Geometrical interpretation of c^2
cjcountess
frequency at the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum where energy
turns to matter back in May of 2005 on sci physics and got some
interesting responses. I explained it as the speed of light in linear
direction times the speed of light in frequency or right angular
direction, resulting in the speed of light in circular motion due to a
balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces as one of the
explanations .
A lot of the responses were negative and some people even seemed
offended. Although this can be discouraging and make one not want to
put themselves in such a line of critical fire, if you really believe
that you are correct and that what you are offering is important, this
is what you must go through. Having confidence in what you are saying
and knowing that you will eventually be vindicated makes it easier to
take the criticism. Beside this puts it on record that you were the
first to suggest or discover this and contrast those who claim to be
on the cutting edge of physics but still think that what you say is
absurd. I am convinced now more than ever that I was correct with the
exception of some grammar, spelling and minor mathematical errors then
and even more so now. And so now I like to throw this idea out there
one more time to see what it stirs up.
With the confidence that I have now, I don't mind if they attack the
grammar, spelling, minor mathematical, and the style errors, because I
know that the main concept is correct, I know that there are theory
assassins out there who really attack when you threaten their theory
of economic interest by being correct but opposite their view, and I
know that eventually the right people will see the value in what I am
saying.
Here is a short simple version
Some say that c^2 in the most famous equation in the world "E=mc^2" is
just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter with no
physical geometry. But I intent to show that c^2 is actually a
conversion frequency at the high end of EM spectrum where energy turns
to matter because it takes on a geometrical form of energy in circular
or spherical motion such as a standing spherical wave because of the
angular momentum of the wave being strong enough to now create
circular motion.
The simplest way to see the direct equivalent relationship between
energy and matter is to view c^2 geometrically in this way.
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.
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 instance horizontally
along the x-axis - and the speed of light in the right angular
frequency direction, or vertically 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.
Please see attached file for geometrical graphic
[ m (or rest mass) = E (or energy) c^2(at the speed of light in
circular rotation) for one quantum particle.]
seegraphic
Conrad J Countess
5/9/2008
cjcountess
Sorry graphic link did not work. Might have to cut and paste the url
below
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
john
Conrad
Yes, it's a rotation which then also
precesses.
And if the rotation is at a frequency of 1 and you set
the frequency of precession to 2, you get:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/standingwave.GIF
And if you take eight of these pathways- one every 45 degrees
around the equator- you complete this pattern:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/galaxy%20pattern%201.html
Each pathway accommodates two opposite members, like this:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/He.GIF
so your original rotating ring can
accommodate 16 equally-spaced members to follow
this pattern.
If we compare completing 16-member rings
to the periodic table we get this:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
John
Galaxy Model
Uncle Al
>
> Hello this is Conrad Countess.
Bullshit meters are aquiver.
> I first published this idea of c^2 as a
> frequency at the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum where energy
> turns to matter back in May of 2005 on sci physics and got some
> interesting responses.
Here are a couple more,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
< I explained it as the speed of light in linear
> direction times the speed of light in frequency or right angular
> direction, resulting in the speed of light in circular motion due to a
> balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces as one of the
> explanations .
[snip rest of crap]
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Androcles
"cjcountess" <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a15d0447-5777-4c21...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Hello this is Conrad Countess. I first published this idea of c^2 as a
| frequency
*plonk*
cjcountess
Thank you John that was very interesting, and the relation to the
periodic table really set it off. I am going to study your ideas more
as I am sure I can learn something from them and I have some more of
my own that you might be interested in also including one concerning
periodic table.
Hello Uncle Al and Androcles. Didn't take either of you long to
descend. I remember Uncle Al asking me, “How does Lorentz contraction
look like space time curvature?” Did not think of it then but I have
since. The answer is that as frequency increases and wavelength
contracts such as in Doppler effect, this is analogous to or literally
Lorentz contraction of EM waves. And as the wave reaches c in the
right angular direction where it has enough momentum to create a
rotation and rest mass, that is space time curvature. Thus Lorentz
contraction of EM waves leads to space time curvature of EM waves
turning them to matter since EM waves as well as matter are a
manifestation of space time. This is because the ground state dark
energy from which EM waves and matter particles arise is inseparable
from space time itself. And Androcles “The Energy Squared” web site,
including the square that suppose to represent c^2 along with his E =
½ mv^2. Did not think of it then but but I have since and I am ready
for both of you. E=1/2mv^2, F=mv or F=mv^2 all have been used to
describe force or energy. I won't argue in favor of either at this
time. As for the square representing the amount of energy in matter it
may work very well at that. But I am relating c^2 to a frequency at
high end of EM spectrum where the speed of light in the linear
direction equals and balances the speed of light in the 90 degree
angular direction causing the speed of light squared to become the
speed of light circled and Lorentz contraction to become space time
curvature.
Wow! Uncle Al and Androcles, you guys are all over criticizing people,
are you the theory assassins? Well this one won't die, it just gets
stronger and stronger.
I love this
Conrad
srp...@gmail.com
Very good try.
At least, you are indeed exploring out of beaten paths.
Unfortunately, only orthodox physicists even look at
sci.physics in search for "offenders". They will consider
only stuff that they know the majority of other physicists
is likely approve. They simply have no ability to assess
the potential of anything not learned from standard
textbooks.
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
So you think c^2 is a frequency?
>
> André Michaud
Uncle Al
>
> Hello this is Conrad
> I love this
> Conrad
Have some more,
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
srp...@gmail.com
No. But contrary to you, he his trying to find explanations.
Something you don't even grasp the concept of.
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
I try to find /good/ explanations, not self-contradictory and/or
meaningless explanations.
Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 is frequency, which has
units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no excuse for saying such
things.
>
> André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
Well, good researchers have to start somewhere. They start
by understanding a little, then a little more, then a little more,
and then a little better than you maybe.
> Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 is frequency, which has
> units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no excuse for saying such
> things.
Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some
sort of fundamental unit lenght ?
But that's his baby to raise.
What about you. Why don't you make us privy to your own
out of the box full-grown /good/ explanation, not a self-
contradictory
and/or meaningless explanation.
Try to impress me for once with something more than the usual
pre-chewed pablum.
André Michaud
Uncle Al
>
> On 9 mai, 19:39, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 9, 3:31 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 9 mai, 17:37, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On May 9, 1:09 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 9 mai, 13:56, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Hello this is Conrad Countess. I first published this idea of c^2 as a
> > > > > > frequency at the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum where energy
> > > > > > turns to matter back in May of 2005 on sci physics and got some
> > > > > > interesting responses.
