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 25 Apr 2010 15:54 Note this misrepresentation of my work from this site http://usenet4all.com/cgi-bin/news-article-list.pl?sci.chem%17354734 more specifically http://usenet4all.com/cgi-bin/news-article-show.pl?3c31393565303830662d663731382d343432302d623362632d3563356330366130306535324065323767323030307971642e676f6f676c656 It contains Planck discovered E=3Dhf, for photons Einstein discovered E=3Dmc^2, for electrons / matter deBroglie discovered E=3Dhf=3Dmc^2, at level of electron, which has -1 charge and that electron is also a wave. This indicates a smooth transition from energy to matter, along the same EM spectrum, which can also be considered the energy/matter spectrum, as well as the electromagnetic spectrum. Bohr discovered that wavelength of electron is equal to circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi. Therefore it follows from this and geometrical evidence that I presented that, (E=3Dmc^2) =3D (E=3Dmc^circled) and c =3D (sqrt -1) c^2 or c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction creates a 90 degree arc trajectory, which if constant creates a circle of energy, with an angular momentum =3D (h/2pi, and wavelength being inversely proportional, =3D (hx2pi). When the original post read: Planck discovered E=hf, for photons Einstein discovered E=mc^2, for electrons / matter deBroglie discovered E=hf=mc^2, at level of electron, which has -1 charge and that electron is also a wave. This indicates a smooth transition from energy to matter, along the same EM spectrum, which can also be considered the energy/matter spectrum, as well as the electromagnetic spectrum. Bohr discovered that wavelength of electron is equal to circumference of circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi. Therefore it follows from this and geometrical evidence that I presented that, (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (sqrt -1) c^2 or c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction creates a 90 degree arc trajectory, which if constant creates a circle of energy, with an angular momentum = (h/2pi, and wavelength being inversely proportional, = (hx2pi). From http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/browse_frm/thread/864df287c37c9891?scoring=d&q=cjcountess& more specifically http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/3b28f4d92caac83f?dmode=print It does not contain all the 3Ds in formulas like (E=3Dmc^2) =3D (E=3Dmc^circled) and c =3D (sqrt -1) and should just read (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and c = (sqrt -1) Of which I am proud of, and wish them to be stated just as I have presented them. It may very well be just due to a mistranslation of characters from one browser or program to another, and therefore not a deliberate attempt to misrepresent. If that is the case than I apologize and sincerely ask that the post be copied just as they are as I make enough mistakes on my own as all can tell, and do not need any help there. But those I usually catch and can explain, as just apart of the working out process. But the changes in the post, like those above, that I am not aware of until I stumble upon them, I cannot explain until I stumble upon them and they change the meanings dramatically. Besides, why would anyone want to sabotage a brilliant new revolutionary theory? Conrad J Countess
From: spudnik on 25 Apr 2010 17:55
second-powering has nothing per se to do with the regular tetragon; in "E=mcc," it has more to do with an expanding spherical wavefront (saith Bucky .-)... not a circle, though. > An idiot is not half way to being an idiot-savant. thus: ah, "21 chapters used less than 3/5 peer-reviewed studies;" wow. keep in mind that the other more-than-3/5ths, reviewed studies, are all predetermined to go with the "concensus" of the misnomer of "global" warming (per Ahrrenius's unmodeled "glass house" at some lattitude of Earth). thanks! thus: so, you're saying that photons (rocks o'light) are not waves in a medium (or "vacuum"), but is aether, itself?... wow. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." thus: all "photons" are readily absorbed by the correct tuner, generally a change of orbital of an electron, I suppose; all "photons" "go" at the speed of propagation of lightwaves, depending upon the index of refraction of the medium (given that there is really no vacuum "a la Pascal"). thus: but, dood, what in Hell do *you* mean, by "aether & matter are different states of the same material" -- why do atoms and electrons & antiatoms need "an other state" of themselves? thus: Skeptics were just another Greek cult under the Roman Empire; Peripatetics, Gnostics, Stoics, Epicureans etc. ad vomitorium. I recall also recently reading that Justice Kennedy had come out for WS in some moot court, but that he later came to Oxford ... most likely, because it serves his oligarchical worldview (or, it was Scalia). I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.). > On the contrary, others include Justices Scalia, OConnor, > Blackmun and Powell, as the WSJ article noted. Only two current > Justices (Breyer and Kennedy) openly support the Stratford man. thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |