Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: FREE: Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Graph - No Interest?
Next: Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount ofenergy?
From: BURT on 2 May 2010 17:54 On May 2, 2:19 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "c", is the natural speed of raw electromagnetic energy, which takes > the natural form of traveling in a relativly straight, or wavey line, > at constant speed. > > The speed limit of "c", acts as a wall of resistence, which prevents > this raw energy from going any faster in this liniear direction. > > Increases in energy is deflected off of this wall of resistence, > displacing itself, in the angular direction, which creates waves. The > more energy - the shorter thw waves. > > Energy in its ground stated, at lowest level, moves in relatively > straight line, at constant speed of "c", and as such, is in a sense, > standing still, or not accellerating. > > And so "h" Planck's constant, which is the "energy of the constant > speed of light, in a straight line", is also euvalent to "the constant > mass of the photon", and as such, is like its rest mass, if moving at > constant speed, in straight line, is equivalent to being still. > > Thus (c=h) = "The rest frame of the Universe", and might be called > "the Aether, Higgs field, Background Dark Energy, zero point energy > field or Cosmological Constant, or what ever one choses to call it. To > me they are all the same, generaly, and I will not argue over the > details seperating each, unless they are of quantum leap importance. > > Still the constant speed of light "c" with its constant mass/energy of > "h", is the very foundation and central sun, around which all waves > and particles ocsilate, analogouse to orbiting. > > Thus the equation E=hf/c^2 is analogouse to F=Mm/r^2 with, (E = F), (h > = M) and (c^2 = r^2) for these equations. > > Isn't it interesting, that from this perspective, "c", which appears > as the fastest speed in the Universe, is actualy the slowest, and > "Rest Mass", which appears as the slowest, is actualy the fastest, as > indeed "c^2", is faster than "c", and "Rest Mass" is revealed to be > "relative mass", in circular and or sperical rotation. > > We are all moving faster than, "The Speed oflight" > > Enjoy the Ride > > Conrad J Countess Time from gravity pushes light. It slows in the atom.
From: cjcountess on 2 May 2010 18:43 (c = h), as "central sun" and constant, "mass/energy" around which all, "waves" and "rest mass" particles oscilated, analogous to "orbiting". And "c", which appears to be the fastest speed in the Universe, is actualy the slowest, and "rest mass", which appears as the slowest, is actualy the fastest, are revolutionary concepts, and literaly turns the concepts of physics on their head. This can be both exciting and disturbing. But don't we need to stir things up a bit? The old ideas of physics as they stood, were running out of time, and I merely turned the hour glass right side up, giving it more time, "The Big Bang" turns to "The Big Bounce", "E=mc^2, turns to m=Ec^2", "Lorentz Contraction," of EM waves, turns to "Space=Time Curvature" of EM waves, as Energy turns to Matter, Waves to Particles, Special Relativity to General Relativity, and Quantum theory. The evidence was right under our noses all the time. All I did was to connect the points of scientific evidence, through a line of logic, or put together already known points of already established evidence, in some cases, to reveal a previously unseen, an emergent picture, of beautiful problem solved. IT is a Masterpeice Conrad J Countess
From: Sam Wormley on 2 May 2010 21:46 On 5/2/10 5:43 PM, cjcountess wrote: > The evidence was right under our noses all the time. All I did was to > connect the points of scientific evidence, through a line of logic, or > put together already known points of already established evidence, in > some cases, to reveal a previously unseen, an emergent picture, of > beautiful problem solved. > > Uncle Al is right! http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
From: hanson on 3 May 2010 04:44 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Mitch Raemsch aka BURT wrote: E = MC Squared. Why is mass related by the square of light speed? > "Tom Roberts" wrote: [Your "C" is normally notated in lower case, which I'll use.] You got it wrong. In that equation c is not really the speed of light -- calling it that is merely an accidental historical curiosity (see below). In that equation, c is actually [snip] just a units conversion factor, relating the unit of time to the unit of distance. Historically we use seconds and meters, [snip] to make c be a very large number with units [of] meters/second. [BUT] most theoretical physicists use units in which c=1 (and is unitless); that is, we use the same unit for both time and distance (most commonly cm; for time, 29.9792458 cm = 1 nanosecond). > hanson wrote: ahahahaha... you might have added as well that G/c^2 is "just a units conversion factor relating the unit of distance with the unit of mass" .. and confuse Raemsch even more & convince yourself ever deeper...... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... > Roberts , notwithstanding poster JP Androcles' criticism about your "fast Lorentz transform" you as the NG/cyber teacher here do owe folks a better explanation, then what you just gave in that paragraph above, because you just said above that **length is time** and that a the** light speed is dimensionless**... ahahahaha....yeah right, but most folk here are not theoretical physicists and you do not need to convince yourself. So, have another crack at it and specifically address, why is it the "square" of "c" & not "^1.99 or ^2.001", & why has "c" that particular numerical value & not some other one. > Do it on a level that Raemsch cannot smack you down with his standard, "God did/wanted/willed it that way" but that Raemsch will light up & say: "Roberts, you made mine eyes to see the real glory. Thank you, Roberts". Till then thanks for the laughs, Tom. ahahahaha... ahahahanson "Tom Roberts" wrote: > So in the above equation, c is merely converting the units between mass > and energy. If you look in the Particle Data Group publications, you'll > see they list the masses of particles in MeV, which is at base a unit of > energy; clearly they are using c=1 (this is standard in particle physics > for units of mass, momentum, and energy). > > The reason c is also called the speed of light, and the reason that > historical curiosity occurred in the first place, is that light "just > happens" to travel with the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform. That > is one of the more remarkable facts about the world we inhabit, and its > effect on theoretical physics is profound. > Tom Roberts > hanson wrote: Tom, it is not easy, maybe not possible at all, to teach remedial physics to folks when they are past their formative years & after their Rabbis, Priests, Reverends & Imams have brainwashed them, already earlier, with their respective religo-theological agenda. > I have long given up to teach anything, to anybody here, but I do marvel at & even envy the folks who were/are successful in their lives without having needed any knowledge of modern physics & got by with very little arithmetic, let alone algebra & math... 1) So much for the success of the teachings by the clerics.. and 2) So much for the abscess of a progressive/secular education. Even the attempt of the Zios to establish a new age Einstein worshipper cult has miserably failed, as it produced nothing but a horde of useless Einstein Dingleberries... ahahaha... > There is a medieval saying: "God loves the poor; that's why he made so may of them" ... Now, replace "poor" with "mentally feeble".. and you will discover that this issue has already been covered by the religious priesthood, as they simply invoke an edict, allegedly by god's son, Jesus, who promised his disciples that the morons amongst them will get into heaven much easier then you, the intellectual, can ever hope for... > See Roberts, the clerics' type & kind of info transfer is brilliant & effective. It has no counter part in a secular progressive edu. Aux contraire, the info exchange type/MO we see in schools, and particularly here in sp, is subliminally & involuntarily geared, by the "intellectuals " here, to drive any inquirer back into the "loving, forgiving & understanding" fold of the Rabbis, Priests, Reverends and Imams... AHAHAHA.... AHAHAHA.... --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: hanson on 3 May 2010 04:45
Conrad "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > hanson wrote: <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f2e793227791609e> wherein there are these 2 operatuional questions: Mitch Raemsch BURT asked: "E = MC Squared Why is mass related by the square of light speed"? and hanson added: "Why is it numerically the size of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"? > to which "Conrad" reponded and wrote: > "c", is the natural speed of raw electromagnetic energy, which takes > the natural form of traveling in a relativly straight, or wavey line, > at constant speed. > The speed limit of "c", acts as a wall of resistence, which prevents > this raw energy from going any faster in this liniear direction. > Increases in energy is deflected off of this wall of resistence, > displacing itself, in the angular direction, which creates waves. The > more energy - the shorter thw waves. > Energy in its ground stated, at lowest level, moves in relatively > straight line, at constant speed of "c", and as such, is in a sense, > standing still, or not accellerating. > And so "h" Planck's constant, which is the "energy of the constant > speed of light, in a straight line", is also euvalent to "the constant > mass of the photon", and as such, is like its rest mass, if moving at > constant speed, in straight line, is equivalent to being still. > Thus (c=h) = "The rest frame of the Universe", and might be called > "the Aether, Higgs field, Background Dark Energy, zero point energy > field or Cosmological Constant, or what ever one choses to call it. To > me they are all the same, generaly, and I will not argue over the > details seperating each, unless they are of quantum leap importance. > Still the constant speed of light "c" with its constant mass/energy of > "h", is the very foundation and central sun, around which all waves > and particles ocsilate, analogouse to orbiting. > Thus the equation E=hf/c^2 is analogouse to F=Mm/r^2 with, (E = F), (h > = M) and (c^2 = r^2) for these equations. > Isn't it interesting, that from this perspective, "c", which appears > as the fastest speed in the Universe, is actualy the slowest, and > "Rest Mass", which appears as the slowest, is actualy the fastest, as > indeed "c^2", is faster than "c", and "Rest Mass" is revealed to be > "relative mass", in circular and or sperical rotation. > We are all moving faster than, "The Speed oflight" > Enjoy the Ride --- Conrad J Countess > hanson wrote: ahahahaha.. yes, I enjoy the ride, of course, & I hope that you duly impressed yourself with your very own perception and interpretation of nature. That is good. However, I do miss in your tripe any answer to the 2 operational questions: Mitch Raemsch BURT asked: "E = MC Squared Why is mass related by the square of light speed"? and hanson added: "Why is it **numerically** the size of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"? > So, Conrad, dream up a response and conjure up an answer which Mitch cannot smack down with: "God did/made/wanted it that way"... ahahahaha... > Till then, Conner, thanks for the laughs... ahahanson > PS: Don't mind the critizism by some old, washed up farts like Sam or rect-Al. Their time has come and gone. But don't blame them neither for them trying to be the keepers of "what was yesterday"... ahahaha.... |