New interpretation of E=mc^2 and m=Ec^2
cjcountess
According to Novas scientific program: "Einstein's Big Idea", on air
and on line" in the descriptions of E=mc2 given by Frank Wilczek,
Theoretical Physicist, MIT and Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist,
Boston University, Einstein's original formula was M=e/c2 not E=mc2.
Ten physicist were ask to explain E=mc2 in their own words for the
100th anniversary of Einstein's formula which they gave and you can see
at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html.
Now let me add one more radical explanation.
The simplest way to see the direct relationship between energy and
matter is to view the formula m=Ec2 in this way.
[ m (or rest mass) = E (or energy) c^2(at the speed of light in
circular rotation) for one quantum particle.]
Just as v^2 in formula a=v^2/r represents acceleration of circular
motion in classical physics so can c^2 represent circular motion for
one quantum particle if viewed in this way. Please observe!
"The speed of light squared or c^2" might be said to be ( the
vector product of two perpendicular vectors of motion), namely the
speed of light along the linear light path, for instence horizontaly
along the x-axis - and the speed of light in the right angular
frequency direction, or verticaly along the y-axis; resulting in a
balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces to yield circular motion
and rest mass. In 3D this would be a standing spherical wave. And this
wave may have rest mass due to a helicopter like hovering effect and
stability in motion because of a more equal distribution of energy,
mass, and momentum around a center of rotation instead of energy being
radiated outward in a relatively straight line as with normal
electromagnetic radiation.
Conrad J Countess
See this site for a more graphical and logical description
Bill Hobba
"cjcountess" <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161198538.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> m=Ec^2
>
> According to Novas scientific program: "Einstein's Big Idea", on air
> and on line" in the descriptions of E=mc2 given by Frank Wilczek,
> Theoretical Physicist, MIT and Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist,
> Boston University, Einstein's original formula was M=e/c2 not E=mc2.
> Ten physicist were ask to explain E=mc2 in their own words for the
> 100th anniversary of Einstein's formula which they gave and you can see
> at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html.
>
> Now let me add one more radical explanation.
> The simplest way to see the direct relationship between energy and
> matter is to view the formula m=Ec2 in this way.
> [ m (or rest mass) = E (or energy) c^2(at the speed of light in
> circular rotation) for one quantum particle.]
> Just as v^2 in formula a=v^2/r represents acceleration of circular
> motion in classical physics so can c^2 represent circular motion for
> one quantum particle if viewed in this way. Please observe!
What a load of buzzwords meaninglessly strung together. Learn the basics
then repost.
It is well known why E=MC^2 - it follows immediately from the only
reasonable lagrangian that obeys the POR for a free particle - see for
example Chapter 5 - Zweibach - A first Course in String Theory.
>
> "The speed of light squared or c^2" might be said to be ( the
> vector product of two perpendicular vectors of motion), namely the
> speed of light along the linear light path, for instence horizontaly
> along the x-axis - and the speed of light in the right angular
> frequency direction, or verticaly along the y-axis; resulting in a
> balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces to yield circular motion
> and rest mass. In 3D this would be a standing spherical wave. And this
> wave may have rest mass due to a helicopter like hovering effect and
> stability in motion because of a more equal distribution of energy,
> mass, and momentum around a center of rotation instead of energy being
> radiated outward in a relatively straight line as with normal
> electromagnetic radiation.
Your further explanation is just as bad - speed in the right angular
frequency direction? - frequency does not have direction.
Bill
cjcountess
Hi Bill
This is Conrad
I know that this idea of mine is against the grain but look at it this
way.
When light travels it travels in a direction which is usualy away from
its source. And when we speak of frequency we usualy mean cycles per
sec or some other time unite. These cycles must move in a certain
direction also, perhaps at a right angle to the path of the light beam.
I am just suggesting that when the angular momentum of the wave equals
and balences the forward momentum of the wave along the linier path
this might cause a balence of cetrifugal and centripital forces causing
a closed loop rotation on energy and rest mass. It is always hard to
find the right language to describe something so different, especial in
a subject like physics which uses terms with such precise definitions.
One might have to invent a whole new language to describe certain
things but that intails teaching people the new language. I suspect
that people out there can imagine what I am talking about even if I use
certain terms such as speed and automaticaly assume that it has a
direction. We can argue technical details about precise terms and
deffinitions all day but then that becomes an argument in and of itself
and the subject of the argument which I don't wish to do. I am sure
that with a little imagination and flexibility in the use of terms you
might see what I mean. Otherwise we get stuck using building blocks of
language and math that may be round and tring to fit it in a square
description. We must be flexible. It should not be so hard to imagine
that the sped of light squared could be interpreted as the speed of
light circled or sphered in 3D if one considers that two vectors of
motion, the motion along the linier path, and the motion in the angular
frqency direction, could result in a balence of centrifugal and
centripital forces resulting in a closed loop circular rotation giving
the energy rest mass. This would provide a geometrical descrition of
how m or (rest mass) realy does equal E or (energy) c^2 (at the speed
or velocity of light squared - take your choice) and that it is not
just a mathmatical conversion factor with no geometrical reality. Is it
a coincidence that this geometrical description of c^2 matches the
mathmatical description that c^2 marks the eqivalence of energy and
matter. Because I intent to prove over time that it is precisely the
geometrical reality of c^2 as rotating energy that makes it the
transition point between energy and matter.
Please don't take offence I appreciate your and anyone elses reply
Thank you Conrad Countess
Ken S. Tucker
http://www.cjc123.net/review.htm
Often c is set to c=1 so your math is ok,
and your wider theory is highly imaginative,
in a good way. If you're a High School or
college student, I'd think that's near genius,
due to it's comphresiveness, and embracing
the idea that mass-energy maybe stored
in some photon loop, either by gravity or
EM effect, to create a free standing wave
is a possibily good working model.
Something along these lines is evolving with
"spinors" in Quantum Field Theory", so your
instinct might be very good.
You may want to bone up on GR and tensors,
EM-fields and the like, it should come easy.
Best Regards
Ken
Bill Hobba
>
> Hi Bill
> This is Conrad
> I know that this idea of mine is against the grain but look at it this
> way.
> When light travels it travels in a direction which is usualy away from
> its source. And when we speak of frequency we usualy mean cycles per
> sec or some other time unite. These cycles must move in a certain
> direction also,
Cycles by definition do not move. It is the same as saying isomorphism has
a smell - a nonsense statement.
Rest snipped.
Bill
cjcountess
This is Conrad
I appreciate your comments and critisim. The way I see it which is just
imaginary sense I can't see at the quantum level, is that light moves
in cycles, each cycle being a wavelength, the frequency which is
measured in cycles per sec or other time unite. Even if this
description serves only as an analogy of something that is beyond
ordinary description still I think that I can and have deduced things
from this that makes it a useful analogy. Will get back to you with
some of the things deduced from this.
Conrad
cjcountess
>
> Often c is set to c=1 so your math is ok,
> and your wider theory is highly imaginative,
> in a good way. If you're a High School or
> college student, I'd think that's near genius,
> due to it's comphresiveness, and embracing
> the idea that mass-energy maybe stored
> in some photon loop, either by gravity or
> EM effect, to create a free standing wave
> is a possibily good working model.
