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 13 Apr 2010 11:29 Since I ve been posting on this news group 2005, Ive noticed that lots of my post have been taken out of context and posted on other sites, even recently as with this http://www.groupsrv.com/science/post-3656582.html The best arguments of some, are put against my worst in some cases, and my best are often left out. Oh well, I guess that is what it will take for some of my components to convince onlookers that I am not correct about (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1). But the evidence here speaks for itself and cannot be denied. http://wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf I can list many instances of this. but I will not at this time. I am revolutionizing physics and I should expect lots of resistance, even underhanded resistance. So let the internet records show all arguments, dates, and places. Ive already won this debate!! I do appreciate sites such as http://www.physicsbanter.com/authors/11892-cjcountess.html http://sdp.mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6467493&tstart=0 http://science.kosmix.com/topic/max_planck/Forums that post my ideas in a more serious way, so that they can be objectively examined by others interested in the subject, and do want this to continue. I am sure that on balance when all is taken into consideration, this all works out as sure as I am that I have already won this debate and that the evidence is piling up so much for me that I can not even list it all. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 13 Apr 2010 17:34 Hi Al Nice T-shirt Mine will be much simpler, intuitive, and geometrical. And just as a picture is worth a thousand words, it will also contain much more info that the equation alone. Man you showed me a lot of stuff, and all seem to just restate the same old info that has been circulating for years concerning, E=mc^2. It is my Geometrical Interpretation, that adds the next step in the progression of physics, as it shows not only that E=mc^2, but exactly how energy and matter are equal and related through conversion factor of c^2. This is as I stated before, because c^2 is not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter with no geometrical structure, but is actually a conversion frequency/wavelength, where energy equals and turns to matter ,because it takes on a circular and or spherical motion, which gives it rest mass. Analogous to a line of 1 inch in the horizontal direction, x a line of 1 inch in the vertical direction, to = a square inch, c in the horizontal direction ,times c in the vertical direction, = c^2, and will create a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, which create circular and or spherical motion and rest mass. How simple, how profound? And just as (F=mv2) = (Gmm/r^2) can apply to circular motion, so too can (E=mc^2) = (hf/c^2) as these are equivalent on the quantum level. Simplifying things (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and (E = hf/c^2) = (F=Gmm/r^2), on the quantum level. And the same force that compresses energy into rest mass particles, cause them to gravitate together, neglecting like charges. Why didnt anyone see this before, and why are you refusing to see it now, as clear as I am making it? I am truly honored that I am the first to see this, and will argue it clearly and confidently, as I am sure that it is correct, and will take on anybody in the world, no matter how long they went to school, or how many degree they have, because this is something they couldnt learn in schools because they did not know it. This is awesome stuff. Conrad J Countess P.S. I wish I could challenge the best in the world on national TV, The History channel, PBS, Discovery, or something. But they would not challenge my findings because they know it is correct and so do you.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Apr 2010 17:42 On 4/13/10 4:34 PM, cjcountess wrote: > Hi Al > > Nice T-shirt > > Mine will be much simpler, intuitive, and geometrical. And just as a > picture is worth a thousand words, it will also contain much more info > that the equation alone. > > Man you showed me a lot of stuff, and all seem to just restate the > same old info that has been circulating for years concerning, E=mc^2. > > It is my �Geometrical Interpretation�, that adds the next step in the > progression of physics, as it shows not only that E=mc^2, but exactly > how energy and matter are equal and related through conversion factor > of c^2. This is as I stated before, because c^2 is not just a > mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter with no geometrical > structure, but is actually a conversion frequency/wavelength, where > energy equals and turns to matter ,because it takes on a circular and > or spherical motion, which gives it rest mass. > > Analogous to a �line of 1 inch in the horizontal direction, x a line > of 1 inch in the vertical direction, to = a square inch�, �c in the > horizontal direction ,times c in the vertical direction, = c^2�, and > will create a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, which > create circular and or spherical motion and rest mass. > > How simple, how profound? > > And just as (F=mv2) = (Gmm/r^2) can apply to circular motion, so too > can (E=mc^2) = (hf/c^2) as these are equivalent on the quantum level. > Simplifying things (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and (E = hf/c^2) = (F=Gmm/r^2), > on the quantum level. And the same force that compresses energy into > rest mass particles, cause them to gravitate together, neglecting like > charges. > > Why didn�t anyone see this before, and why are you refusing to see it > now, as clear as I am making it? > > I am truly honored that I am the first to see this, and will argue it > clearly and confidently, as I am sure that it is correct, and will > take on anybody in the world, no matter how long they went to school, > or how many degree they have, because this is something they couldn�t > learn in schools because they did not know it. > > This is awesome stuff. > > Conrad J Countess > > > P.S. > > I wish I could challenge the best in the world on national TV, The > History channel, PBS, Discovery, or something. But they would not > challenge my findings because they know it is correct and so do you. > > I had borrowed that bullshit meter you just broke, CJ!
From: Uncle Ben on 13 Apr 2010 22:11 On Apr 13, 5:34 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Al ..... > Why didnt anyone see this before, and why are you refusing to see it > now, as clear as I am making it? > There is an obvious answer to these questions that will be left to the student to answer. Unclev Ben
From: cjcountess on 14 Apr 2010 18:07
Sam and Ben What is your claim to fame? Mine is The Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), right or wrong. They say its a thin line between genius and insanity, and I will be known for one or the other when it all is said and done. I am betting it all on this idea. What are you betting on, anything at all? Well, you both are on record as being against my idea, and so you are betting a little of your rep on one side of this issue also. To bad its the loosing side. Everybody just can not see it, but it is as clear as day to me. Oh well, maybe I have a special vision or something The theory is correct, (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^2circled) and (c=sqrt-1), There is really no way around this, "most simplest, most profound", truth.. And I am honored to be the one to bring it to the world. Conrad J Countess |