Prev: Circular orbit proves space curve round
Next: Instructors Manual for Microeconomics Principles and Policy by William J. Baumol, Alan S. Blinder 11th Edition (2009) is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
From: cjcountess on 30 Jun 2010 13:02
The Title of the Last Post was mistakenly omitted and should read

"The speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
Actually the Slowest."

Isn't that something

How dare I make such a statement

I must be either crazy or very confident, because this really turns
the ideas of physics upside down.

This scares people like inertia, who can do nothing to stop the
revolution/evolution that physics is going through.

He can only reveal his ignorance as he attempts to assert his
knowledge which is outdated.

He must have built his ideas on the old foundation that is crumbling
right under his feet and he is terrorfied

I am not even going to go through his errors step by step at this
time, because they are obvious to anyone objectively comparing what
each of us is saying objectively.

The evidence speaks for itself, and reveals both, who is revealing the
truth, and who is concealing it, either intentionally or
unintentional.


Tom Roberts


My purpose was to modify the statements


1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
observed

not

1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of
physical
systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.

But thank you for that correction, if I was wrong in calling these
postulates,

and thank you for the rest of that physics lesson, although I don't
know if it was meant as a correction to what I stated, or just
additional information.

So you tell me, are you refuting what I stated or just adding to it?

Because the statements that I mentioned are always associated with
relativity and do have a profound effect on our interpretation of
nature, as I think that I clearly demonstrated.


Thomas Hager

I would be very interested in seeing your theory
From: PD on 30 Jun 2010 16:06
On Jun 29, 7:38 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> The postulates
>
> 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
>
> 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> observed

Neither of these are the postulates of relativity.

But as to your point above, if you are confused about angular speed in
an oscillation and linear speed through space, and you think that the
postulates leave open the ambiguity as to which is meant, why the HECK
can't you examine those statements in context to learn what was meant,
rather than wasting time whether it is one or the other?

>
> In Question
>
> Doppler effect demonstrates that frequency reflected off object in
> motion, increases in direction of motion, and decreases in opposite
> direction in direct proportion to the said speed of object and that is
> how radar detects direction and speed of objects.
>
> It is as though motion of object is being added to or subtracted from
> frequency of light.
> Also along with increase of frequency comes increase of kinetic energy
> relative mass and momentum.
>
> Einstein was able to conclude that energy of photon is (E=m/c^2) that
> energy of matter is (E=mc^2) and that if matter loses energy in form
> of radiation its mass deceases by (m=E/c^2)
>
> From all this one might conclude that higher frequency which
> translates to higher relative mass and kinetic energy as we;ll as
> higher momentum was due to higher speed of photon if not in linear
> direction at least in angular direction as indeed there are more
> cycles per time unit which can only mean higher speed in that
> direction.
>
> Planck discovered that (E=hv) later stated as (E=hf) that the higher
> the frequency the higher the  energy, the shorter the wavelength, and
> more particle like the photon became as well as the harder it hit
> photo- electric plates to dislodge electrons.
> Thus the formula (E=hv) is analogous to and seemingly equal to (F=mv)
> for force of material objects and its extended version (E=hf/c^2)
> corresponds to (F=mv/r^2)
>
> deBroglie latter realized that (E=hf=mc^2) at level of electron that
> electron is also a wave and that the only thing separating them is
> amount of momentum.
>
> Why then are these postulate not amended to
>
> 1) The speed of light is constant and the highest in linear direction,
> but varies in angular direction.
>
> 2) The higher the frequency, the higher the speed (cycles per time
> unit) and at (c^2), which is (c in circular and or spherical
> rotation), a particle attains rest mass.
>
> see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
>
> were it states "The radiated power eventually goes to zero at infinite
> frequencies" under solution
> This indicates that at highest frequency which they thought of as
> infinite, radiation stopped, which it does but for reasons that it
> attains rest mass.
>
> This would eliminate the idea of the ultraviolet catastrophe for
> photon as well as quantum particles which require renormalization, the
> idea of point particles and probability wave and  that formula
> {psi  = (x, t)^2} become equal to (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) because it
> is exactly the turning of the wave into a particle at (c^2) by giving
> it circular and or spherical rotation that make the probability of
> finding the particle within the wave equal to finding the wave in the
> particle because at (c^2) the wave becomes the particle.
>
> We might also include that frequency does not diverge to (v^2)
> interpreted as infinity it converges to (c^2) which is rest mass
>
> Conrad J Countess

From: Thomas Heger on 30 Jun 2010 20:44
cjcountess schrieb:
> The Title of the Last Post was mistakenly omitted and should read
>
> "The speed of Light is not the Highest Speed in the Universe it is
> Actually the Slowest."
>
No, that's not true, but near. You have two things, one is a structure
(or maybe a pattern) that is at rest (in respect to itself). But
something connects these patterns and that has to move. But it doesn't
move in space, because 'space' is actually defined by light. We measure
space with distances of *light*-years.
The connections 'live' in an other space I call spacetime and that I
take for 'real'. Than our perception of this is like a cut, based on our
own position. In this space we have connections, that could appear as
things or as fields. These are inverses to each other and the field
appears static, because it connects without delay (is 'timeless') or
with infinite speed. That is in fact faster than light, but for the
structures we have the opposite relation and those cannot exceed c.
Where both behaviors meet, we find light, that is just in the middle
between particle and field. So we have two imaginary unit: i for time
and i^-1 for fields and a one for space.