Ignorance is educable, stupidity is forever. If over a period of
three years some sorry piece of intellectual shit never discovers that
the dimensions of c^2 are (L^2)/(T^2) and that is most definitely not
a frequency (reciprocal time; reciprocal length of EM is passable),
that's not ignorance. That's stooopidity.
Don't administer medicine to the dead. Despite the Liberal mantra,
there is no beer at the bottom of the hole (no matter how deep it is
dug at others' cost). There is no way to pick up a turd by grasping
its clean end.
If you think this sorry excuse for an idiot is salvageable, take him
aside and educate him yourself. Diversity scrapes the top 10% from
the bottom 10%. If you do the math, that is at best the bottom 10th
%-tile. Those meat puppets are world class stooopid. As repeately
demonstrated, case in point, facts in evidence.
The stooopid fuck didn't even crack a search engine.
srp...@gmail.com
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Well, everybody is born naked knowing nothing, and everybody
passe away naked having learned only what he allowed himself
to.
There are those who stop searching as they get a degree.
Some don't get a degree but stop searching as they acquire
any type of certainty.
If he stopped searching, what you say applies as it does to
all those who stopped however good they think they are.
If he didn't, he will eventually know better.
Nobody is born a genius or an idiot
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
Where does making shit up fit in there? Everything he wrote was
meaningless and obviously the product of the ignorant.
>
> > Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 is frequency, which has
> > units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no excuse for saying such
> > things.
>
> Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some
> sort of fundamental unit lenght ?
I forgot you were the wrong person to have this discussion with, and
this sentence reminded me as such.
The quantity's dimension does NOT GO AWAY even if the quantity itself
is of unit length.
>
> But that's his baby to raise.
...and yours, apparently.
>
> What about you. Why don't you make us privy to your own
> out of the box full-grown /good/ explanation, not a self-
> contradictory
> and/or meaningless explanation.
Don't have any. Every non-stupid idea I have come up with has already
been explored in depth, though some of them are more recent than
others in terms of 'being explored'.
Timo A. Nieminen
> Every non-stupid idea I have come up with has already
> been explored in depth, though some of them are more recent than
> others in terms of 'being explored'.
I had a Nobel-winning idea once. Alas, somebody else (who did get the
Nobel Prize for it) had the idea earlier, and not only had the idea, but
did the experiments to check it (which took many years to do, and isn't
something I would have had the resources to do, even if I'd had the idea
first), and had published it as well.
Guess which Nobel Prize! Hint: not physics.
Another time, we (me, directly connected to the problem, and my
officemate, connected only to the problem by talking with me about it)
were working on an interesting problem, and we (my officemate came
up with the crucial element) solved it. The very next day, a kindly
co-worker gave us 2 papers where it had all been solved 10 years earlier.
We couldn't see what we could add that was novel, so we didn't publish it.
However, one paper came out of Scotland, and another out of Poland, with
the same (old) result - they didn't know it had already been done. Later,
I found an older paper, with the same result, from about 1980, another ~10
years earlier, and then a paper from ~1965 with the same result, and
finally a paper that covered the whole matter quite comprehensively in
1935, citing a paper from 1884 as the source of most of the key result.
Multiple rediscovery big time!
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
srp...@gmail.com
Meaningless to you obviously. What I meant was that he was
dipping his toes into the right pound, associating geometry with
equations in a way that few are able to do.
Conrad, learn more physics, more math, and never be certain
you have fully understood. Pay particluar attention to dimensions,
they are the key. You may eventually end up with valuable stuff.
You have the right frame of mind for exploring some of what most
physicists have given up as impossible to understand.
> > > Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 is frequency, which has
> > > units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no excuse for saying such
> > > things.
>
> > Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some
> > sort of fundamental unit lenght ?
>
> I forgot you were the wrong person to have this discussion with, and
> this sentence reminded me as such.
>
> The quantity's dimension does NOT GO AWAY even if the quantity itself
> is of unit length.
Obviously. Just egging you a little.
Ok seriously, the only ones who never make mistakes are those who
never try. He has the guts of exposing himself here to the worst type
of criticism. If he analizes correctly, he will find immersed into the
shit
pile of shit that you contribute to leads that will help him correct
his aim
and move on.
As I said, he has the right frame of mind to further explore.
Will he do it ? I don't know, but he has potential.
> > But that's his baby to raise.
>
> ...and yours, apparently.
My own baby is full grown and kicking. Thanks.
> > What about you. Why don't you make us privy to your own
> > out of the box full-grown /good/ explanation, not a self-
> > contradictory and/or meaningless explanation.
>
> Don't have any. Every non-stupid idea I have come up with has already
> been explored in depth, though some of them are more recent than
> others in terms of 'being explored'.
This only means that you have never stepped out of the box. The only
real out of the box ideas are by definition ideas that no one else has
had
before.
Is that something that you would ever dare try ? Remember that it
means that you will be treated exactly like you and your peers are
treating this guy right now, even if your dimensions are right.
André Michaud
john
> Hello this is Conrad
>
> Thank you John that was very interesting, and the relation to the
> periodic table really set it off. I am going to study your ideas more
> as I am sure I can learn something from them and I have some more of
> my own that you might be interested in also including one concerning
> periodic table.
> Hello Uncle Al and Androcles. Didn't take either of you long to
> descend.
If Al and Androcles are dissin' you, you're somebody.
Every separate thing is moving energy, and the energy, far
from being random, must move in a constant way
when unperturbed by other bits of moving energy.
Light is a frequency moving at c with a
certain attitude wrt that direction. Now we
transpose that movement at c to an orthogonal
frequency. We now have a wave travelling in a circle.
A standing wave.
In mine I find that second frequency to be
twice the first.
John
Galaxy Model
cjcountess
Thank you Andre.
These guys act as if I committed blaspheme against their religion or
something. What disturbs me is not that I think they will prove me
wrong, on the contrary they are looking more like fools to me and soon
they will be to every one else as this is on the record. What disturbs
me most is their viciousness and hatefulness. But they will be
revealed for what they are by their own words and attitudes. Because
the more you claim to know the more you reveal what you don't know. It
is sometimes hard to find a suitable explanation to present to rigid
minds. But do not disregard a work simply because it is not written in
the correct style or coming from an established academic. If I were
handed a treasure map and disregard it simply because the spelling and
or grammar were incorrect, I would lose out. But someone else might
not and he or she would prove the wiser. Besides physics is more
important than minor spelling, grammar, and style errors in this case.
And we all know that mavericks have made great discoveries in the
past.
Getting back to the subject at hand
If frequency converges to c^2 instead of diverges to v^2 interpreted
as infinity, and leading to “ultraviolet catastrophe idea” in
electromagnetic theory as well as in quantum theory as the “infinite
degrees of freedom idea” that lead to renormalization and running
coupling constants problems, than this high frequency cut off c^2 that
I am speaking on behalf of should naturally lead to coupling constants
that don't run such as the true mass and charge of electron in natural
units of c. Mass is M=E=c^2 and charge is -1=E=c^2 meaning energy at
exactly c^2. Although M=E/c^2 and m=Ec^2 both can be used because
(1/1)=(1x1)=(1) since E/C^2 can pertain to relative mass of photons
and Ec^2 can pertain to compound mass with multiple c^2 particles, the
only equation that pertains to a single rest mass partial that is not
a devision of or multiple of, but exactly c^2 is m=E=c^2 or m =E@c^2
meaning exactly at c^2. Since positrons have same mass but opposite
charge a notation must distinguish the two.
An electron is said to get its -1 charge from its spin being counter
to its trajectory, and the square root of -1 is said to be 1 unite
vector in the 90 degree angular direction which causes a 90 degree
counter clockwise rotation. With that said “c” might be said to be the
natural unites square root of -1 if “cxc” or “c^2” produces a backward
spinning -1 charged particle such as an electron as indeed the
evidence will bare out.
The ultra violet catastrophe idea was remedied by Planck introducing
the constant but was not applied to minimum or maximum frequency. That
might also be done Minimum energy would be Ground state energy at h
and maximum would be c^2
It may be more palatable for some if I said that c^2 is associated
with a frequency where the angular momentum of the wave equals and
balances the linear momentum. for a balance of centrifugal and
centripetal forces that create circular or spherical motion and rest
mass. After all if E=hf/c^2 measures energy of EM waves than at some
point at high end of EM spectrum, E must = hf = c^2 exactly where a
waves attains rest mass.
Did not deBroglie associate h/mc^2 with frequency of electron and
associate it with a critical angular momentum?
Hello John
You are correct and that brings me to the more advanced 3D
explanation. Although yours was excellent let me see if I can
collaborate it. If we start with a circular polarized wave moving
horizontally to the right along the x axis and give it an all around
3D 90 degree angular momentum, enough to create spherical motion, and
we makes it spin backward, it will be spinning along the y and z axis
as well as backward along the x axis like a gyroscope making two
rotations along the y and z axis for every one along the x axis. In
other words it makes two rotations for every wavelength just as an
electron. I have plenty of collaborating evidence that I will post.
You are correct again this is very encouraging as it collaborates the
evidence that I have. A 3D, backward spinning, standing spherical wave
logically follows from this. I have the evidence on disk and will post
it latter. Will get back to you John this is very encouraging.
Conrad
Uncle Al
[snip whining crap]
> Getting back to the subject at hand
> If frequency converges to c^2 instead of diverges to v^2 interpreted
> as infinity, and leading to “ultraviolet catastrophe idea” in
> electromagnetic theory as well as in quantum theory as the “infinite
> degrees of freedom idea”
[snip rest of crap]
Hey fucking stooopid: c^2 has dimensions (L^2)[T^(-2)]. Frequency is
T^(-1).
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
--
Uncle Al
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[snip]
I argue about MOND a lot, but that didn't mean I ignored papers that
show how MOND made such an excellent fit to a large swath of data. I
think there is something to MOND the same way there is something to
the Rydberg formula - not a theory on itself, but still representative
of what's going on.
My hope was to basically directly reverse-engineer the data used to
support MOND by use of Poisson's equation to obtain a density profile
of dark matter in a galaxy. It turns out someone effectively already
did that, but it made my happy that I thought of something like that
independently.
Eric Gisse
Except physics 101 students who don't understand dimensional analysis.
How does the saying go....being an idiot is not half way to being an
idiot savant?
Finish reading the paragraph before you comment. Every idea I've had
so far that wasn't wrong was already explored.
>
> Is that something that you would ever dare try ? Remember that it
> means that you will be treated exactly like you and your peers are
> treating this guy right now, even if your dimensions are right.
Dude, he doesn't understand that a squared velocity is not a
frequency. Being short good ideas isn't as bad as that.
>
> André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
Well, there was a time when you didn't understand dimensional
analysis, then you learned. Were you an idiot before you learned ?
> > Conrad, learn more physics, more math, and never be certain
> > you have fully understood. Pay particluar attention to dimensions,
> > they are the key. You may eventually end up with valuable stuff.
> > You have the right frame of mind for exploring some of what most
> > physicists have given up as impossible to understand.
>
> > > > > Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 is frequency, which has
> > > > > units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no excuse for saying such
> > > > > things.
>
> > > > Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some
> > > > sort of fundamental unit lenght ?
>
> > > I forgot you were the wrong person to have this discussion with, and
> > > this sentence reminded me as such.
>
> > > The quantity's dimension does NOT GO AWAY even if the quantity itself
> > > is of unit length.
>
> > Obviously. Just egging you a little.
>
> > Ok seriously, the only ones who never make mistakes are those who
> > never try. He has the guts of exposing himself here to the worst type
> > of criticism. If he analizes correctly, he will find immersed into the
> > pile of shit that you contribute to leads that will help him correct
> > his aim and move on.
>
> > As I said, he has the right frame of mind to further explore.
>
> > Will he do it ? I don't know, but he has potential.
>
> > > > But that's his baby to raise.
>
> > > ...and yours, apparently.
>
> > My own baby is full grown and kicking. Thanks.
>
> > > > What about you. Why don't you make us privy to your own
> > > > out of the box full-grown /good/ explanation, not a self-
> > > > contradictory and/or meaningless explanation.
>
> > > Don't have any. Every non-stupid idea I have come up with has already
> > > been explored in depth, though some of them are more recent than
> > > others in terms of 'being explored'.
>
> > This only means that you have never stepped out of the box. The only
> > real out of the box ideas are by definition ideas that no one else has
> > had before.
>
> Finish reading the paragraph before you comment. Every idea I've had
> so far that wasn't wrong was already explored.
Got you. Repeating my answer. This only means that you stayd on the
beaten path re-sniffing the same old obvious sents that all others
had
been sniffing at previously.
You don't really understand what it means to think out of the box.
> > Is that something that you would ever dare try ? Remember that it
> > means that you will be treated exactly like you and your peers are
> > treating this guy right now, even if your dimensions are right.
>
> Dude, he doesn't understand that a squared velocity is not a
> frequency. Being short good ideas isn't as bad as that.
Well, I guess that he knows now. Doesn't change my opinion on
his potential. At first people make mistake, and then, as they
learn more, if the do, they make less mistakes.
André Michaud
Timo A. Nieminen
> But do not disregard a work simply because it is not written in
> the correct style or coming from an established academic. If I were
> handed a treasure map and disregard it simply because the spelling and
> or grammar were incorrect, I would lose out. But someone else might
> not and he or she would prove the wiser. Besides physics is more
> important than minor spelling, grammar, and style errors in this case.
Surely the physics content is more important than minor spelling, grammar,
or style errors. Just read some published peer-reviewed physics papers and
enjoy the wonderful grammar and style! (Copy-editors take care of the
spelling errors, at least in the journals that copy-edit, but you need to
be careful, because often the copy editors don't know how to write
English, and follow a checklist of house style rules rigidly, and butcher
the grammar in the process.)
It isn't about spelling, grammar, or style; it's about conveying meaning.
The criticism of your post that I saw was that c^2 can't be a frequency,
as basic dimensional analysis will tell you. This may well not be one of
the replies that you characterise as "hateful". In any case, the point is
well-made - how can statements like "frequency converges to c^2 instead of
diverges to v^2" be meaningful if the dimensions of quantities are not
meaningful. The advantages of standardised technical terms and mathematics
is that things have standard meanings.
Exploit the standardised language, don't abuse it! For example, "c^2 is
associated with a frequency" doesn't say anything useful unless you
explain what "associated" means. Better still, what is the frequency in
hertz? If there's more than one frequency, so that you can't give a single
quantitative answer, how can you say "associated with a frequency"? Saying
"the angular momentum of the wave equals and balances the linear
momentum" doesn't convey very much, because angular and linear momentum
are different things, and can't be equal. Perhaps you mean that the moment
of the linear momentum is equal to (or opposite to, since you write
"balances") the angular momentum? I can't tell. You
might have an interesting idea there, but if I can't understand what you
write, how can I know?
It isn't about spelling, grammar, or style; it's about clarity and
understandability.
> And we all know that mavericks have made great discoveries in the
> past.
When? Who?
In physics, when and who? I suppose it depends on the definition of
"maverick".
While this isn't the subject at hand, I think the topic
of outsider-contributions to physics and science is interesting. What
mavericks do you think have made great discoveries in physics, and why do
you consider them to be mavericks?
> It may be more palatable for some if I said that c^2 is associated
> with a frequency where the angular momentum of the wave equals and
> balances the linear momentum. for a balance of centrifugal and
> centripetal forces that create circular or spherical motion and rest
> mass.
I've wondered just what might happen if you produce a rotational frequency
shift (a beam of light or other electromagnetic radiation that exerts a
torque on a rotating object, such as a birefringent waveplate, comes out
with a changed frequency) so as to get a frequency of zero, or a negative
frequency.
--
Timo
Ken S. Tucker
...
> I've wondered just what might happen if you produce a rotational frequency
> shift (a beam of light or other electromagnetic radiation that exerts a
> torque on a rotating object, such as a birefringent waveplate, comes out
> with a changed frequency) so as to get a frequency of zero, or a negative
> frequency.
Perhaps an A/C induction motor, Hertz (like 60) in,
1800 RPM out, fascinating subject, I'm sure you
know much more than almost anyone, would be a
start.
Ken
Google Is Spam
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4825E383...@hate.spam.net...
>
> 1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
> skill.
> 2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
> others.
> 3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
> inadequacy.
>
Look in the mirror
Google Is Spam
> srp...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you think this sorry excuse for an idiot is salvageable, take him
> aside and educate him yourself. Diversity scrapes the top 10% from
> the bottom 10%. If you do the math, that is at best the bottom 10th
> %-tile. Those meat puppets are world class stooopid. As repeately
> demonstrated, case in point, facts in evidence.
>
> The stooopid fuck didn't even crack a search engine.
Feel better?
srp...@gmail.com
> Thank you Andre.
> These guys act as if I committed blaspheme against their religion or
> something.
They simply snivel at a blatant error. A very bad habit but hey,
everyone
is free to act like this on this unmoderated group.
In such an environment, you have to chose with whom you want to
discuss.
> What disturbs me is not that I think they will prove me
> wrong, on the contrary they are looking more like fools to me and soon
> they will be to every one else as this is on the record. What disturbs
> me most is their viciousness and hatefulness. But they will be
> revealed for what they are by their own words and attitudes. Because
> the more you claim to know the more you reveal what you don't know.
Trust me, viciousness apart, they do understand dimensional analysis.
> It is sometimes hard to find a suitable explanation to present to rigid
> minds. But do not disregard a work simply because it is not written in
> the correct style or coming from an established academic.
That's the name of the game here. And even if your work was perfect
they would still disregard it. But you do have a blatant error from
the
getgo by naming c^2 a frequency. It simply makes no sense. I
really suggest you dig more deeply into physics until you clearly
distinguish between frequency, wavelength, energy, velocities and
how they are related.
The best you can expect as it stands is that they will jump on the
first mistake they see and stick a ten foot pole right into it.
It is up to you then to analyze and determine if it really is an error
(that you must then correct, even if it means starting again from
scratch) or if it is not an error from the premises you establish.
> If I were handed a treasure map and disregard it simply because
> the spelling and or grammar were incorrect, I would lose out.
Looking forward to see what map you eventually come up with.
IF you invest the very difficult efforts involved into digging into
physics sufficiently to iron out all blatant errors, you may get
there.
No. He associated the momentum (p=mv) of the Bohr hydrogen atom
ground state electron with Planck's constant which defined what he
named the matter wave.
lambda = h/mv
Lambda = the de Broglie wavelength (the matter wave) dimension = meter
h= Planck's constant 6.62606876E-34 (joules seconds)
m= mass of the electron 9.10938188E-31 kg
the dimensions of kg are (joules seconds^2) / meter^2
v = classical velocity of the Bohr ground state electron 2187691.253 m/
s
If you do the calculation you will se that lamba = 3.32491846E-10 m
which is the length of the Bohr ground state orbit.
If you divide it by 2 pi, you end up with the radius of that orbit,
which is 5.291o772083E-11 meter
To calculate the frequency, which is the number of cycles
per second, you need the energy you are considering.
For the ground state energy of the electron
you use the Coulomb equation to get the force between
the electron and proton at the distance determined by
the radius and you multiply that force by the radius
to obtain the energy.
You then divide that energy by h (Planck's constant)
and you finally get the frequency, which is the inverse
of the time it takes for one cycle of the energy.
Explanation available in any suitable intro ref on physics.
I also suggest that you become familiar with the standard
MKS unit system very commonly used in physics. This
will take care of your apparent mixup with dimensions.
André Michaud
cjcountess
Nice to hear from you again.
TImo,
I understand what you are saying and appreciate your civility. I can
only explain something the best that I can giving the tools that I
have at the time. Not being a trained physicist I don't know all the
lingo or math of a trained physicist but I know fairly well how to
communicate an idea and definitely know when I understand an idea,
even if I cannot yet convey it seamlessly. I will try to covey it more
clearly in its simplest most complete form and language that hopefully
most can understand. I think that one of the things that throws allot
of people off is the simplicity of this idea. It really doesn't
require allot of complex math and language unless that is all one can
think in. Will think about what you said more.
Eric Gisse
I know that in equation like “F=mv^2” it does not mean that the
velocity is multiplied by itself. It means that the force is not
simply the (mass times the velocity) but that each time the velocity
doubles the force quadruples. The same is true for a=v^2/r, the force
required to maintain acceleration of circular motion at same speed
quadruples each time radius or speed doubles. But velocity squared can
also mean two perpendicular vectors of motion giving rise to circular
motion. In the old days you could speak of a balance of centripetal
and centrifugal forces at right angles to each other giving rise to
circular motion. That in another sense would be velocity squared.. Now
some people don't want to use the idea of centrifugal force saying
that it is fictitious and that the tendency to move in a straight line
once set in motion is not a force at all. No wonder people are
confused. Stand in the way of something that has been set in motion
along a straight line such as a bullet and tell me again that it does
not have a force. I can understand why some people are confused about
my description of c^2 or v^2 as circular motion. Although v^2 may not
always refer to circular motion it sometimes can if viewed as a
balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces at 90 degrees to each
other analogous to a line in horizontal direction times a line of
equal measure in 90 degree angle to it which creates a square and the
foundation of a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle. And
as I said, in this context velocity and or c squared is velocity or c
circled. I am sure every one has heard of circular frequency.
I won't attempt to explain myself to much more as we are already
divided into at least two camps on this issue. There are those who
understand what I am trying to say even if not perfect, and those who
will not try to understand or perhaps do but feel threatened by ideas
if they do not agree with theirs which they invested a lot of pride,
money, and time in.
I think we are making some people nervous if we are creating a
revolution in physics, all turning on the idea of c^2 as circular
frequency or rotating energy with rest mass. One that may turn physics
upside down. This disturbs people. Especially if I added that the
speed of light is not the fastest speed in the universe but actually
the slowest. And that what is called rest mass is actually faster
because c^2 is faster than c. But I won't do that just yet.
John
look at website and agree: atoms as well as galaxies may precess or
rotate on planes which themselves rotate at right angles to that
rotation eventually forming a spheres an so on. Will get back to you
with something interesting
Timo A. Nieminen
> I argue about MOND a lot, but that didn't mean I ignored papers that
> show how MOND made such an excellent fit to a large swath of data. I
> think there is something to MOND the same way there is something to
> the Rydberg formula - not a theory on itself, but still representative
> of what's going on.
>
> My hope was to basically directly reverse-engineer the data used to
> support MOND by use of Poisson's equation to obtain a density profile
> of dark matter in a galaxy. It turns out someone effectively already
> did that, but it made my happy that I thought of something like that
> independently.
It's nice to have ideas that are good, even if somebody else had it first.
It's nice to have ideas that are correct. Again, even if already known.
Perhaps this might explain what afflicts part of crankdom, an impression
that ideas must be _different_ to be valuable, must oppose the currently
accepted concepts.
One of my bosses commented that no matter what new idea you have, it turns
out in the end that Lord Rayleigh published it 100 years ago. Novelty is
not a requirement for an idea to be good. Alas, at least to some extent,
it's a requirement for the resulting paper to be publishable in a good
journal.
vps137
> Hello this is Conrad Countess. I first published this idea of c^2 as a
> frequency at the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum where energy
> turns to matter back in May of 2005 on sci physics and got some
> interesting responses. I explained it as the speed of light in linear
> direction times the speed of light in frequency or right angular
> direction, resulting in the speed of light in circular motion due to a
> balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces as one of the
> explanations .
I think your idea is not so bad although your explanation caused
repulsion in the community. Of cause there are different
dimensionalities of frequency and velocity squared. Look at my work
http://vps137.narod.ru/article7a,html where the speed of light also
used in the circular motion in the model of the particle.
srp...@gmail.com
> On 10 mai, 12:33, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > It may be more palatable for some if I said that c^2 is associated
> > with a frequency where the angular momentum of the wave equals and
> > balances the linear momentum. for a balance of centrifugal and
> > centripetal forces that create circular or spherical motion and rest
> > mass. After all if E=hf/c^2 measures energy of EM waves than at some
> > point at high end of EM spectrum, E must = hf = c^2 exactly where a
> > waves attains rest mass.
You are not far from the truth here even if your formulation is
incomplete,
and this is why I said you have potential, but your equation should
write
E=hf=mc^2
I have explored this in the past and found that this direct equality
can be true only for the energy making up the rest mass of the
electron (or positron), which is 8.18710414E-14 Joules
(or .511 MeV)
André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
If you are interested into digging further, I prepared for you this
extract from my book that explains the derivation of the process
that you intuitively grasped:
http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/decoupling_orbit.jpg
André Michaud
cjcountess
is not your job to bail me out and I don't think that I need bailing
out, but if it is both of our jobs to search for truth than we should
call it as we see it. That is all I ask.
I have seen( E=hf) = (E=mc^2) before. The reason I just said that E=hf
= c^2 instead of E=hf=mc^2 is because the original equation was E=hf/
c^2 not E=hf/mc^2. I thought that I could use just c^2 instead of mc^2
or Ec^2 in my equations because it mirrored original. Still even E=hf
= mc^2 is equating (mc^2) with (hf) which is a frequency measurement.
I don't think the difference should invalidate the equation I used and
at the same time I should not be stuck on using just c^2 instead of
mc^2 either if that makes for better understanding.
Andre you also stated that I was wrong from the start to say c^2 is a
frequency. But when Eric said,
“Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 is frequency, which
has
units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no excuse for saying such
things.”
you said
“Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some
sort of fundamental unit lenght ?” You were right.
The way I see it is that the fundamental length scale is c^2 and
represents the length it takes a free electron to complete one wave
cycle at a frequency of one fundamental time unite.
And so his c^2 as [length/time]^2 = frequency as [sqrt[1 unite of
fundamental length /time]^2 and is the same but he doesn't know it. I
say the square root of 1 fundamental length over time because a
fundamental length does not appear as one dimensional length in nature
and all though it is length over time squared it is not just a square
area either but a 3D or 4D phenomenon counting time.
I know he will argue that [1/time]^2 is not same as sqrt[1/time}^2 but
I can explain.
Again the fundamental length it takes a free electron to complete one
wave cycle in one fundamental unite of time.
I could change c^2 to mc^2 or Ec^2 and call that a frequency instead
but to me it is the same. And the main point that frequency converges
to c^2 as a high frequency cut off where energy turns to matter with
rest mass still holds true for me. I don't see what all the confusion
is about because it is so clear to me. c^2, mc^2 or Ec^2 if you
prefer, is still a circular or spherical frequency.
Timo this is for you too. And thank you for that constructive
criticism as opposed to the destructive impolite criticisms of some
even though it doesn't discourage me from believing I am right. It
still surprises me that grown people studying such a noble subject act
that way.
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.html according
to this site frequency was said to diverge to v^2 and I understand
that this was interpreted as infinity. When I say that frequency
converges to (c^2) I mean that if frequency were to combine it would
not lead to infinity but to c^2 or mc^2 which to me is a frequency/
wavelength of rest mass.
John, have not forgotten you. Had trouble uploading files on Google
docs but should have my own website back up soon where I can upload
the files without trouble.
vps137
Saw your site but could not interpret it do you have something in
English?
Conrad
srp...@gmail.com
> Andre, thank you for that paper and collaborating evidence. I know it
> is not your job to bail me out and I don't think that I need bailing
> out, but if it is both of our jobs to search for truth than we should
> call it as we see it. That is all I ask.
Well, I was not really trying to bail you out. Just to give you
confirmation
that you are thinking in the right direction.
> I have seen( E=hf) = (E=mc^2) before. The reason I just said that E=hf
> = c^2 instead of E=hf=mc^2 is because the original equation was E=hf/
> c^2 not E=hf/mc^2.
Let's see how the dimensions pan out.
E = Joules (J)
h = joules second (J s)
c = meter / second (m / s)
f = (1 / s)
kg (which is the unit of m [the mass] = (J s^2) / m^2
Let's now see how it goes with your first equation. Note that
resolving the dimensions on the right side of the equation must
end up with Joules, since the left side is measured in Joules
E=hf
J = (J s) * (1 / s) = J (this part is fine)
Now
E = c^2
J = (m / s)^2 = m^2 /s^2 (this one makes no sense, because you
should end up with joules also but end up with m^2 /s^2.
Now let's look at
E = mc^2
J = ((J s^2) / m^2) * (m^2 / s^2)
If you simplify, you end up with J = J (which makes it ok)
This is why you cannot equate E with c^2 without involving
the mass.
> I thought that I could use just c^2 instead of mc^2
> or Ec^2 in my equations because it mirrored original. Still even E=hf
> = mc^2 is equating (mc^2) with (hf) which is a frequency measurement.
No. It is an energy measurement (the units are Joules)
> I don't think the difference should invalidate the equation I used and
> at the same time I should not be stuck on using just c^2 instead of
> mc^2 either if that makes for better understanding.
>
> Andre you also stated that I was wrong from the start to say c^2 is a
> frequency.
Yes.
> But when Eric said, “Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2
> is frequency, which has units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no
> excuse for saying such things.”
> you said
> “Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some
> sort of fundamental unit lenght ?” You were right.
Well no. I was just contradicting him for the sake of contradiction as
he often does himself. He was right. In other words, I was just
playing around.
> The way I see it is that the fundamental length scale is c^2 and
> represents the length it takes a free electron to complete one wave
> cycle at a frequency of one fundamental time unite.
Well, c^2 is a velocity squared, not a length unit.
> And so his c^2 as [length/time]^2 = frequency as [sqrt[1 unite of
> fundamental length /time]^2 and is the same but he doesn't know it.
As he noted, doing this doesn't remove the m^2 unit from equation.
Units have to be dealt with exactly like numerical values. If you want
to simplify m^2 out of the equation, it has to be simplified with a
similar
unit dividing it that comes from some other component of a logical
equation.
> I say the square root of 1 fundamental length over time because a
> fundamental length does not appear as one dimensional length in nature
> and all though it is length over time squared it is not just a square
> area either but a 3D or 4D phenomenon counting time.
>
> I know he will argue that [1/time]^2 is not same as sqrt[1/time}^2 but
> I can explain.
> Again the fundamental length it takes a free electron to complete one
> wave cycle in one fundamental unite of time.
The fundamental unit of time is the second. if the electron completed
one wave cycle in one second, you would have a 1 Herz frequency.
> I could change c^2 to mc^2 or Ec^2 and call that a frequency instead
> but to me it is the same. And the main point that frequency converges
> to c^2 as a high frequency cut off where energy turns to matter with
> rest mass still holds true for me. I don't see what all the confusion
> is about because it is so clear to me. c^2, mc^2 or Ec^2 if you
> prefer, is still a circular or spherical frequency.
>
> Timo this is for you too. And thank you for that constructive
> criticism as opposed to the destructive impolite criticisms of some
> even though it doesn't discourage me from believing I am right. It
> still surprises me that grown people studying such a noble subject act
> that way.
>
> http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.htmlaccording
> to this site frequency was said to diverge to v^2
I had a look. What you took for v^2 is actually nu^2 (the greek letter
nu)
nu is a usual alternate symbol for frequency, just like f. It says
that
Rayleigh-Jeans law diverges as a function of nu^2 for low
frequencies,
(not as a function of v^2).
> and I understand that this was interpreted as infinity. When I say that
> frequency converges to (c^2) I mean that if frequency were to combine
> it would not lead to infinity but to c^2 or mc^2 which to me is a frequency/
> wavelength of rest mass.
I hope you will look again at what I explained for dimensional
analysis.
Understanding how to deal with dimensions is so important that the
slightest error invalidates completely any attempt at explaining.
André Michaud
cjcountess
Andre
that was very enlightening I learned a lot from your response. Still,
what some may call mistakes or what I would call alternative
manipulation of variables aside, we both arrived from different
direction at moving from energy to rest mass smoothly along the same
EM spectrum. This validates to me that the matter wave emerges from
the EM wave at critical frequency of, ok I will use (mc^2) instead of
c^2. This can't be just a coincidence. Especially if you consider the
fact that the geometrical interpretation of c^2 or (mc^2), as the
conversion frequency at which energy turns to matter because it
becomes circular or spherical frequency and it matches precisely the
revelation of E=mc^2 that c^2 is conversion factor of energy to
matter. I am tempted to rest my case but I am willing to discuss it
further if anyone still has doughts but I do not.
I looked up dimension analysis and got this from "wikipedia"
"Only like-dimensioned quantities may be added, subtracted, compared,
or equated. When unlike dimensioned quantities appear opposite of the
"+" or "-" or "=" sign, that physical equation is not plausible, which
might prompt one to correct errors before proceeding to use it."
If one adheres strictly to this you are all correct about my methods
although my outcome was the same as yours and the end may justify the
means in this case. But let me attempt here to justify my means.
When one considers the unity of the constants and again use those
constants as fundamental unites, one can transcend this dimensional
analysis rule. Because one can equate different diminsions such as the
mass and charge of electron as well as c =h = g and so on. I can
understand why a lot of physicist do not see this because some have
not understood this unity and even if they had they might be reluctant
to change just as we in the US were reluctant to change from units of
(inches, feet, and yards) which do not seamlessly fit with each other,
to the metric system, which does and is easier. c = h = g (g) is
quantum gravitational constant not Newton's big G and is base on
(e=hf) = (M=hf) or energy/matter equivalence, with (h) as constant,
and inertial/gravitational mass equivalence; which also makes (h), the
quantum gravity constant.
First I equate the constants ,and than use them as a natural unites
system. I understand that most equate c = (h/2pi) = (G) but I equate
(c^2) = (h/2pi) = (G) because all seem to refer to rest mass. I also
equate c=h=g as I stated above for other reasons which I will post.
But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and proof of my work is
in the results. And if one considers using the natural systems of c =
h = g as well as (c^2 ) = (G) = (h/2pi), I am sure the rule of
dimensional analysis although useful on macro level may not be as much
on quantum level. As a matter of fact I have often heard it said that
at the highest energies the forces are unified. I believe that the
forces and the constants are all unified around the velocity of light.
I want to correct myself on one issue. I stated that "one dimensional
length unites do not occur in nature"in last post. Let me restate that
and say that this seems to be the case on the high energy small length
scale, but something resembling a 1 dimensional line may represent the
(long end/low energy wave) of the EM spectrum ,where a wave is so long
it just may resemble a one dimensional line as in string theory. I
just wanted to say that. And one more thing I want to put out there.
I wrote, Sylvester James Gates, after seeing him on Nova's "Einstein's
Big Idea" and following his online chat afterwards back in Dec of 2006
and got an interesting response
Re: New interpretation of E=mc^2
Monday, December 11, 2006 1:55 PM
From:
"Sylvester James Gates Jr." <gat...@wam.umd.edu>
To:
"Conrad Countess" <cjcou...@yahoo.com>
Dear Conrad,
> Dear Sylester James Gates Jr., Ph.D.
Please call me `Jim' as I don't stand on formalities.
> My name is Conrad J. Countess and I am an independent
> amateur scientist or at least I like to think so.
It is nice to meet you here in cyberspace.
> I saw the Nova program, ``Einstein's Big Idea'' and
> found it very interesting.
I am very happy to hear this as I know from working with
the producer, Gary Johnstone, quite an effort went to
create an accessible and entertaining video presentation.
> I even tried to get on line the next day to chat with
> you but could not get through.
I am sorry to hear that. The entire transcript of the
chatroom is available if you wish to see it. Unfortu-
nately, it is filled with my spelling and grammatical
errors which occur whenever I type fast in the attempt
to answer the most inquiries I could.
> I've written one book in which relativity plays a big
> part and which also mentions Einstein and a lecture
> that I attended at your place of work, University of
> Maryland, years ago as I was living in Baltimore at
> the time but now reside in Columbia just down the road.
> Go to www.cjc123.net and hit browse book if you like
> to see it.
Congratulations.
> But let me get to the point at hand now. I think that
> I have enough evidence to confirm that c^2 in the
> equations E=mc^2, M=E/c^2 and m=Ec^2 is not just a
> mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter but
> is an actual frequency at the high end of the electro-
> magnetic spectrum where energy turns to matter and has
> a geometrical circular or spherical structure such as
> a standing spherical wave.
When my scientific career began about thirty years
ago, I could not imagine it would place me in a role
of directly informing the public about developments
in mathematical and theoretical physics that have been
my chosen fields of effort.
Most recently, I have completed my first solo effort in
the realm of presenting frontier science to the public.
It is described at
http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281
you can see there an annoucement for a collection
entitled, `Superstring Theory: The DNA of Real-
ity.' This was released by The Teaching Company
(TTC) in October and has been their `fastest sell-
ing offering' with `extraordinary sales' ac-
cording to what I have been told.
One person who reviewed it said,
``At times, you will feel like a tourist in a
dark magnificent cavern, whose guide shines
a light at one spectacular sight and then
another before you can catch your breath
again,''
and they are talking about the MATHEMATICS which
anchors the presentation but in a way I have never
seen done before.
One lesson I have learned from all of this is that a
tremendous number of people are interested but have not
understood how theoretical physics is done. I spoke a
bit about this in the chatroom.
One would literally have to be smarter than Einstein to
be successful at what you purport...without formal train-
ing to present advances in physics. Even he first got
a Ph.D. in physics before he was able to present his
amazing discoveries. No one without the mathematical
training similar to what he undertook has ever made any
substantial contribution to theoretical physics.
> The simplest explanation is that the angular momentum
> of the frequency equals and balances the speed and mo-
> mentum of light along the linier path for a balance of
> centrifugal and centripetal forces resulting in a clos-
> ed loop of rotating energy. A more detailed explana-
> tion is available at
>
> www.cjc123.net/review
>
> I've tried to take this idea to its logical end and
> so a lot of what it contains may be speculative or
> inaccurate, but the main idea I just mentioned I am
> sure of and I have logical, mathematical and geome-
> trical evidence to back it. Due to the efficiency of
> the Internet and search engines the evidence is pil-
> ing up and I do think there is no way around it.
>
> There is plenty of collaborating evidence. It would
> be a great honor for me if you would review this paper
> and evidence, especially the idea just mentioned.
> Imagine a new breakthrough on this subject after 100
> years. It is bound to generate much excitement and get
> more people interest in the sciences. E=mc^2 tells
> us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter
> and that they are one related by that formula. But up
> tell now I have not heard anyone explain how. This ex-
> plains it so simply that even a child can understand it.
> The implications are far reaching. Among other things
> it will show a more direct relationship between
> relative and rest mass, waves and particles, energy
> and matter, relativity and quantum mechanics.
> SEE FOR YOURSELF - IT WOULD BE A GREAT HONOR FOR ME.
>
> CJCountess
> e-mail-c...@yahoo.com
I must decline.
Due to some previous experiences and on advice
of counsel, I now operate under policies that
require contractual arrangements before I dis-
cuss scientific issues with someone who does
not hold a recognized scientific affiliation.