>
> Something along these lines is evolving with
> "spinors" in Quantum Field Theory", so your
> instinct might be very good.
>
> You may want to bone up on GR and tensors,
> EM-fields and the like, it should come easy.
> Best Regards
> Ken
Hello Ken
This is Conrad
Thank you for those incouraging remarks and advice. Have looked into
General Relativity and will have some things to say about that as soon
as I prepare them. Will look into the tensors and EM-fields also to see
if I can use something in it to strenghten or weaken my model. as I
will also play devils advocate wih myself to prepare for the critics.
I will also look into spinors as well as something called twistor
theory which I came across in a book while searching for collaborating
evidence for my model.
Will get back to you with something that might interest you later.
By the way, I am not a high school or college student but I'll take the
near geius remark as a compliment anyway because that has to be a good
thing at any age. Once again "Thank You", that is very incouraging.
Conrad
cjcountess
cjcountess
THANK YOU FOR POINTING ME IN THE DIRECTION OF SPINORS. Beside finding
out that spinor and twistor theories are the same I also found several
other points which correspond to my own theory which I will list and
address in the same order.
1. First developed as an attempt to unify quantum and general
relativity theories as it seeks to quantities space - time itself. My
theory which can be seen in more detail on website suggest that quantum
particles are themselves curved space-time if indeed they arise from
and within the background dark energy field which is inseparable from
space itself.
2. They involve two vectors of motion, a linier and angular direction
which if equal will give rise to a rotating energy - The geometry in
my idea involves two vectors of equal motion, "both at c for a
combined velocity of c^2 also", and produces a rotating rest mass
particle as I described earlier.
3. The mathematical tool is geometry instead of differential equations
but still must be equivalent to it just as my geometrical description
of c^2 is equivalent to Einstein's formula which Bill says follows
the only reasonable Lagrangian that obeys the POR for a free particle
4. They involve complex numbers. My geometrical description produces a
backward spinning rest mass particle which may represent an electron or
-1 particle and reveal that the square root of -1, which is
involved in the complex numbers in the physics of these particles, may
be c, if indeed c^2 produces a backward spinning negatively charged
particle such as an electron. And so c x c or c^2 = - 1 particle in the
case of an electron which shows that in this case "c", is the
square root of negative one also.
5. My idea also involves a matrix. Not a regular grid like mathematical
matrix but a geometrical one, which is space itself. Space provides the
speed limit of light, and the speed limit of light is what compresses
energy into waves and rest mass particles.
My Geometrical definition of matrix is in accord with
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/matrix, definition 1 : something within
or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form.
Just as a bullet is fired into water or sand and mushroomed by the
fluidity or graininess of the medium that it encounters energy that
runs into the speed limit of light is compressed into waves and at high
enough frequencies is compressed into rest mass particles. Doppler
effect and Lorentze contraction are due to this also. This may be also
indicative of the quantum nature of space - time in this sense also.
Waves tend to cease to exist when they get smaller than the
inter-molecular distance between the molecules of the medium that they
travel through, for instance in air and water. This is according to
Scientific American Dec. 2005 in article "An echo of Black Holes"
p. 71 pp. 4. The situation has to be different for energy waves if they
become trapped within the warp of space - time at c^2 existing as rest
mass because they continue to exist. But what really happens to a sound
wave at the speed of sound squared or for that matter water waves?
Surely it is not the exactly the same as with energy but we still might
draw something out of these analogies.
They also speak of massless and massive fields. In my model I propose a
massive field.as opposed to a massless one.
This is because as we know space is not absolutely empty but contains
at least a ground state energy. Both Electromagnetic and Higg's field
theory postulate a ground state field of energy that when disturbed
gives rise to waves.
If we set the field strength of this ground state energy to h and
assume that it moves at c because it is electromagnetic even though it
is below detectable frequency, we can build a geometrical matrix from
here.
We might even say that this ground state energy acts as an eather but I
do not want to introduce to many things at this time, as they would
require explanation also which I will give t the end.
Instead with the ground state energy as a base assigned an energy of h
and speed of c we can go on to reason that if this field is disturbed
the extra energy will create waves on top of an otherwise smooth
surface just as a smooth body of water trapped within a container
would. The energy would be displaced creating waves that rise up in the
vertical direction because it is physically displaced against the
waters container and the object that disturbs it with water and against
the light barrier and the object that disturbs it with the ground state
energy. Even water waves are crated by their speed limit in a container
that is so large such as the ocean that can easily absorb the finger of
someone who disturbs it without any noticeable rise in volume. But the
speed of the displaced water cannot move but so fast and so it is
displaced against the speed barrier of the other water that it moves
against. The ground state energy too if it has a speed limit of c would
be displaced against the light barrier and give rise to waves that also
travel at c on top of the ground state energy until the speed of the
angular momentum of the wave reaches its speed limit also. When these
two perpendicular velocities are equal and balanced the velocity is
squared.
See this concerning Higg's field theory Scientific American July:
2005; The Mysteries of mass, page 44 paragraph 2, which states that
particles gain mass as if they gather strength from the field times the
strength of their interaction. This can be looked at as the familiar M
or E = hf or M or (mass-energy) = h or (field strength) times f or
(strength of interaction) for both Higg's and Electromagnetic field.
The other important thing that arises from this model is the unity of
so many constants. Higg's field = Electromagnetic field = c = h -
square root of negative one = Cosmological constant = Gravity constant
= Boltzman's constant =
All of which is explained in my paper on my web site, but I will
explain latter here also at another time.
The Unity of the Constant
And so the unity of the constants become my mathematical natural unites
building blocks instead of the other man made arbitrary unites of
measure that takes a real mathematician, which I am not, to interpret
and translate into each other. This makes it simpler as one should be
striving for simplicity and natural unites anyway and a way to unify
these as well the various particles and forces of the natural world.
And so to put things in perspective - we bring everything to one "the
unity of the constants" and nothing or the closest thing to it "the
space which as we know has a ground stated energy and is not absolutely
empty."
To this we assign strength of h and velocity of c and this is the,
(Geometrical Matrix) that we build upon.
Conrad
cjcountess
I looked up Lagragian and it basically says it is a simpler
reformulation of classical mechanics to measure motion by charting the
path of least resistance. And that it concerns the difference between
potential and kinetic energy.
The geometrical matrix description of how energy turns into rest mass
can be stated as (energy in the linier direction encountering the light
barrier or c and being deflected into the angular frequency direction
after which it encounters the light barrier of c in that direction also
and is deflected into the only direction left open, the backward
direction into a closed loop because it too follows the path of least
resistance.)
Or energy could be deflected into each dimension as it is deflected off
of the light barrier in the previous direction. These dimensions are at
right angles to each other and the energy follows this path because it
is the path of least resistance as it is easier to accelerate something
sideways than it is to accelerate it forward or backward. For instance
the energy may first be deflected from x to y than from y to z, and at
same time the forth time dimension. This might be considered c^4 just
as in the more advanced relativity equations but c^2 seems to provide a
basic explanation of this. Is that equivalent to a lagragian?
Conrad
cjcountess
Explanation of how, "Ground State Energy Field" with Speed Barrier
of Light, acting as Geometric Matrix could resemble Eather.
Energy increases with frequency as it is compressed against the speed
limit of light barrier, making it oscillate in faster cycles per sec
even though it may not have another material body to contrast its
motion. And so the speed barrier of light itself may act as a material
matrix to increase and contrast the motion of the wave cycles causing
energy to be compresses first into waves and than into rest mass. This
may be why the speed of light itself contrasted with the speed of light
barrier is constant regardless of motion of observer instead of any
rest frame. For as we know the motion of rest mass weather it be the
Sun, Earth, Galaxy or whatever is relative not constant.
Any comments on anything would be appreciated
Conrad
Ken S. Tucker
Your stuff looks good, and because of the
breadth and depth of the subject I'll focus
on one part that looks important.
cjcountess wrote:
...
> 2. They involve two vectors of motion, a linier and angular direction
> which if equal will give rise to a rotating energy - The geometry in
> my idea involves two vectors of equal motion, "both at c for a
> combined velocity of c^2 also", and produces a rotating rest mass
> particle as I described earlier.
R.C. Tolman in his book "Relativity Thermodynamics
and Cosmology" ch 111... discusses the gravitational
relation of "pencils of light".
It's been awhile since I immersed in that subject but,
in superficial review, I think it may be possible for two
photons to mutually orbit, in accord with GR.
Such a system would possess "rest" mass and invariant
spin angular momentum. The magnetic moment could
result from the relation of photons when considered as
EM-waves that Tolman uses, that depends on analysis.
That hypothesis (your's) may not be new but so what,
you could review the literature on the subject to find
that out and in so doing get some advice.
It's very interesting, and certainly a harvest of knowledge
can be obtained by studying it.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
...
> Conrad
cjcountess
Hi Ken
This is Conrad
Although the idea that I am proposing and the spinor idea are not
exactly the same, and I hope I didn't make it seem that way, they share
so much in common that they colaborate each other on so many points.
The spinor theory is just so much more complex and requires a
mathmatical mind to understand in detail. Still I can see enough
simularities that I am confident that collaboration with it will only
help my case. I am finding so much collaborating evidence due to the
effiecientcy of the web and google search engine that it is no dought
in my mind that this theory will hold up. Here is one more piece of
corresponding evidence.
This talks about cut off at high end of electromagnetic spectrum
arXiv:gr-qc/9403008 v2 09 May 1995
gr-qc/9403008
Imperial/TP/93-94/20
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A10 (1995) 145
Quantum gravity and minimum length
Luis J. Garay
Theoretical Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College,
Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, U.K.
(5 August 1994)
III. ULTRAVIOLET CONVERGENCE
The lower bound on the proper distance between any two events may
become the ultimate ultraviolet regulator [55,56], since any distance
below this bound loses its meaning. Let us illustrate this issue in the
case of a massless scalar field in curved spacetime [55,14] (see also
Ref. [57]). The Green function evaluated in a classical spacetime has
the well-known form
D(x, y) ~1l2 0(x, y) + io , 8 which is divergent, i.e. goes to infinity
for small proper distances. However, when quantum fluctuations of
spacetime are taken into account, the notion of distance is no longer
unique. Therefore, an average over all possible distances provided by
the quantum fluctuations must be performed. This amounts to replace the
propagator D(x, y) by its expectation value
hD(x, y)i ~ 1 l2(x, y) + io ~ 1 l2 0(x, y) + l2 * + io
.
We see that now the ultraviolet limit x . y gives a finite propagator
rather than a divergent one, because of the existence of a minimum
proper interval, which acts as a high-energy cutoff_. Indeed, by
Fourier-transforming this expression (and rotating it to Euclidean
space) we obtain the Euclidean propagator in momentum space hD(k)i ~ l*
|k| K1(l*|k|).
PS. Will look at the book that you suggested; R.C. Tolman in his book
"Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology" ch 111... discusses the
gravitational
relation of "pencils of light", as well as the one that Bill
suggested, Chapter 5 - Zweibach - A first Course in String Theory.
Please forgive the type errors
Conrad
Ken S. Tucker
Good, if I miss one of your posts give me a
kick at email = dynamics at uniserve dot com.
Regards
Ken
cjcountess
O.K..Ken, I sure will and I really do appreciate the interest, it is
very motivating
Talk to you soon
Conrad
Ken S. Tucker
Lot's of people are interested, from your previous
post I'll quote,
"the notion of distance is no longer unique."
Distance == length is relative, so is time and
mass and energy.
The unit's of the meter, second and gram and
erg exist only in a rest frame.
As stupid as this may sound, there is no agreeable
definition of mass (grams), aside from a Napoleanic
poop in paris.
Inhouse we use the covariant time component of
4-mometum "p_0" given by the action "h",
p_0 = a*b/x^0
where h = a*b, and "a" and "b" are charges.
>From that, h = p_0 * x^0 == ergs * seconds.
((h = 6.624*10^-27 ergs x seconds))
>From that we see the 3-momentum p_i =0,
so that p_0 is "rest mass-energy".
The spacetime invariant
h = p_u x^u
collapses to
h = p_0 x^0
when the p_i =0, (i=1,2,3).
That in turn produces the covariant 3-velocity
U_i=0, which is the basis of spacetime, as
it immediately renders (via association),
ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2 .
Using the above, spacetime dovetails neatly
with the invariance of Plancks constant and
the invariance of the fundamental charge.
One can see that the Quantum Theory and
the Theory of Relativity are the same theory.
Extending that into Generalized Relativity is
a matter of maintaining "h" to be invariant,
in any Frame of Reference, irrespective of
the status of motion or field influence of the
FoR. By further extension, the invariance of
"h" and fundamental charge "q" requires the
relativity of acceleration, thus leading to the
General Principle of Relativity inclusive of the
Quantum Theory.
I recommend a good start to any aspiring
theoretician is to unify Gravitation, Electo-
magnetism and Quantum Theory, via GR.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker
cjcountess
This is Conrad
at the same conclusion as I following different lines. Quantum theory,
Relativity and General Relativity, are all unified when we unify the
constants c=h=G and so on. The regular unites of measure used in
physics that you spoke of are man made arbitrary units that don't
seamlessly fit the things they intend to measure especially those that
deal with the foundations of physical existence, and are hard to
translate seamlessly into each other. I am not proficient in these
unites and I know they can introduce unnecessary complexity and become
in and of themselves a subject of study as well as diverge from
reality. Just as Euclidean plane geometry diverges from reality on a
round earth and the ultraviolet catastrophe idea diverged from the
reality that frequency converges to c^2 not diverges to v^2 interpreted
as infinity. I find that the natural unites of the constants c = h = G
and so on are all I need to provide the building blocks and framework
of this theory at this time. This also makes things simpler as the
constants translates into each other and show unity in a more seamless
fashion and is easier for even non mathematicians such as myself to
understand. Although I appreciate the mathematics of arbitrary unites
and the many things that it has bought us, I realize that it takes real
discipline to learn and follow. Besides if you can use the natural
constants why not. After all as "Occam's razor," states: One
should not introduce any more objects than is necessary to explain
something - but no less either
Conrad
Ken S. Tucker
cjcountess wrote:
> Hello Ken
> This is Conrad
> No Ken, it doesn't sound stupid. I agree with you. You have arrived
> at the same conclusion as I following different lines. Quantum theory,
> Relativity and General Relativity, are all unified when we unify the
> constants c=h=G and so on.
"G" has a peculiar dimensionality that is
subject to relativistic transformation, IOW's
it is not a scalar and hence cannot be set
to unity except in the most simplest cases.
> The regular unites of measure used in
> physics that you spoke of are man made arbitrary units that don't
> seamlessly fit the things they intend to measure especially those that
> deal with the foundations of physical existence, and are hard to
> translate seamlessly into each other. I am not proficient in these
> unites and I know they can introduce unnecessary complexity and become
> in and of themselves a subject of study as well as diverge from
> reality.
"diverge from reality", sometimes detail is important,
the "unnecessary complexity", well sure you can
manipulate invariants and scalars, but at some
point you'll need to go to measurements that are
relativisitic, otherwise you're god without a universe.
For example, take a tree, you could argue the leaves
are an unnecessary complexity and pick them all off,
and thereby exposing the supporting branches, and
view the mechanical support.
However, in so doing, the dynamical means, via
photosynthesis, is lost, and your tree will die, and
so the mechanical support dies too.
While simplification is laudable, it should really be
done with an understanding of the possibilty of
eliminating data and principles important to a
more complete solution.
> Just as Euclidean plane geometry diverges from reality on a
> round earth and the ultraviolet catastrophe idea diverged from the
> reality that frequency converges to c^2 not diverges to v^2 interpreted
> as infinity. I find that the natural unites of the constants c = h = G
> and so on are all I need to provide the building blocks and framework
> of this theory at this time. This also makes things simpler as the
> constants translates into each other and show unity in a more seamless
> fashion and is easier for even non mathematicians such as myself to
> understand.
Fair enough.
> Although I appreciate the mathematics of arbitrary unites
> and the many things that it has bought us, I realize that it takes real
> discipline to learn and follow. Besides if you can use the natural
> constants why not. After all as "Occam's razor," states: One
> should not introduce any more objects than is necessary to explain
> something - but no less either
> Conrad
Agreed
Ken S. Tucker
cjcountess
> "G" has a peculiar dimensionality that is
> subject to relativistic transformation, IOW's
> it is not a scalar and hence cannot be set
> to unity except in the most simplest cases.
Because of the mass-energy constant h in both E=hf/c^2 and M=hf/c^2 and
the inertia mass-gravitatinal mass equivalance, I am concluding that
the true gravitational constant is also = to h. If electromagnetic
energy has a constant energy of h reguardless of frequency and a
constant speed of c reguardless of frequency the coonstants of h and c
may be equivalent and the constant about which all waves and rest mass
oscilates, (analogous to orbiting). If the speed limit of light or c is
what causes energy to contract into shorter waves and rest mass as they
are compressed against it, than this speed limit of c = h is what
causes the drag on energy that creates mass and gravity.
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> "diverge from reality", sometimes detail is important,
> the "unnecessary complexity", well sure you can
> manipulate invariants and scalars, but at some
> point you'll need to go to measurements that are
> relativisitic, otherwise you're god without a universe.
> For example, take a tree, you could argue the leaves
> are an unnecessary complexity and pick them all off,
> and thereby exposing the supporting branches, and
> view the mechanical support.
> However, in so doing, the dynamical means, via
> photosynthesis, is lost, and your tree will die, and
> so the mechanical support dies too.
>
> While simplification is laudable, it should really be
> done with an understanding of the possibilty of
> eliminating data and principles important to a
> more complete solution.
Ken you are correct. Thanks for bringing me back to reality - I have
diverged
Not only do we need to quantify unity but also the diversity and how
emergent properties arise from variables that reach a certain limit and
what those limits are. We must include the general and tthe specific
Thank you
>
> > Just as Euclidean plane geometry diverges from reality on a
> > round earth and the ultraviolet catastrophe idea diverged from the
> > reality that frequency converges to c^2 not diverges to v^2 interpreted
> > as infinity. I find that the natural unites of the constants c = h = G
> > and so on are all I need to provide the building blocks and framework
> > of this theory at this time. This also makes things simpler as the
> > constants translates into each other and show unity in a more seamless
> > fashion and is easier for even non mathematicians such as myself to
> > understand.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > Although I appreciate the mathematics of arbitrary unites
> > and the many things that it has bought us, I realize that it takes real
> > discipline to learn and follow. Besides if you can use the natural
> > constants why not. After all as "Occam's razor," states: One
> > should not introduce any more objects than is necessary to explain
> > something - but no less either
> > Conrad
>
> Agreed
> Ken S. Tucker
Ken what are your thoughts on this ?
The relativistic divergence to infinity for mass, time, and length for
matter does not hold if there is a smallest quantum of space as that
would limit the wavelength of energy to that space as well as Lorentz
contraction of matter waves.
Conrad
cjcountess
cjcountess wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > "G" has a peculiar dimensionality that is
> > subject to relativistic transformation, IOW's
> > it is not a scalar and hence cannot be set
> > to unity except in the most simplest cases.
>
Newton's gravitational constant is not a relativistic scalar meaning
it is not invariant under Lorentz contraction because it is based on
rest mass. Rest mass is not invariant although Einstein and others
treat it that way a lot as a fudge factor to make equations easier. See
these sites:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
But rest mass is relative mass in rotation at c^2 if my theory is
correct around a center of rotation. That center is Planck's constant
and the speed of light (h = c) which is the "Central Sun" around
which all waves and rest mass particles oscillate. If this is true so
far than h and c are also the true quantum gravitational constants.
The fear of relative mass is a stumbling block as the truth is that
rest mass is relative mass in rotation at c^2 and the only way to truly
unify General Relativity and Quantum Theory is to realize this direct
unity between radiation and matter which is the direct relationship
between relative mass and rest mass.
Besides demonstrating that energy is shaped by the speed limit of light
and curvature of space -time on the quantum level, if this theory is
correct, it may help explain how gravity is generated by the
accelerated motion of photons orbiting the light path, how the strength
of this gravity is proportional to the frequency in quantum increments,
just as energy, mass, and momentum are, and that "rest mass," is just
the result of the frequency motion balancing out the forward motion of
the energy to form a closed loop on the quantum level. This theory may
help explain this as a sort of Loop Quantum Gravity Theory as well as
a more direct relationship between energy and matter, electromagnetism
and gravity, relativistic and rest mass. This also would prove that
neither rest mass nor the speed of light in a vacuum is constant or
invariant but that both are relative to frequency.
P.S. This also agrees with String Theory if one considers
electromagnetic waves as vibrating on long strings and particles with
rest mass to vibrate on closed loop strings.
The above is based on the fact that gravity and inertia generated by
accelerated motion are equivalent. And so photons move from having
momentum that is radiated outward in centrifugal force, away from a
center, to momentum that is more equally distributed around a center of
rotation, for centripetal force.
Gravity as Inverted Electromagnetism
Any motion whatsoever above c and h that goes against the light barrier
is accelerated motion and gives rise to centripetal force (a force
toward a center) which creates waves above c and h and rest mass at c2.
