Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 1 Jun 2005 06:22 cjcountess wrote: > 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? I know that page quite well, thanks. Don't you remember that it was me who gave you this link? > 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." Right. Why on earth do you think this supports your assertion that rest mass is relitivistic mass in any way??? It does do that in no way! Could you please try improving your reading comprehension skills? Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 1 Jun 2005 06:20 cjcountess wrote: > 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 The first part is plain utter nonsense. The horizontal line has *nothing* to do with a force, centrifugal or otherwise. It simply represents the direction in which the wave is travelling. Thereby, it also represent the direction in which the energy is moving; you got that part right. You *do* know what "force" actually means in physics, don't you? You *do* know what "energy" actually means in physics, don't you? You *do* know how the two are related, don't you? > -------------|-------|----|--|-|-> > Vertical lines represent centripital force or energy moving in tighter > and tighter cycles per sec depending on energy, mass. Plain utter nonsense. The vertical lines represent the amplitude of the wave. They have nothing at all to do with any forces, nor with any energy movement. > Verticle lines represent frequency No, they don't. They represent *amplitude*. Could you *please* try to get at least the *most* *basic* things right? Come on, this is high school physics, at best! > and waves because they represent the horrizontal line devided, Huh? > or c / wavelength = frequency. Indeed. But what has that to do with what you said above??? > Sense photons have momentum in the direction of their motion with > energy depending on Planck's constant x frequency, Right. > the horrizontal line which represents c or the constant speed of light, It doesn't. It represents the *direction* of motion, nothing more. > can also represent > Planck's constant, That's a complete *non sequitur*. > both which might be considered the constant direction of force? No. There is no force involved here. > Sense both Planck's constant and c or the constant > speed of light along the horizontal line, give photons momentum in that > direction They don't. > and are constants, they are equivalent That's a complete *non sequitur*. > and the common > denominator in both equations E=hf and E=cf. The second equation is utter nonsense and makes not the slightest bit of sense, as I explained now about 10 times. Don't you listen at all? > Both contribute to the > momentum in the direction of motion by a constant amount that is > intensified by the frequency. Plain nonsense. > Also sense the lowest frequency You still have not explained why you think that this exists. > longest wave must still have those > same constants with a minimum frequency and predominant constant > centrfugal force of c or h, Neither c nor h have anything to do with a force, centrifugal or not. > 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. Gibberish. Word salad. Plain utter nonsense. One of the greatest non sequiturs I've ever seen. You *still* have not the *faintest* clue how physics actually works, how one derives equations, how one arrives at logical conclusions, etc. You only have some gut feelings "that resembles that, that is related to that, that has to do with that" and from that jump to the totally unwarranted conclusion "that is identical to that", without bothering to actually learn something about logic, math and physics first. > Tracing energy back in frequency seems to lead to a pure centrifugal > energy "centrifugal energy" makes no sense at all. > without frequency Without frequency, there is no energy left in the wave. There is not even a wave left. > which seems to provide the basis for the > buildup of frequency and centripital force. Non sequiturs. > Thus the metaphor of waves > emerging as disturbances of a field and the lake analogy. That's not a metaphor, that's actually true. But you manage to garble this picture totally. > The 0 in 0 = rest mass was meant to be a symbol of a circle not zero Well, a circle also is not equal to c^2. Even you should be able to see that. You apparently fail to understand what "=" actually means in equations. You seem to think it means something like "has to do with" or "is related to". It doesn't. It means *is equal*. "equal" as in 1=1. Not as in 0=1. > and there is evidence that rest mass is relitivistic mass, In some very special cased, yes. Not the ones you mentioned. And you wouldn't recognize evidence if it bit your nose. [snip] Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 2 Jun 2005 10:36 To me it is becoming clearer and clearer not only that I am right but that you are thinking to rigidly. But that is ok. It just gives us more exercise in communication 1.The constant velocity of light exerting a centrifugal force in the direction of motion can also represent Cosmological constant, Dark Energy, and Planck's constant and is represented by