Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 30 May 2005 11:06 cjcountess wrote: > [snip] > Are you saying that E=h*f_1 is better to use than E=h*1? Yes!!! UNITS!!! How often do I have to repeat that??? > I have no > problem using that if it will make things more clear. You ask: "one > cycle per what unite?" and I say whatever will still allow it to > maintain an energy of E=h*f_1 or 1 Planck unite. What on earth is "1 Planck unit"? > I still say that E=hf > = E=cf because h and c are both constants that give waves energy. Plain nonsense. Neither h nor c "give waves energy". They are merely used in *formulas* for *calculating* energies. Don't you see the difference??? Additionally, E=hf and E=cf taken together imply h=c. Do you *really* want to say that 6.626 * 10^(-35) J s = 3 * 10^8 m/s? If yes, do you also say that 2=3? Additionally, E=cf does not work due to the *************************************************************** ***********U***U*****NN**N*****I*****TTTTT******SSSS*********** ***********U***U*****NN**N*****I*******T*******S*************** ***********U***U*****N*N*N*****I*******T********SSS************ ***********U***U*****N**NN*****I*******T***********S*********** ************UUU******N**NN*****I*******T*******SSSS************ *************************************************************** Say, how often do I need to repeat that? > Planck's constant and the speed of light in its forward direction---> *sigh* A speed does not have a direction. > are both multiplied by the frequency to give it energy strength. What on earth is "energy strength", and when is Planck's constant ever multiplied by the speed of light? > They are equivalent. In no way. > So are c and the lowest frequency What makes you think there is one? > before it is > multiplied by anything above 1 as long as it has a Planct energy of 1. Incomprehensible word salad. > And on a graph with 1 horizontal line representing the speed and > direction of light, that line could also represent Planck's constant. WHY???????? > And verticle lines could represent the number of waves and or > frequency. NO!!!!!!!!!! The vertical lines represent the *amplitude*!!! They have *nothing* to do with the *frequency*!!! > And their intersection could represent divisions of c^2. WHY???????? > And so to bring things back into perspective of quantum gravity in 3 steps: You have not the *faintest* clue what "quantum gravity" actually means. > The horizontal and verticle lines representing steps 1 and 2, and when > the vertical energy equals the horizontal energy that is c^2, Planck's > constant x Planck's constant or c x c, and can be represented by a > circle or something analogous to the speed of light in uniform circular > motion and is step 3. Word salad. Gibberish. > c-|--|--|--|--|->c^2 Rest mass=0=c^2 0=c^2 is plain utter nonsense. Even you should be able to see that. Or do you also say 0=1? Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 30 May 2005 11:09 cjcountess wrote: > Suppose that the only true invarient or constant mass is that > equivelent to Planck's constant. What is "mass equivalent to Planck's constant" supposed to mean? > That all mass is realy relativistic mass. Such an assumption makes no sense, since relativistic mass is *defined* as mass due to motion. So if something does not move, it has only rest mass. It's that simple. > And that rest mass is also relativistic mass that is balenced > around a center of rotation. "balanced"????? > And its inner accelerated motion of > rotation resist outer attempts to accelerate its outer motion. How? > Like > hitting a high velocity rotating object will cause it to resist you all > around and just like a helicopter aquires a relative stillness or hover > effect by this same principle, I have not the faintest clue what you are talking about. > particles may obtain rest mass and > resistence from high velocity rotary motion. By chance, you got this *very* vaguely right. Actually, a lot of the mass of hadrons is due to internal motions. Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 31 May 2005 08:52 Breaking waves down into two components represented by horrizontal and verticle lines. ---------------------------> Horrizontal line represent centrifugal force or energy moving away from a souce in direction of arrow at c -------------|-------|----|--|-|-> Vertical lines represent centripital force or energy moving in tighter and tighter cycles per sec depending on energy, mass. Verticle lines represent frequency and waves because they represent the horrizontal line devided, or c / wavelength = frequency. Sense photons have momentum in the direction of their motion with energy depending on Planck's constant x frequency, the horrizontal line which represents c or the constant speed of light, can also represent Planck's constant, both which might be considered the constant direction of force? Sense both Planck's constant and c or the constant speed of light along the horizontal line, give photons momentum in that direction and are constants , they are equivalent and the common denominator in both equations E=hf and E=cf. Both contribute to the momentum in the direction of motion by a constant amount that is intensified by the frequency. Also sense the lowest frequency, longest wave must still have those same constants with a minimum frequency and predominant constant centrfugal force of c or h, this background dark energy which has also been identified with the cosmological constant expansive force may also be equivalent to c or h at lowest possible frequency whatever that is. Tracing energy back in frequency seems to lead to a pure centrifugal energy without frequency which seems to provide the basis for the buildup of frequency and centripital force. Thus the metaphor of waves emerging as disturbances of a field and the lake analogy. The 0 in 0 = rest mass was meant to be a symbol of a circle not zero and there is evidence that rest mass is relitivistic mass, will get back to you with it. cjcountess
From: cjcountess on 31 May 2005 08:55 Point well taken, must think about that some more. cjcountess
From: cjcountess on 31 May 2005 09:25
Evidence that rest mass is relitivistic mass? See this:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html Does mass change with velocity? At the end of the paper there is an addendum which contains: "Looking at this relativistic version of F = ma, we might say that when the (invariant) mass m appears, it's accompanied by a factor of ?, so that really it is the relativistic mass that's appearing. Isn't this then, a good reason why we might want to give the notion of relativistic mass more credence? Perhaps. But notice that now the acceleration is not necessarily parallel to the force that produced it. It's not hard to see from the above equations that it's easier to accelerate a mass sideways to its motion, than it is to accelerate it in the direction of its motion. So now, if we still want to maintain some meaning for relativistic mass, then we'll have to realise that it has a directional dependence--as if the object somehow has more mass in the direction of its motion, than it has sideways. Evidently the idea of relativistic mass is becoming a little more complicated than at first we might have hoped! And this is another reason why, in the end, it's so much easier to just take the mass to be the invariant quantity m, and to put any directional information into a separate, matrix, factor." cjcountess |