Gravity might be said to be inverted electromagnetism and results at
any energy above c and h where the energy bounces of off the light
barrier and begins to turn inward from centrifugal to centripetal
force. Thus the inversion of the relative mass equation related to
photons M=E/c2 to rest mass m=Ec2 related to matter as division and
multiplication are inversions of each other. But for one quantum rest
mass particle the equation might be either M=E/c2 or M=Ec2 because at
this level where these can be set to one they are the same as 1x1 =
1/1. But we can also say that m = E = c2 or m = E @ c2 meaning that
rest mass happens at c2 exactly. The use of M or m is a little tricky
since we can use either at times because rest mass is just relative
mass in rotation at c2. Rest mass is not, contrary to popular belief,
constant or invariant. For as we know rest frames, which should include
rest mass, are relative.
When the speed of light in the centrifugal linier direction reaches its
limit energy begins to turn inward to the centripetal direction,
creating waves and rest mass, this leads to the condensation of matter
out of energy and the expansion of the population of matter particles.
Thus expansion leads to contraction and contraction leads to expansion
as an expression of a Cosmic Pattern within the Geometrical Matrix of
Space.
Conrad
Ken S. Tucker
I understand, and grant latitute to post's in groups,
however, physics is an exacting science, for example
Planck's "h" is erg x seconds and is either an action
unit or, as some reason, an angular momentum unit.
cjcountess wrote:
> cjcountess wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >
> > > "G" has a peculiar dimensionality that is
> > > subject to relativistic transformation, IOW's
> > > it is not a scalar and hence cannot be set
> > > to unity except in the most simplest cases.
> >
> Hi Ken: Does this ring true for you?
>
> Newton's gravitational constant is not a relativistic scalar meaning
> it is not invariant under Lorentz contraction because it is based on
> rest mass. Rest mass is not invariant although Einstein and others
> treat it that way a lot as a fudge factor to make equations easier. See
> these sites:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
Baez and I had a brief argument as to whether Big "G"
is a scalar invariant that can be unitized to 1. I assert
that the relativistic dimensionality of G is Time^2, meaning
(as you understand) it is not lorentz invariant.
If you'll provide some patience, I'll ressurrect the argument
in a nut-shell: You may be aware that the sun's mass may
be expressed in terms of 1.47 kilometers. That's actually
confirmed by the defection of light sucked toward the sun
by that amount and I think has been verified experimentally.
The formula is,
Length = (G/c^2) * Mass.
I'll abbreviate that to L=(G/c^2)*M.
In the Lorentz transform is a commonly used gamma
factor, g= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and provides transforms,
L' = L/g , M' = M*g .
Now let's try that applied to the above using G
as a scalar invariant,
L' = (G/c^2)*M' .
==> L/g = (G/c^2)*M*g
Ok I'm sure you see an error there.
If, otoh, we use G'=G/g^2 in a formula like,
L' = (G'/c^2)*M'
things work out well.
> But rest mass is relative mass in rotation at c^2 if my theory is
> correct around a center of rotation. That center is Planck's constant
> and the speed of light (h = c) which is the "Central Sun" around
> which all waves and rest mass particles oscillate. If this is true so
> far than h and c are also the true quantum gravitational constants.
ok
> The fear of relative mass is a stumbling block as the truth is that
> rest mass is relative mass in rotation at c^2 and the only way to truly
> unify General Relativity and Quantum Theory is to realize this direct
> unity between radiation and matter which is the direct relationship
> between relative mass and rest mass.
Understood, ok.
> Besides demonstrating that energy is shaped by the speed limit of light
> and curvature of space -time on the quantum level, if this theory is
> correct,
You need not repeat" if this theory is correct", we're
working within a common hypothesis, you spec'd at
the front end, no need to defend your point in every
statement, if I thought your nutz I wouldn't be here!
IOW's I encourage confidence, we'll see if it blows
up, but for now let's vent the hypothesis and see how
things go, I'm still in.
> it may help explain how gravity is generated by the
> accelerated motion of photons orbiting the light path, how the strength
> of this gravity is proportional to the frequency in quantum increments,
> just as energy, mass, and momentum are, and that "rest mass," is just
> the result of the frequency motion balancing out the forward motion of
> the energy to form a closed loop on the quantum level.
ok
> This theory may
> help explain this as a sort of Loop Quantum Gravity Theory as well as
> a more direct relationship between energy and matter, electromagnetism
> and gravity, relativistic and rest mass. This also would prove that
> neither rest mass nor the speed of light in a vacuum is constant or
> invariant but that both are relative to frequency.
ok, I'm on thin ice but still skating...
> P.S. This also agrees with String Theory if one considers
> electromagnetic waves as vibrating on long strings and particles with
> rest mass to vibrate on closed loop strings.
> The above is based on the fact that gravity and inertia generated by
> accelerated motion are equivalent. And so photons move from having
> momentum that is radiated outward in centrifugal force, away from a
> center, to momentum that is more equally distributed around a center of
> rotation, for centripetal force.
I'd be careful using the concept of force, I'm being
a bit nit picky but GR's PoE really does see a
difference between force and accelerations.
> Gravity as Inverted Electromagnetism
>
> Any motion whatsoever above c and h that goes against the light barrier
> is accelerated motion and gives rise to centripetal force (a force
> toward a center) which creates waves above c and h and rest mass at c2.
> Gravity might be said to be inverted electromagnetism and results at
> any energy above c and h where the energy bounces of off the light
> barrier and begins to turn inward from centrifugal to centripetal
> force. Thus the inversion of the relative mass equation related to
> photons M=E/c2 to rest mass m=Ec2 related to matter as division and
> multiplication are inversions of each other. But for one quantum rest
> mass particle the equation might be either M=E/c2 or M=Ec2 because at
> this level where these can be set to one they are the same as 1x1 =
> 1/1. But we can also say that m = E = c2 or m = E @ c2 meaning that
> rest mass happens at c2 exactly. The use of M or m is a little tricky
> since we can use either at times because rest mass is just relative
> mass in rotation at c2. Rest mass is not, contrary to popular belief,
> constant or invariant. For as we know rest frames, which should include
> rest mass, are relative.
Yes, a mass at rest is a measurement relative to
one FoR, the rest frame, but the measurement of
an invariant must be true in all FoR's.
> When the speed of light in the centrifugal linier direction reaches its
> limit energy begins to turn inward to the centripetal direction,
> creating waves and rest mass, this leads to the condensation of matter
> out of energy and the expansion of the population of matter particles.
> Thus expansion leads to contraction and contraction leads to expansion
> as an expression of a Cosmic Pattern within the Geometrical Matrix of
> Space.
> Conrad
I'll assume that last paragraph is an opinion.
((flew over my head))
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
cjcountess
This is Conrad. I thought alot about what you said and it inspired some
thoughts that I wrote down but don't have with me at this time. I will
gather them and post soon. The last time I attempted to post I could
not find our discusion and thought it was deleted for some violation of
some kind. Glad that was not the case. Oh yeah, for the time being I
wrote this little book that you can browse on line to get the general
idea about the pattern of expansion/contraction that I alluded to at
the end.You can find it at: www.cjc123.net,(must cut and paste)
and hit to browse book link. Its not strict physics as such but it has
been one of my guiding principles in research as patterns tent to point
you in certain directions where a find is more likely to be. And they
imply some sort of conservation law of form anyways else the pattern
would not repete itself so consistantly.
