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: spudnik on 4 May 2010 21:05 it merely conforms to all other known physics, the formula being discovered by Leibniz (mv^2), and "mass is apparently composed of energy." > The second power of the ultimate speed is used to define the > fundamental amount of energy in mass. But, why? thus: no-one is without bias; why do you say, that you are without bias? "rubber rulers" is just a simple thing: if matter is ultimately made of energy, then its internal workings can go no faster than light; so, what happens if the matter "approaches" that ultimate speed?... anyway, the Michelson-Morley results were never "nil," and their results have been refined by others. (would you like a reference?) thus: why should such analogy be used to insinuate that the redshift is dopplerian -- is there really a perfect vacuum, for lightwaves not to propogate in? was Hubble hounded into this interpretation, or was he such a self-promoter that he just said, Surely! > > 1) Draw spots on a rubber balloon and inflate. thus: what glaciers really do, while gently flowing out to sea in a dynamic stasis (well, on Antarctica and Greenland), is that the boulders stuck in the underside grind teh bedrock into dust (some times blown, later, into deposits of loess). [ref.: J.D.Hamaker, retired mechanical engr., who worked at an oil company.] thus: nor are most glaciers actually receding, although this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack of historical data on nearly all glaciers. satellite telemetry has shown almost no change of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, considering that there is as much ice as can be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, period." > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. thus: it's just a "paradox" of assuming that it is a photon, when it is merely a wave; obviously, a thing with p=mv not equal to zero, can't have one of the terms being zero; so, it is not a particle or Newtonian corpuscle -- and did they *have* to give Einstein a Nobel, just to reify that foolishness of his? > There is no mass in the momentum of the photon. thus: it's probably just his grasp of English; don't you think? as for "Newton's law," its universality is actually due to Kepler; Hooke merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints, using some work of Huyghens (then, Knewton stole the inverse second-power thing from Hooke, and destroyed Hooke's portraits .-) thus: I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place to measure CO2, it's still just one place, with a record since the '60s (I think). now, most of the effect of humans may not be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) thus: most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor on your so-called theory. but, why do you say that conversation of momentum supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum of light in some standard theory? and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force, merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > - The future determines the past > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: BURT on 4 May 2010 22:06 On May 4, 6:05 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > it merely conforms to all other known physics, > the formula being discovered by Leibniz (mv^2), and > "mass is apparently composed of energy." > > > The second power of the ultimate speed is used to define the > > fundamental amount of energy in mass. But, why? > > thus: > no-one is without bias; why do you say, > that you are without bias? > > "rubber rulers" is just a simple thing: > if matter is ultimately made of energy, then > its internal workings can go no faster than light; > so, what happens if the matter "approaches" > that ultimate speed?... anyway, > the Michelson-Morley results were never "nil," > and their results have been refined by others. > (would you like a reference?) > > thus: > why should such analogy be used > to insinuate that the redshift is dopplerian -- > is there really a perfect vacuum, > for lightwaves not to propogate in? > > was Hubble hounded into this interpretation, or > was he such a self-promoter that he just said, > Surely! > > > > 1) Draw spots on a rubber balloon and inflate. > > thus: > what glaciers really do, > while gently flowing out to sea in a dynamic stasis (well, > on Antarctica and Greenland), is that > the boulders stuck in the underside grind teh bedrock > into dust (some times blown, later, > into deposits of loess). > [ref.: J.D.Hamaker, retired mechanical engr., > who worked at an oil company.] > > thus: > nor are most glaciers actually receding, although > this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack > of historical data on nearly all glaciers. > satellite telemetry has shown almost no change > of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, > considering that there is as much ice as can > be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, > period." > > > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. > > thus: > it's just a "paradox" of assuming that it is a photon, > when it is merely a wave; obviously, > a thing with p=mv not equal to zero, > can't have one of the terms being zero; so, > it is not a particle or Newtonian corpuscle -- and > did they *have* to give Einstein a Nobel, > just to reify that foolishness of his? > > > There is no mass in the momentum of the photon. > > thus: > it's probably just his grasp of English; > don't you think? > as for "Newton's law," > its universality is actually due to Kepler; > Hooke merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints, > using some work of Huyghens (then, > Knewton stole the inverse second-power thing from Hooke, > and destroyed Hooke's portraits .-) > > thus: > I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; > am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place > to measure CO2, it's still just one place, > with a record since the '60s (I think). > now, most of the effect of humans may not > be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but > the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, > oil comes out of the ground, by itself, > under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy > in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) > > thus: > most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical > interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school > of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; > they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness > of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor > on your so-called theory. but, > why do you say that conversation of momentum > supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum > of light in some standard theory? > and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and > that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force, > merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort > of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > > > - The future determines the past > > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com Kinetic energy of mass is still mass. Mitch Raemsch