> Isn't that something
>
> How dare I make such a statement
>
> I must be either crazy or very confident, because this really turns
> the ideas of physics upside down.
>
> This scares people like inertia, who can do nothing to stop the
> revolution/evolution that physics is going through.
>
> He can only reveal his ignorance as he attempts to assert his
> knowledge which is outdated.
>
> He must have built his ideas on the old foundation that is crumbling
> right under his feet and he is terrorfied
>
> I am not even going to go through his errors step by step at this
> time, because they are obvious to anyone objectively comparing what
> each of us is saying objectively.
>
> The evidence speaks for itself, and reveals both, who is revealing the
> truth, and who is concealing it, either intentionally or
> unintentional.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
>
>
> My purpose was to modify the statements
>
>
> 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
> 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> observed
>
> not
>
> 1. (the Principle of Relativity) The laws by which the states of
> physical
> systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes be
> referred to the one or the other of any two inertial frames.
>
> But thank you for that correction, if I was wrong in calling these
> postulates,
>
> and thank you for the rest of that physics lesson, although I don't
> know if it was meant as a correction to what I stated, or just
> additional information.
>
> So you tell me, are you refuting what I stated or just adding to it?
>
> Because the statements that I mentioned are always associated with
> relativity and do have a profound effect on our interpretation of
> nature, as I think that I clearly demonstrated.
>
>
> Thomas Hager
>
> I would be very interested in seeing your theory
Well, that is possible. (Actually I'm only a hobbyist, so there might be
some mistakes.)
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
This is a google.doc presentation. That I have use for weird reasons as
pseudo-webpage. But you can download the file with the little arrow
'actions' as pdf.

TH
From: cjcountess on 3 Jul 2010 10:49
Thomas Hager

Very interesting, will read your paper when I can really sat down and
give it the proper concentration.

I am incline to agree with much of what you said and will prepare a
better description of my own views. What I posted ealier was just the
begining and as such is not as complete and clear as it could be

PD, Whoever, Inertia

What are your realities if any,
all you do is critisize

Inertia you still don't recognize E=hf/c^2 as an equation

I showed you this before

http://books.google.com/books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=E%3Dhf/c2&source=bl&ots=QxaQOOHo7J&sig=SJAKOGgTecrpltemPYvypENdNRI&hl=en&ei=X0QvTIGXOYL7lwfd0ej1CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=E%3Dhf%2Fc2&f=false

and you don;t think that light has angular motion and momentum?

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm

PD

It is clear to me that you have no idea of what I am talking about, or
for that matter, what you are talking about. As such, it is hard to
know even where to begin answering you.


I don't know what to think of you

You always critisixe but have no solutions of your own, are you
jealous because I have one of the greatest discoveries since
relativity and quantum theory and you know it. You think that if
enougth of you attact my theory I will become discouraged and otheres
will not reguard it and it will go away.

PD

it is not going away, it is here to stay because the evidence is so
clear that it speaks for itself, louder than any titles or degrees,
that any of you, who are afraid to even use your own names, may have

It even speaks louder than I, its author, and if I make a mistake here
and there, it still does not invalidate the therory/discovery, it is
sound, solid and one of the greatest of all times.

I know that it is a great discovery and many of you can't stand it,
but its done, its out there, and I "Conrad J Countess" am the
discoverer.

I is amusing whatching all of you fight against something for which
you have no win.

Whoever

I will prepare a more thorough explination keeping in mind all that
all of you said. I know this theory goes against the grain of
established excepted physics and turns the foundatios of moderen
physics, "the constancy of the speec of light and c as highest speed"
upside down.

And so this better and shall be GOOD.

Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 3 Jul 2010 12:50
You'er a hobbist and so there may be some mistakes?

Man you make more sense than many of these others on this site.

It is out of the box thinking, and what I think is required to get to
the whole truth of it.

I wrtoe a book "Cosmic alignment with the Cosmic Mind and Cosmic
Pattern"
containing simular ideas.

The idea that "c", is the slowest instaed of the highest speed, came
to me after the books publication and is not itself fully developed.

But the very idea excites me, provides me an energitic and seemingly
solid ground, upon which to build a physical theory, not to mention
that it turns physics on its head.

What if I can prove it?


The very facts that "c" and "h" are constants indicates a stibility of
thes constants in the motion of things containing these constants

As I see it (c = h) and just as the speed of light is constant in the
linear direction reguardless of frquency, and has the constant mass/
energy of h, also reguardless of frequency, indecates to me that the
constant mass/energy of h comes from the kinetic energy of the
constant speed of light in the linear direction, which gives it an
inertia to continue in that direction.
From another perspective (c = h), might be considered the "ground
state" of the universe, as the foundation upon which all waves and
rest mass particles arise from resistence to the speed limite and
ground state, and oscilate about, analogous to orbiiting.

The equation (E=hf), previously writen as (E=hv), is analogous and
directly corresponding to, (F=hv) and its extended version, (E=hf/c^2)
is likewise to (F=Mm/r^2).



Conrad J Countess
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Circular orbit proves space curve round
Next: Instructors Manual for Microeconomics Principles and Policy by William J. Baumol, Alan S. Blinder 11th Edition (2009) is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.