horizontal line. -----------------------------------------> c 2.Constant velocity of light times the frequency oscillation represented by vertical line multiplies energy in direction of motion as E=cf or E=hf until it reaches E=cc or E=c^2 | < represents vertical motion 3.cc or c^2 results in something analogous to" the velocity of light in uniform circular motion" and "rest mass", and can be represented by a circle O. This exerts energy, relative mass, and momentum in direction of motion around a center of rotation and results in rest mass.. >From here the Universe is built up in multiples and divisions of c^2. I think that the reason this was not seen before is that c^2 has never been seen as the velocity of light in some sort of uniform circular motion and rest mass is not seen as relativistic mass equally distributed around a center of rotation on the quantum level. The basic idea is correct with the details to be made more accurate and the criticism will only help. Eventually I want to be able to explain this idea with one horizontal line, one vertical line, and a circle. cjcountess
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 3 Jun 2005 05:51 cjcountess wrote: > To me it is becoming clearer and clearer not only that I am right but > that you are thinking to rigidly. And to me it is very clear now that you are a total crackpot with no clue of physics, math and logic, but with a totally inflated ego and arrogance. Any discussion with you is pointless. You simply ignore the arguments and repeat your nonsense again and again. <http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html> [snip nonsense] Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 3 Jun 2005 07:26
cjcountess wrote: [snip] > 1.The constant velocity of light exerting a centrifugal force in the > direction of motion Nonsensical statement. 1) A velocity does not exert a centrifugal force. 2) Centrifugal forces are not in the direction of motion, but perpendicular to it, and occurs only for curved motions (and are only pseudo-forces). > can also represent Cosmological constant, Dark > Energy, and Planck's constant Plain utter nonsense, as I explained in detail several times now. You keep ignoring the arguments. > and is represented by horizontal line. > -----------------------------------------> c A horizontal arrow, you mean. > 2.Constant velocity of light times the frequency oscillation > represented by vertical line The vertical lines do not represent frequency. How often do I need to repeat that basic, obvious fact? > multiplies energy in direction of motion Meaningless statement. Saying that something "multiplies energy" makes little sense, and energy has no direction, so saying "energy in direction of motion" makes no sense. > as E=cf That equation 1) is wrong due to the units 2) contradicts observations 3) has nothing to do with what you said directly before ("constant velocity of light time the frequency oscillation multiplies energy") > or E=hf E=hf is right. E=cf is wrong. > until it reaches E=cc or E=c^2 That equation 1) is wrong due to units 2) contradicts observations 3) has nothing to do with what you said directly before (how on earth could E=cf or E=hf "reach" E=cc ???) > | < represents vertical motion You conveniently ignore that in most waves (like e.g. electromagnetic waves), there is not really something material moving perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation. > 3.cc or c^2 results in something analogous to" the velocity of light in > uniform circular motion" Plain utter bullshitting nonsense. > and "rest mass", Plain utter bullshitting nonsense. > and can be represented by a circle O. Plain utter bullshitting nonsense. > This exerts energy, relative mass, and momentum in direction > of motion around a center of rotation c^2 is a constant of nature squared. This cannot "exert" anything. And: "momentum in direction of motion around a center of rotation" makes no sense at all. >and results in rest mass.. Plain utter bullshitting nonsense. > From here the Universe is built up in multiples and divisions of c^2. Meaningsless, nonsensical statement. Most things in the universe are *not* multiples or divisions of c^2. > I think that the reason this was not seen before is that c^2 has never > been seen as the velocity of light in some sort of uniform circular > motion Because that's plain utter bullshitting nonsense. > and rest mass is not seen as relativistic mass equally I already told you that in some special circumstances, *not* the ones which you talked about, rest mass is partly due to relativistic mass. > distributed around a center of rotation on the quantum level. Meaningsless, nonsensical statement. You have no clue what "quantum" actually means. > The basic idea is correct No, it is plain utter bullshitting nonsense. > with the details to be made more accurate and the criticism will only help. It would help even more if you would learn the most basic things about physics. > Eventually I want to be able to explain this idea with one horizontal > line, one vertical line, and a circle. Give up. You are only going deeper and deeper into crankdom. Bye, Bjoern |