From: cjcountess on 5 May 2010 15:46 > > 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 thesquareof lightspeed"? > and hanson added: "Why is it **numerically** the > size of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"? > Thank you, I will address both question as they are simple, well stated, and are answered very simply also. Mass is equal to, and related to energy by "c^2", becaues "c^2", is not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, with no physical signifacanse, as "Sam Worthy", and others seems to think, it is a conversion frequency/wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum, where energy equals and turns to matter, because it takes on a circular and or spherical rotation. This is because c^2 is c in the liniear direction x c in the 90 degree angular direction, creating a balence of centrifugal and centripital forces that create circular and or spherical motion. This is where (E=hf)=(E=mc^2), (E=mc^2) = (h/2pi), and (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2). As to the second question, why is "c" used, instead of something else? it is simply because, "c" is a natural unit, and the only one that fits perfectly. (c = h), is the natural unit constant of energy and (c^2 = h/2pi--> "h/ 2pi/2" = G) is natural unit constant of rest mass. (c = h) as energy equals and turns to matter at (h/2pi -->"h/2pi/2" = c^2 = G) at the high end of the "EM", spectrum which is not only the "electromagnetic", spectrum, but also the "energy/matter" spectrum as well, and as such is where "E=hf=mc^2," as deBrolie stated. > 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....- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Point well taken Conrad J Countess
From: BURT on 5 May 2010 15:54 On May 5, 12:46 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 thesquareof lightspeed"? > > and hanson added: "Why is it **numerically** the > > size of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"? > > Thank you, I will address both question as they are simple, well > stated, and are answered very simply also. > > Mass is equal to, and related to energy by "c^2", becaues "c^2", is > not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, with no > physical signifacanse, as "Sam Worthy", and others seems to think, it > is a conversion frequency/wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum, > where energy equals and turns to matter, because it takes on a > circular and or spherical rotation. > > This is because c^2 is c in the liniear direction x c in the 90 degree > angular direction, creating a balence of centrifugal and centripital > forces that create circular and or spherical motion. > > This is where (E=hf)=(E=mc^2), (E=mc^2) = (h/2pi), and (E=mc^2) = > (F=mv^2). > > As to the second question, why is "c" used, instead of something else? > it is simply because, "c" is a natural unit, and the only one that > fits perfectly. > > (c = h), is the natural unit constant of energy and (c^2 = h/2pi--> "h/ > 2pi/2" = G) is natural unit constant of rest mass. > > (c = h) as energy equals and turns to matter at (h/2pi -->"h/2pi/2" = > c^2 = G) at the high end of the "EM", spectrum which is not only the > "electromagnetic", spectrum, but also the "energy/matter" spectrum as > well, and as such is where "E=hf=mc^2," as deBrolie stated. > > > 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....- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Point well taken > > Conrad J Countess Point particle cores are of infinite C squared density of energy in an infinitely small space "quantum." Mitch Raemsch
From: hanson on 5 May 2010 20:22
------- ahahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... --------- > "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote > Conner, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > hanson wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f2e793227791609e > > hanson wrote: ahaha... cj, 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 thesquareof lightspeed"? and hanson added: "Why is it **numerically** the size of "c" resp. "c^2" and not some other value"? > Conner wrote: Thank you, I will address both question as they are simple, well stated, and are answered very simply also. Mass is equal to, and related to energy by "c^2", becaues "c^2", is not just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter, with no physical signifacanse, as "Sam Worthy", and others seems to think, it is a conversion frequency/wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum, where energy equals and turns to matter, because it takes on a circular and or spherical rotation. This is because c^2 is c in the liniear direction x c in the 90 degree angular direction, creating a balence of centrifugal and centripital forces that create circular and or spherical motion. This is where (E=hf)=(E=mc^2), (E=mc^2) = (h/2pi), and (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2). > hanson wrote: Conner, some dimensions must have curled up and disappeared or gone into a different universe in your (E= (h/2pi) and with your (F=mv^2). .... ahahaha... But, may the force stay with you, though... > Conner wrote: As to the second question, why is "c" used, instead of something else? it is simply because, "c" is a natural unit, and the only one that fits perfectly. (c = h), is the natural unit constant of energy and (c^2 = h/2pi--> "h/2pi/2" = G) is natural unit constant of rest mass. (c = h) as energy equals and turns to matter at (h/2pi -->"h/2pi/2" = c^2 = G) at the high end of the "EM", spectrum which is not only the "electromagnetic", spectrum, but also the "energy/matter" spectrum as well, and as such is where "E=hf=mc^2," as deBrolie stated. > Mitch Raemsch, the great Gl�ubige vor dem Herrn, wrote: Conrad, Point particle cores are of infinite C squared density of energy in an infinitely small space "quantum." > hanson wrote: ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... See, Conner, Burt did NOT buy your stuff. Now, you two should get together and find the proper **Countess-Raemsch transformation**. It will be a seminal event! It'll open the possibility, for the 1st time, that inhabitants of 2 different universes, you Conner and Burt can properly communicate. Not only that, but all the establishment big shots here will begin to realize that one will not have to go far out & away in time and space nor even go thru worm holes to get into different universes... All these universe do exist & they are real... right here and now... in our own minds.... > I shall visit your universes from time to time... to contemplate and ROTFLMAO. Till then, guys, thanks for the laughs... AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |