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 8 May 2010 14:38 On May 8, 8:30 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 If light has kinetic energy it would all be by the constant C. Every photon would have the same energy. Mitch Raemsch
From: cjcountess on 8 May 2010 15:57 Burt Light has a speed that is constant in the liniear direction, reguardless of frequency. But the speed is not constant in the angular direction, which allows for varying frequency, and the corresponding varying, mass, energy, and momentum, that goes with it. Thus light has a constant mass/energy = "h" in the liniear direction, and a varying mass/energy in the angular frequency direction = "f". Therefore energy of photon is measured as E=hf, because while the "h" remains constant the "f" varys E=hf/c^2 is analogous and directly corresponds to F=Mm/r^2 "h" is the "central sun", around which all waves and rest mass particles oscilate, analogous to orbiting, and is another example of quantum gravity being right under our noses all the time. In other words (E=hf/c^2) is a quantum version of (F=Mm/r^2) not just analogous but exactly just as (E=mc^2) is not only anaologous to but directly corresponds to (F=mv^2). Conrad J Countess
From: spudnik on 8 May 2010 18:06 "photons" are the only thing -- 0-dimensional massless particles, thought to exist til Kaluza and stringtheory -- that can "go" at c with no momentum, because they are not waves. in particular, they are not the "plane waves" of math-phys idealization, because they always have a curvature, no matter how far they "go" from the source. how is a wave (quantum) of light emitted from the whole surface (quantum) of a Sun? personally, I do not believe in Wikipedia or the googolplex, so that such an event makes no difference, at all. > I must be having an impact thus: see "Alfven cosmology." there is really no way, as of yet, to determine whether the COBE radiation is not within system Sol; not as silly an assumption as for the redshift, though, which even Hubble apparently denounced, at least for a while. and, if you googol it, They'll know, for sure. > The nuclear forces have a range, the EM is next with Hubble's Limit as > a hand waving attempt at it and gravitation could be well after that > maybe a few billion times larger than the observable cosmos. thus: hey, I'd forgotten about that; wonder what HAnson could reply, given that he associates it with Barbara Streisand, who wasn't nearly as weighty. > Conservation laws COME FROM Noether's theorem. thus: yeah, and "A=mcc" -- maether, the *really* perfect gas. so, now, all that you have to do is laboriously show that this theory accounts for all of the phenomena of the other theory(s), instead of asserting a handwavingology (as in scare-quoting, "I have a dream!") "Exactly what occurs -- exactly & with decimal points!" > This is exactly what occurs when the mæther decompresses. thus: to reiterate, for the sake of Obispo, above, Fermat had to prove the very special case, n=4, because his proof only applied to prime exponents, excepting two (plus the lemma on multiples of prime exponents). thus: yeah, OK; so, what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?..." what is the shape of the wave of light? > Aether is matter times the second power of the speed of light. thus: spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra," meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces of the other, and vise versa. thus: the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone. thus: how about this: show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then, tackle the remaining primes. thus: NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, this is just the original "vectors." compare Lanczos' biquaternions with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability (of dimensionality !-) thus: try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or "go" to wlym.com. > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987, thus: the problem appears to be, "some observers measure the angle to the marker, relative to the other observers," which would not give you the distance *on a plane*, because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, triangulatin' that contested area .-) thus: notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. thus: sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may have read in an article about his retirement. > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > capNtrade e.g.). > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 18:44
On May 8, 12:57 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Burt > > Light has a speed that is constant in the liniear direction, > reguardless of frequency. > But the speed is not constant in the angular direction, which allows > for varying frequency, and the corresponding varying, mass, energy, > and momentum, that goes with it. > > Thus light has a constant mass/energy = "h" in the liniear direction, > and a varying mass/energy in the angular frequency direction = "f". > > Therefore energy of photon is measured as E=hf, because while the "h" > remains constant the "f" varys > > E=hf/c^2 is analogous and directly corresponds to F=Mm/r^2 > "h" is the "central sun", around which all waves and rest mass > particles oscilate, analogous to orbiting, and is another example of > quantum gravity being right under our noses all the time. > > In other words (E=hf/c^2) is a quantum version of (F=Mm/r^2) not just > analogous but exactly just as (E=mc^2) is not only anaologous to but > directly corresponds to (F=mv^2). > > Conrad J Countess Set H bar to One for energy. Mitch Raemsch |