Well glad I could find this conversation again and will get back to you
soon
See Ya
Conrad
mg
100 Years of E=mc2
(Book will be published in Dec. 2006 , By NOVA Science, New York,
USA)
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
1. What is E=mc2? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation). In his 1905 paper Einstein did not
derive it mathematically but in true sense speculated it. Einstein
earlier derived L = mc2 (light energy mass conversion equation). Then
Einstein speculated that what is true for light energy (L) the same is
true for every energy (E). This speculation results in E=mc2, such a
significant equation must be based upon a specific mathematical
derivation and not on speculation.
3. Is Einstein’s derivation of L =mc2 correct?
The derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or true in special conditions
only. Einstein took just handpicked parameters out of numerous
possible, to obtain the equation. Einstein was aware of the reality so
he left in midway after getting the desired result. If all valid
values of parameters are taken, then results are contradictory in
nature.
4. What are contradictory results?
Some UNDISCUSSED predictions of Einstein’s 29 Sep. 1905 derivation
blatantly contradict Law of Conservation of Matter. I have
scientifically confirmed the same. No limitation can be bigger than
this in science.
5. Was E=mc2 or similar ideas existed before Einstein?
Yes, E=mc2 existed before Einstein. An Italian Olinto de Pretto
published E=mc2 in valid scientific journal Lettere ed Atti, Feb. 1904,
two years before Einstein. But Pretto died in 1921, before its
experimental confirmation in nuclear physics.
6. Einstein speculated E=mc2 from L=mc2. What is the problem here?
Firstly derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or under special conditions
only.
For examples there are many variables in Einstein’s derivation e.g.
number of light waves emitted by body, magnitude of light energy, angle
at which light energy is emitted and relative velocity v. Einstein just
took handpicked values of variables.
If general values of variables are
taken then results are contradictory to experiments.
Secondly Einstein originated E=mc2 on the basis of speculation only
without any conceptual and mathematical basis. Basically Einstein
replaced L by E in equation L=mc2 to get E=mc2.
7. Then how did you derive new equation, dE =Ac2dm (or DE = Ac2 DM )?
I have derived new equation between mass-energy conservation by simple
calculus method. In dE =Ac2dm, A is a co-efficient of proportionality
like numerous others in science. It is dimensionless variable.
Sharma June 2004 paper is available
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
8. How do you compare these two equations?
Firstly dE =Ac2dm is based upon a conceptual and mathematical
derivation. On the other hand E=mc2 is a speculation, it is bitter
truth. Secondly dE =Ac2dm is a general equation and E=mc2 is its
special case. Energy emitted by new equation can be less, equal to or
more than predicted by E=mc2.
9. How did you justify your equation experimentally?
In Nuclear Physics there are some anomalous results which cannot be
explained by E=mc2 . Like this there are some instances in
astrophysics where my equation is extremely useful.
10. Is your work recognized by international scientific community?
Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals.
11 Have you got any recognition certificate from the scientific
community?
The only way to get scientific recognition is that to get the work
published in peer review international journals and conferences. My
research papers are either published in international journals from
America, England and Canada or being published. I have got invitation
from at least 55 International Conferences to present my work. I have
presented my research in international conferences in USA, England,
Germany, Taiwan Ukraine etc. I have invitation from France and Italy
to present my work this year.
[b]Still there ANYONE is welcome to COMMENT on the work in Physics
Essays giving the facts e.g.
What is Einstein’s Sep 1905 paper ?
What are conditions under which it is derived?
Under what conditions experimentally it holds good?
How to generalize it under all conditions?
What is Ajay Sharma’s Interpretation?
How Ajay Sharma’s paper is different from Einstein’s Sep 1905
paper
How Ajay Sharma’s interpretation is incorrect (if it)?
What are the correct interpretations?
I HAVE ANSWERS TO ALL QUESTIONS.
If Editor Physics Essays and his Editorial Board finds your
interpretation and published the paper it is OK.
All the references are given below for the purpose.
There may be back door critics but none of the scientists have dared to
write to scientific bodies or journals Editors , that Ajay Sharma’s
work is incorrectly published.
12. Can this work be introduced in Schools and colleges?
Yes my wok is scientifically approved in journal in USA, CANADA and
England. Hence it can be so done by any country. IT IS THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE WORK.
13. How do you counter the opposition of the people which has come in
you your way?
Science is the international language. For this, I take seriously the
logical conclusions of the critics. I completely ignore the
irresponsible critics, as they don’t exist.
The critics when understand the things become my supporters.
14. What about your book, 100 Years of E=mc2?
This book will be published in Dec. 2006
It will bring clear and unbiased picture of the facts.
The contents of book are already approved by expert scientists after
PEER REVIEW and published in international journals and conferences
.The book is meant for general public who is interested in basic
science. This book will status as Newton’s Principia or Galileo’s
Dialogue have in science.
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
Interviewer Rajesh Thakoor Email mc2....@gmail.com
References of Einstein’s work
.
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work
My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
100 Years of E=mc2
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA
2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.
3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,
10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND
4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND
5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past, present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
Email ajay.s...@rediffmail.com
0091 94183 09989, 0091 177 2804546
AJAY SHARMA
Dono
mg wrote:
> Email ajay.s...@rediffmail.com
> 0091 94183 09989, 0091 177 2804546
Dear certified cuckoo
This is a physics forum, not the BB at your mental asylum.
Dono
AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> 100 Years of E=mc2
> Email ajay.s...@rediffmail.com
> 0091 94183 09989, 0091 177 2804546
Dear certified cuckoo
Ken S. Tucker
You can start a new thread, and my email is
there for you too. I think your hypothesis of
describing mass by co-orbiting photon's is a
reasonable one. I've explored the relation of
"charge couples" in GR in this brief essay,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
It's fairly easy to extrapolate that a charge
couple is bound by fixed frequency photons,
so I think it's reasonble to substitute the point
charges I used with relational photons to
develope mass.
Best Regards
Ken
AJAY SHARMA
Before we discuss the new interpretation we need to understand the
exisiting , derivation of E=mc2.
Eintein derived Emc2 for first time in
Einstein's 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
and its detailed is done in
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
AJAY SHARMA
AJAY SHARMA
Dono(This is a physics forum, not the BB at your mental asylum.)
Definitely true for you. Look at latest journals, conferences and book
on the topic.
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA
2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.
3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,
10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND
4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND
5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow, (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Ken S. Tucker
AJAY SHARMA wrote:
...
> Before we discuss the new interpretation we need to understand the
> exisiting , derivation of E=mc2.
> Eintein derived Emc2 for first time in
> Einstein's 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
> and its detailed is done in
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
> AJAY SHARMA
Suppose mass is moving at the speed of light
in the direction of time and SMACK hits something
stationary in time, KAPOW, brake lining all over the
place! That's how an H-bomb works, that's what I tell
the lay-man, is that ok with you?
Ken
cjcountess
Hi Ken
Ken said
Baez and I had a brief argument as to whether Big "G"
is a scalar invariant that can be unitized to 1. I assert
that the relativistic dimensionality of G is Time^2, meaning
(as you understand) it is not lorentz invariant.
