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 29 Jun 2010 20:38
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

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: Inertial on 29 Jun 2010 20:57
"cjcountess" wrote in message
news:8ab49bd1-e65d-45a4-8866-0efe5f0fed27(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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

In vacuum, yes

> 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.

Sortof

> Also along with increase of frequency comes increase of kinetic energy
> relative mass and momentum.

Yeup

> 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

Nope

> 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.

Wrong

> Planck discovered that (E=hv) later stated as (E=hf)

That's the same thing

> 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)

Nope .. not at all or in any way .. other than there being three symbols and
an equal sign

> for force of material objects and its extended version (E=hf/c^2)

Wrong. that is no a formula for energy

> 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.

Because 'angular direction' is nonsense

> 2) The higher the frequency, the higher the speed (cycles per time
> unit)

That is frequency, not speed

> and at (c^2),

that makes no sense

> which is (c in circular and or spherical
> rotation), a particle attains rest mass.

Because it is all nonsense .. THAT'S why not

> 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.

Nonsense

> This would eliminate the idea of the ultraviolet catastrophe for
> photon

There is no catasrophe .. its all nicely handled by modern physics

> 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

All utter meaningless nonsense

From: Tom Roberts on 29 Jun 2010 23:46
cjcountess 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

Those cannot possibly give you SR, or anything remotely like it.

You absolutely must have this postulate:

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.

Indeed, with just that postulate and the "hidden postulates" of SR [#], one can
derive three theories based on the Euclid, Galilei, and Lorentz groups (this
illustrates the power of group theory). Only the third survives experimental
tests, and is known as SR.

[#] That is what Einstein called them in a 1907 paper; they are:
* the usual definition of inertial frames (on a flat manifold)
* space is homogeneous and isotropic
* time is homogeneous
* clocks and rulers have no memory

Note, in particular, that light is not mentioned at all. It is an EXPERIMENTAL
issue that the vacuum speed of light turns out to be equal to the constant c in
the Lorentz transforms. That leads to the identification of the constant c in
the Lorentz transforms with the constant c in Maxwell's equations, which then
leads to the unification of classical electrodynamics and SR (historically, SR
was derived from an assumption of that unification).

This confusion about multiple quantities with the same label "c"
is purely historical.


Tom Roberts
From: Thomas Heger on 30 Jun 2010 01:48
cjcountess schrieb:
> The postulates
>
> 1) The speed of light is highest possible speed in universe
>
With 'speed', we mean length traveled in a time interval. If we say
'length' is an multiple of some unit length, than these multiples build,
what we call space.
But we have forgotten the time intervals, that make up this length,
because c is the speed of light, what means time needed for some
distance in vacuum.
So we cannot say space = universe, but must take time into account.
Hence what we call space is what we could see from the universe, because
it is lying in our past. Other observers seeing us must be in a position
to see us, hence we cannot see them, because they are in our relative
future and we in their past.
Since the universe seem asymmetric about time and space isn't (because
we eliminated the time intervals), the universe itself is fundamentally
different to our vision.

> 2) The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer or
> observed
>
> 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
>
I really like your text, because it refers to a plausible mechanism.
This is to bring frequencies of a state into focus and how that transforms.
I had a similar idea, but more 'in volume'. This I wanted to model with
bi-quaternions. This is about complex rotations, that influence each
other, expand and contract, wrap around each other, curve, get trapped
or disintegrate.


TH
From: cjcountess on 30 Jun 2010 12:15
Hi this is Conrad J Countess, again

If you liked that first post you're really gonna like this one.

And if you didn't like that last one, you're really not going to like
this one either


Hi this is Conrad Countess


This is why:


EM waves travel faster than c at c+f if we calculate right angular
motion of wave according to vector addition, c in the linear
direction
+ whatever the angular speed is that creates cycles per time unite.
In
other words c plus the angular part of the cycle. ( Correction I may
change that to (cxf) to match (hf) and vector addition to
sqrt(c^2+f^2).

This is why higher
frequency waves carry more momentum than lower frequency waves,
because they have higher kinetic energy from their higher speed. Rest
mass travels at c^2 which is also faster than c, even though it
appears at rest.


According to relativity, a light wave travels at c in linear
direction
from perspective of observer. But from the perspective of the light
wave, we are traveling at c in the opposite direction. On top of
that,
rest mass is also rotating. Furthermore if an object travels at a
constant rate in a strait line, it is equal to not moving at all,
according to Newton and currently accepted theory.


So there you have it.


What appears to be the fastest speed  [c] is actually the slowest,
and
what appears to be the slowest.[rest mass]  is actually the fastest
because c^2 is faster than c. Even if you take rest mass and add
additional motion according to relativity its internal motion or time
is suppose to slow down due to Lorentz contraction in direct
proportion to this, thereby canceling out any additional speed.
NEVERTHELESS we are ALL traveling FASTER than LIGHT ...... ENJOY THE
RIDE


Conrad J Countess


Why c^2 is faster than c
When two vectors of motion are of equal force, and at right angle to
each other, it creates a centripetal / centrifugal force balance
giving rise to circular and/or spherical motion. And of course those
who are familiar with me know that I have a theory / discovery that
c^2 is a frequency at high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to
matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical motion as the
energy gets trapped in a closed loop. This happens when the frequency
or angular speed is it's highest which is also at c. Analogous to a
line of 1 inch in the linear direction x a line of 1 inch in the
right
angular direction  to create a square inch, c in the linear direction
x c in the 90 degree or right angular direction will provide the
necessary centripetal / centrifugal force balance to trap energy in a
closed loop and create rest mass or matter.


SEE:http://www.wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf




 |  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.