you any time to respond. Dont you know when you are beat ? You dont do anything but call names, and offer unrelated data ,that shows nothing more than that you are perhaps an encyclopedia of facts. But just as a tape recorder can regurgitate facts as accurately as they are stated, which might be considered intelligence by some teachers, if demonstrated by students, still a tape recorder cannot understand, elaborate on, or explain, what it records, and cannot tell if what they have learned is true, false, or incomplete. Have you ever had an original thought in your life, have you ever truly understood or discovered anything? Man, I tell you it is awesome. But these ideas need public exposure also, people to discuses them, pro and con. I dont care what side you get on, just lets do it in a public arena. This is the type of idea that will generate much public interest, whether it is right or wrong, and those who debate it, pro or con, will get exposure for themselves also, and a chance to put forth there own ideas. This can work out for any and all who can and are willing to do it. Like I said, I don;t care if you are for or against it, as I am confident enough to hold my own. This could very well be a public service and peak the interest in the sciences, that may be lacking in the young people, and the general population. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 18 Apr 2010 16:17
Just look at the complexity of E=mc^2 as explained by these sites which Uncle Al, offers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence> http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/computergear_2096_5976884 <http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/einsteins-derivation-of-emc2/ > <http://www.relativitycalculator.com/E=mc2.shtml> http://www.vectorsite.net/tprel_3.html And compare it with what I offer. Sure there is a lot of stuff included that explains things that I dont. But in order to understand, not just that (E=mc^2), meaning that energy and matter are equal and related through mathematical conversion factor c^2, but actually how they are equal and related through c^2, because energy takes on a circular and or spherical rotation due to a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces giving it rest mass, one must use my approach of geometry. Analogous to a line of 1 inch in horizontal direction, x a line of 1 inch in the vertical direction, to equal a square inch, c in the horizontal direction x c in the vertical direction = c^2, which is c in circular and or spherical rotation with rest mass. And thud (c^2 = cx2pi = h/2pi, or more accurately, h/2pi/2 = G) And (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) (c=h=i) Simple yet Profound This solves the mystery of (Uncertainty Principle), (Quantum Gravity) and (sqrt-1) I am beginning to think that I am dealing with a bunch of idiots around here, especially Al Swartz, the biggest idiot of them all..You are all witnessing a revolution in physics and neither of you has the brains or guts to admit it. One thing is for sure, the debate is already won. Conrad J Countess |