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 6 May 2010 21:58 On May 5, 5:22 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > ------- ahahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... --------- > > "BURT" <macromi...(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 Gläubige 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: n...(a)netfront.net --- dWhy shoulf the universal speed limit squared relate energy to mass? Why is that relationship fundamental? Mitch Raemsch
From: hanson on 7 May 2010 10:47 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote... "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(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 > Raemsch wrote: dWhy shoulf the universal speed limit squared relate energy to mass? --- Why is that relationship fundamental? Mitch Raemsch > hanson wrote: "fundamental" it is, as of today, because that is how deep we have been able to "dig" into the "fundament" of nature. --- Maybe in the future we'll find and measure new items/events/processes that reveal an even deeper fundamental level of nature. That even occurred to Einstein when he said: > |||AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based |||AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that |||AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, [my] |||AE:: gravitation theory included." --- 1954 --- Albert Einstein > Einstein Dingleberries however, so far, have not heeded their idol's intuition and love to keep on dangling in the breeze of the farts that emanated for Albert's sphincter.... ahahahahaha... You, OTOH, Raemsch, you've got it made. Just look it up in your Bible. That's the only answer you will accept anyway... Thanks for the laughs, Mitch,..... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: cjcountess on 7 May 2010 12:25 Hanson, I take your comments humorously and with no offense Bert As you know, I do not agree that frequency is infinite, no more than the speed of light is. Thus c^2, does not represent infinite frequency, it represents c in circular and or spherical rotation, such as binding energy and standing spherical waves c^2 represents the high end of the EM spectrum where energy equals and turns to matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical rotation giving it rest mass. And thus (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) because c^2 is the ultimate c^2 and also = G, because all are the ultimate L/T^2 In its simplest terms c^2 is 1)c in the linear direction 2)x c in the 90 degree angular direction 3)= c in circular and or spherical motion with angular momentum of (h/ 2pi-->h/2pi/2), due to a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces I dont know how much simpler I can make it, but the evidence speaks for itself. The infinite frequency idea has lead to renormalization, as well as running coupling constants problems, as well as point particle, probability wave, and corresponding Uncertainty principle. It has lead to unrealistic Planck unity of (c = h/2p1 = G ) which gives mass length and time not related to anything in this world and is therefor wrong. But that was the best they could do at the time and it did allow for some progress in physics. But with the Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1)moves Physics a quantum leap further, it is revealed that (c^2 = h/2pi-->h/2pi/2 = G) and (c=h=i) thus resolving Uncertainty Principle as we knew it, Quantum Gravity, Running Coupling constants, as well as taking sqrt-1, out of realm of imaginary numbers and bringing it into the real world of natural units. The revelations are too much for people like Uncle Al and Sam Wormley, as their ground has been pulled from under them, and everything they once believed is in question Sam Wormely stated that he agreed with Al and that I am an idiot, and also provided a link to some childish cartoon, stating as much. Well at least he was not as disrespectfully as Al, but apparently I have the effect of making these once prominent scholars of physics, revert back to infancy, They must feel really small in my presence. Conrad J Countess
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 15:43 find Hipparchus' "lunes" proof of the pythagorean theorem -- if it was not the original proof -- and you'll see that circles are better fro areal mensuration; generalize to prove the spatial pythagorean theorems -- there are two of them -- and you'll see that, not only does second-powering have nothing in particular to with the tetragon, but also not with a two-dimensional object. thus: like I said, dimensional analysis is fine, and woe to he who ignores it, but it cannot be used ex post facto to remake a wave-form into a particle. surely, the wave can impart, at least, internal "momentum" to the atomic system that is tuned to absorb it. that is, whatever energy propogates through the *medium* of space, not a vacuum, is in its effect upon that medium just as waves in H2O. so, do not apply "momentum" to the wave, only as a formalism for the seemingly-aimed "photon" that was speared by the cone of your eye. so, you can use other, valid formlisms, like E=hf, or what ever. otherwise, you get absurdities like the EPR paradox, and simplistic statements about the photoelectrical effect. not to say that a total formalism of rocks o'light is not possible, and a gravity that is "pushed" by such-like, but it is probably at present "intractible," even as Huyghens wavelets are intractible, except for getting a concept of light, propogating. (photons are massless & cannot propogate at any speed, because they don't exist, is my feeling, even though they are the only "zero-D particle" that can "go at c.") as for wlym.com, folks who pretend to "do the math," should know what *mathematica* ("maths") is; if you "go" to wlym.com, and hit the Fermat button, and find the Geometrical Fragments pdf, you''ll find his reconstruction of Euclid's porisms, whis are quite elementary (and planar). lastly, here is a thought experiment: what are those little black & white paddle-wheels, tht rotate in the sunlight in clear globe?... since there is no actual vacuum in the globe, provide an *aerodynamical/thermal* explanation of the force, after waves of light have been absorbed by the black pigment in the vanes. thought of that, yesterday, after more of this chat. > Get rid of that [M] dimension in the photon equation thus: Moon could have supported life, a long time ago (i.e., smaller bodies have shorter lives), as is evidences by the remnants of plate tectonics (maria & highlands). > >http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorites-alpha_frame.htm thus: you call that, an explanation, "photons wedged apart by light rays?" an interesting relationship between two things that only exist as mathematics, both representing "rocks o'light!" thus: you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors," but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time, while it is quite obvious that the "time part" is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates, either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway, bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions. and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that a phase-space tells you what time really is; it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though, as in electronics (although, NB, electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space, instead of quaternions, as it could be, for some reason .-) maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do, is work the math of quaternions ... that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean, what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis with a "different sign" and a different letter, whether or not negatives are even needed?) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: cjcountess on 8 May 2010 11:30
c is the natural unit measure of the most basic energy quanta, and sense matter is made of energy, its most basic quanta must include c. It turns out to be c^2 c is the natural unit of most basic energy quanta, and can be represented geometrically, as energy moving in a straight line, at constant speed (c=h), because h, is the constant kinetic energy that comes from the constant speed of c in straight line. Thus (c=h) can be geometrically represented by straight line as in a basic string theory c^2 s the natural unit most basic unit of rest mass and can be represented as 3) c in linear direction 2)x c in the 90 degree angular direction 3)= c in circular and/or spherical motion, as balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, and angular momentum of (h/2pi) as a circle, or (h/2pi/2) as a circle making 2 rotations to complete one wave cycle, (spin1/2), to create a standing spherical wave. Thus (c^2 = h/2pi = G), and can be geometrically represented by energy in a closed loop rotation, which can also be a part of a simplified string theory, without the numerous dimensions. (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) because c^2 is the ultimate v^2 (G = c^2) because c^2 is the ultimate L/T^2 spudnic I have been told several times that my idea violated "Dimensional Analysis", to which I pointed out that Dimensional Analysis is transcended in some ways by my theory. In the same wave that photons have wavelength that can be interpreted as energies, although energy and length have different dimensions, they still can be converted into each other. And did you know that the meaning of Dimensional Analysis was refined on wikipedia sense I first pointed this out a few years back? I have before and after copies I must be having an impact Conrad J Countess |