Conrad said
Time ^2 looks a lot to me like c^2 as the speed of light across any
set
scale distance or metric might be said to represent a minimum
unite of
time. Thus c^2 would be equivalent to time^2 and this wound show
that
Big G is more related to rest mass than any constant mass such as
that
which would be equivalent to the energy constant h. So maybe a
distinction
should be made between Newton's Big G and a quantum constant g
which
depends on the constant of mass-energy h which too is susceptible
to gravity because of the inertia mass gravitational mass equivalence.
The
mass-energy of "h" are equivalent as expressed in the equations
E=hf/c^2 and M=hf/c^2
and inertial mass and gravitational mass are shown to be
equivalent
through the equivalence principle in Einstein's general
Relativity. And so M=hf/c^2 and m=hf=c^2 show h to be the quantum
gravitational constant of both energy waves and rest mass.
Sorry for the redundancy but I hope that it constructively interferes
with itself to reinforce my point without being annoying.
Ken said
If you'll provide some patience, I'll ressurrect the argument
in a nut-shell: You may be aware that the sun's mass may
be expressed in terms of 1.47 kilometers. That's actually
confirmed by the defection of light sucked toward the sun
by that amount and I think has been verified experimentally.
The formula is,
Length = (G/c^2) * Mass.
I'll abbreviate that to L=(G/c^2)*M.
In the Lorentz transform is a commonly used gamma
factor, g= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and provides transforms,
Conrad said
Looks to me like the g (gamma) could be translated into the g or
(quantum gravity constant), after all lorentz transformation and
wavelength contraction or frequency increase, both represent mass -
energy increase and as such must do so in direct proportion to gravity
increase. My only problem with the increase in mass as described by
lorentz contraction is that it is supposed to go unnoticed until speeds
approaches the speed of light while with light mass - energy is said
to double each time frequency doubles and with larger mass such as
bullets mass-energy according to ballistics increases four times each
time speed doubles. I once had a debate with another physicist as to
weather the mass - energy of electromagnetic waves also increase 4 x
as frequency doubles taking the position that it must but I could not
prove it. What are your opinions on these.
Ken Said
L' = L/g , M' = M*g .
Now let's try that applied to the above using G
as a scalar invariant,
L' = (G/c^2)*M' .
==> L/g = (G/c^2)*M*g
Ok I'm sure you see an error there.
If, otoh, we use G'=G/g^2 in a formula like,
L' = (G'/c^2)*M'
things work out well.
Conrad said
O.K. at the risk of sounding like an idiot and with the hope that my
intelligence in one area will outweigh my ignorance in this one, and
not being a mathematician, I have leaned to use a technique of analogy
and pattern to get a better understanding of unfamiliar formulas.
First I
look a pattern I'm familiar with, than an element I may understand and
how it is used in that formula.
To me time^2 resembles c^2
if interpreted in just the right way that I did above meaning if the
speed of light across any set unite distance or metric is considered a
basic unite of time than time^2 = c^2
In the case of G/c^2*M, I might interpret if they are set to 1 in
relation to each other as (G/G)*M or M*c^2 but if they are not set to
one in relation to each other which they should not be if G is set to 1
in relation to c the answer will be different. But I will not attempt
to interpret these equations at this time and risk exposing more of my
weaknesses but I will use the approach that I have been and hope my
contribution using a more simple system contributes something
noteworthy. Thank you for your patience with me.
Ken said
You need not repeat" if this theory is correct", we're
working within a common hypothesis, you spec'd at
the front end, no need to defend your point in every
statement, if I thought your nutz I wouldn't be here!
IOW's I encourage confidence, we'll see if it blows
up, but for now let's vent the hypothesis and see how
things go, I'm still in.
Conrad said
O.k. thank you
Ken said
I'd be careful using the concept of force, I'm being
a bit nit picky but GR's PoE really does see a
difference between force and accelerations.
Conrad said
O.K. thanks for the heads up
Don't mean to add too much to fast as that might be distraction but
when you get a chance see below
Cosmic Pattern as Cosmic Symmetry
The pattern of expansion/contraction is a form of symmetry. It repeats
itself generally the same giving the Universe stability (around the
constants) but specifically different which gives the universe
open-ended spontaneity (around variables). The variable may arise from
a constant as frequency arises from basic ground state with constants
of c and h; variables may than reach certain values at which point they
exhibit certain specific traits such as colors arising from
frequencies. And so frequencies arise from constants and specific
colors arise from frequencies at certain values. Two constants of
velocity at right angles such as c x c gives rise to rest mass, add
variables to that and we may discover another pattern.
This symmetry must involve a constant besides the mere pattern of
expansion/contraction itself such as a conservation of energy,
momentum, and form. And thus the pattern of expansion/contraction can
be another guiding principle in the search for truth.
As exhibit no 1. The four forces of nature follow this pattern.
1.Electromagnetism - both attractive (contractive) and repulsive
(expansive). It is attractive between two unlike charges such as an
electron and proton and repulsive between two like charges such as two
electrons or two protons. It is also repulsive in the case of a single
photon which travels at the speed of light expanding the distance
between its origin and destiny at the speed of c and it becomes
contractive again if I am right in predicting that c2 could be a
frequency at the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum where the
photon attains rest mass.
2.Gravity - always attractive pulling or pushing all matter together
3.Strong Nuclear Force - always attractive holding nucleus together
4.Weak Nuclear Force - always repulsive allowing the degeneration of
atoms
As exhibit no.2 see book outlining cosmic pattern www.cjc123.net
You can browse it to get the main idea if you hit browse book link
Please excuse the redundancy-wrote most of this ahead of time
Conrad
cjcountess
Concerning last post, at the begining Ken I should have said more
accurately
Time ^2 looks a lot to me like c^2 as the speed of light across the
minimum
set scale distance or metric might be said to represent a minimum
unite of time. Such as a Planck unite of time or something
corresponding to it. But you probably knew what I meant although as you
warned, physics is an exacting science. This brings me to something I
mistakenly left out in the last post but which I think is worth
posting. A response to something you said:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Hi Conrad,
I understand, and grant latitute to post's in groups,
however, physics is an exacting science, for example
Planck's "h" is erg x seconds and is either an action
unit or, as some reason, an angular momentum unit.
> > cjcountess wrote:
Thank you for your patients and as an independent, unorthodox
researcher working alone I find this forum, and in particular
with your
input,
indispensable as a place to bounce ideas off of people and get an
idea as
to weather they make sense to anyone but myself as well as
refining them
with the ideas gathered from both constructive and destructive
criticism.
As I see it, if h is a unite of action it is also a unite of
energy
because action and energy both imply motion. I subscribe to the
definition
that the most basic form of energy is motion so I think that the
term
action as a description of h is a matter of convention.
Besides h is the constant unite in the energy -mass formula E or
M =hf/c^2, so it
must be a basic unite of energy - mass. I am also familiar with
the other reduced
Planck's constant as a combination of the regular Planck's
constant "h" divided by 2pi as in h
/ 2pi or h-bar as an angular momentum unite. I prefer using the
regular h
instead of h-bar. I equate the regular Planck's constant or h as
equivalent to c before frequency is factored in because both the
speed of
light is constant regardless of frequency or before frequency is
factored
in and the action/energy of h is constant regardless of frequency
or
before frequency is factored in. As such c and h before
frequency is factored in might represent energy traveling in
a relatively straight line at lowest frequency and ground state
energy before any
frequency is factored in above 1.
But it seems that h-bar representing
angular momentum is more related to rest mass or energy in
circular
rotation as the h/2pi implies h divided around a circle analogous
to c^2 as I interpret it, although I may be wrong.
This difference between the two Planck's constants h and h-bar
may if fact
mirror the difference between Newton's Big G and the other
proposed g as
the quantum gravitational constant equivalent to mass - energy
constants h and speed of light constant c. After all Newton did not
have the benefit of
the knowledge that energy and matter are equivalent, the
constancy of the
speed of light or Planck's constant. He started from the most
basic
premise known at the time which was matter, energy, space and
gravity as
separate entities without knowing that matter can be broken down
into
energy, the energy-mass equivalence, and that mass-energy has a
constant which is h or that energy itself
sense it does have mass, bends toward gravity. If he knew this he
may have sort the
relationship of the mass-energy constant to the gravity constant
on more basic level than rest mass or matter "that of energy".
Talk to you later
Conrad
cjcountess
I saw your claim that Einstein's original formula was L=mc^2 and that
it can lead to inconsistency. I also saw your add for your book on the
site with Nova publishers in its name.
It is ironic that the T.V. program "Nova", celebrated the 100
anniversary of E=mc^2 on a program called "Einstein's Big Idea",
on PBS and on line. As I state at beginning of discussion, 10
scientists were ask to describe what the formula means to them. Two of
them stated that M=ec^2 was the original formula. What ever it was I am
not going to dispute but for some reason in the end scientist thought
the translation to E=mc^2 was more important. The main meaning that
each of the 10 scientist gave was that a lot of energy was locked
inside of matter but none ever explained how. I am sure that what you
are pointing out about this formula's beginning has important or it
would not have gained you so much attention.
How do you think energy is locked inside of matter?
As I stated in the beginning I think that I can show the direct
relationship between energy and matter and that c^2 on the quantum
level concerning one particle is a frequency where energy attains rest
mass. I have ask scientist over and over again how can the speed of
light be squared if it is the highest possible speed in the universe
and only got the insufficient answer that it is just a mathematical
conversion factor of energy and matter. But as you know if you read my
post I think that it is more than that. It is an actual frequency where
energy turns to matter because it has an actual geometrical reality of
energy in a closed loop rotation enabling it to have rest mass. With
all the credentials that you stated I really would value your opinion
on this perspective. I've seen your post several places and it seems
a lot like advertisement. But that is fine we me if you are really
interested in true exchange of truth and plausible ideas. You state
that you ran into a lot of opposition in your presentations. But if you
really believe in what you are doing you probably don't need to
advertise so much as the idea will stand on its own merit.
Please don't take this as disrespect as I have nowhere near the
credentials that you do. But I do believe in what I am doing and the
evidence itself will stand on its own merits and be my credentials.
What do you think?
Conrad
AJAY SHARMA
Well my point of view is here
AJAY SHARMA
Dear Conrad
I dont advertise at all, but at the same time I am firm , I must state
the truth fearlessly.
If there is truth , it will come out.
All people talk their ideas on the internet , as I do.
The internet will be major media and reason for new discvereis in
futute.
Kindly see the link below,which reflecets my view point.
dej4
http://macactupapi.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/07/100-years-of-e-mc2-a-hoax-by-ajay-sharma.htm
karand...@yahoo.com
AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> Well my point of view is here
>
Here is an even better counterpoint:
http://macactupapi.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/07/100-years-of-e-mc2-a-hoax-by-ajay-sharma.htm
Sorcerer
"dej4" <clu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162917293....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|I like this link much better:
|
|
http://macactupapi.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/07/100-years-of-e-mc2-a-hoax-by-ajay-sharma.htm
|
Surely this must be an error:
"Ajay Sharma simply does not understand one of the basic laws of physics" ?
Ajay Sharma simply does not understand ANY of the basic laws of physics!
Ken S. Tucker
I read/studied your 2 posts, and congrads on
your new book. I get a sense of an admixture of
science and philosophy.
cjcountess wrote:
> Hi Ken, this is Conrad
>
> Concerning last post, at the begining Ken I should have said more
> accurately
> Time ^2 looks a lot to me like c^2 as the speed of light across the
> minimum
> set scale distance or metric might be said to represent a minimum
> unite of time. Such as a Planck unite of time or something
> corresponding to it.
Yes, that's fair enough, i.e. defining "time" inside
a neutron has problems.
> But you probably knew what I meant although as you
> warned, physics is an exacting science. This brings me to something I
> mistakenly left out in the last post but which I think is worth
> posting. A response to something you said:
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Hi Conrad,
> I understand, and grant latitute to post's in groups,
> however, physics is an exacting science, for example
> Planck's "h" is erg x seconds and is either an action
> unit or, as some reason, an angular momentum unit.
>
> > > cjcountess wrote:
> Thank you for your patients and as an independent, unorthodox
> researcher working alone I find this forum, and in particular
> with your
> input,
> indispensable as a place to bounce ideas off of people and get an
> idea as
> to weather they make sense to anyone but myself as well as
> refining them
> with the ideas gathered from both constructive and destructive
> criticism.
> As I see it, if h is a unite of action it is also a unite of
> energy
> because action and energy both imply motion.
I understand Energy = Rate of Action.
>I subscribe to the
> definition
> that the most basic form of energy is motion so I think that the
> term
> action as a description of h is a matter of convention.
Hang on, definitions such as speed, distance etc are
really not subject to personal subscription, if you start
doing that too much people can't understand what you're
talking about. It's agreed SR & GR have subtlely varied
the definitions of some of our basic units by showing
time length and mass are relative, but that's within a
very careful well defined scheme.
> Besides h is the constant unite in the energy -mass formula E or
> M =hf/c^2, so it
> must be a basic unite of energy - mass. I am also familiar with
> the other reduced
> Planck's constant as a combination of the regular Planck's
> constant "h" divided by 2pi as in h
> / 2pi or h-bar as an angular momentum unite. I prefer using the
> regular h
> instead of h-bar. I equate the regular Planck's constant or h as
>
> equivalent to c before frequency is factored in because both the
> speed of
> light is constant regardless of frequency or before frequency is
> factored
> in and the action/energy of h is constant regardless of frequency
> or
> before frequency is factored in. As such c and h before
> frequency is factored in might represent energy traveling in
> a relatively straight line at lowest frequency and ground state
> energy before any
> frequency is factored in above 1.
Ok, invariants like h and c maybe unitized that's standard.
Let me ponder if "action" and "energy" can be
equated, it's unconventional, but you never know
until you look, see what you can do.
Ken
AJAY SHARMA
100 Years of E=mc2
(Book will be published in Dec. 2006 , By NOVA Science, New York,
USA)
1. What is E=mc2? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work
My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
100 Years of E=mc2
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA
2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.
3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,
10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND
4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND
5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past, present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554