The rate for the consultation is $500/hr. or any
fraction thereof. There are also forms requiring
waiver of rights, copyright agreements, a state-
ment of indemnification, an agreement regarding
billable hours, etc. and a security deposit of a
minimum of $1,500.00 non-refundable made prior to
any such consultation to be paid via a secured fi-
nancial instrument. If you wish for my attorney
to send you a complete detailed set of such docu-
ments, please indicate to what address a C.O.D.
package may be sent.
I do wish you are able to find what it is that you
are seeking.
Sincerely,
Jim
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S.J.Gates, Jr.
John S. Toll Professor of Physics and
Center for String and Particle Theory Director
University of Maryland Tel: 301-405-6025
Physics Department Fax: 301-314-9525
Rm. 4125 E-mail: gat...@wam.umd.edu
College Park, MD 20742-4111
http://www.physics.umd.edu/ep/gates/gates.html
http://nsbp.org/cgi-bin/nsbp.cgi?page=jgates
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Re: New interpretation of E=mc^2
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:55 PM
From:
"Sylvester James Gates Jr." <gat...@wam.umd.edu>
To:
"Conrad Countess" <cjcou...@yahoo.com>
Dear Conrad,
> Thank you for your quick response. Thought you would
> be to busy to respond this quick or at all.
It is a matter of simple respect for another human be-
ing that I respond to all who write to me...unless I
can perceive in their communications something to indi-
cate otherwise.
> I do have the transcript to the chat- spelling errors
> and all. And believe me you are not the only one whose
> thoughts out run your ability to write them down quick
> and accurate. Happens to me all the time. But than we
> are not discussing spelling and grammar so why get dis-
> tracted by that when the subject of physics is to im-
> portant.
Thank you for the generosity of your assessment of my
failings as a chat-room host.
From the remainder of your message, it is clear to me
that you know precisely what you are doing. Under these
circumstances, I have a simple request. Please do not
send me further communications on this topic is they will,
indeed, elicit no response.
I can only wish you the best in whatever are your goals
in pursuing this.
SJG
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S.J.Gates, Jr.
John S. Toll Professor of Physics and
Center for String and Particle Theory Director
University of Maryland Tel: 301-405-6025
Physics Department Fax: 301-314-9525
Rm. 4125 E-mail: gat...@wam.umd.edu
College Park, MD 20742-4111
http://www.physics.umd.edu/ep/gates/gates.html
http://nsbp.org/cgi-bin/nsbp.cgi?page=jgates
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
srp...@gmail.com
> Hell this is Conrad
> Andre
> that was very enlightening I learned a lot from your response. Still,
> what some may call mistakes or what I would call alternative
> manipulation of variables aside, we both arrived from different
> direction at moving from energy to rest mass smoothly along the same
> EM spectrum.
Yes. You intuitively grasped the geometric implications.
> This validates to me that the matter wave emerges from
> the EM wave at critical frequency of, ok I will use (mc^2) instead of
> c^2. This can't be just a coincidence. Especially if you consider the
> fact that the geometrical interpretation of c^2 or (mc^2), as the
> conversion frequency at which energy turns to matter because it
> becomes circular or spherical frequency and it matches precisely the
> revelation of E=mc^2 that c^2 is conversion factor of energy to
> matter. I am tempted to rest my case but I am willing to discuss it
> further if anyone still has doughts but I do not.
> I looked up dimension analysis and got this from "wikipedia"
> "Only like-dimensioned quantities may be added, subtracted, compared,
> or equated. When unlike dimensioned quantities appear opposite of the
> "+" or "-" or "=" sign, that physical equation is not plausible, which
> might prompt one to correct errors before proceeding to use it."
That's exactly what I meant when I wrote:
"Understanding how to deal with dimensions is so important that the
slightest error invalidates completely any attempt at explaining."
> If one adheres strictly to this you are all correct about my methods
> although my outcome was the same as yours and the end may justify the
> means in this case.
Not really. Your geometry is fine, but your math description is
not ok.
> But let me attempt here to justify my means.
> When one considers the unity of the constants and again use those
> constants as fundamental unites, one can transcend this dimensional
> analysis rule.
I am afraid not. I have explored this possibility also. I found that
there is
no way to circumvent correctly dealing with dimensions.
> Because one can equate different diminsions such as the
> mass and charge of electron as well as c =h = g and so on. I can
> understand why a lot of physicist do not see this because some have
> not understood this unity and even if they had they might be reluctant
> to change just as we in the US were reluctant to change from units of
> (inches, feet, and yards) which do not seamlessly fit with each other,
> to the metric system,
In my opinion, the English system is perfectly fine for macro
treatment
and totally self consistent. Just a different convention.
> which does and is easier. c = h = g (g) is
> quantum gravitational constant not Newton's big G and is base on
> (e=hf) = (M=hf) or energy/matter equivalence, with (h) as constant,
> and inertial/gravitational mass equivalence; which also makes (h), the
> quantum gravity constant.
Well, I really suggest you try to master the basics of physics. If you
can get hold of an old Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS and dig in until
you understand all of it, you will see things quite differently on
this
issue.
> First I equate the constants ,and than use them as a natural unites
> system. I understand that most equate c = (h/2pi) = (G)
Well, no. They don't.
Too complex to explain until you master the real basics of physics.
> but I equate
> (c^2) = (h/2pi) = (G) because all seem to refer to rest mass. I also
> equate c=h=g as I stated above for other reasons which I will post.
> But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and proof of my work is
> in the results. And if one considers using the natural systems of c =
> h = g as well as (c^2 ) = (G) = (h/2pi), I am sure the rule of
> dimensional analysis although useful on macro level may not be as much
> on quantum level.
You are mistaken. even if you don't believe me.
> As a matter of fact I have often heard it said that
> at the highest energies the forces are unified. I believe that the
> forces and the constants are all unified around the velocity of light.
A good stable reference indeed.
> I want to correct myself on one issue. I stated that "one dimensional
> length unites do not occur in nature"in last post. Let me restate that
> and say that this seems to be the case on the high energy small length
> scale, but something resembling a 1 dimensional line may represent the
> (long end/low energy wave) of the EM spectrum ,where a wave is so long
> it just may resemble a one dimensional line as in string theory. I
> just wanted to say that. And one more thing I want to put out there.
>
> I wrote, Sylvester James Gates, after seeing him on Nova's "Einstein's
> Big Idea" and following his online chat afterwards back in Dec of 2006
> and got an interesting response
>
> Re: New interpretation of E=mc^2
> Monday, December 11, 2006 1:55 PM
> From:
> "Sylvester James Gates Jr." <gat...@wam.umd.edu>
> To:
> "Conrad Countess" <cjcount...@yahoo.com>
> Dear Conrad,
>
> > Dear Sylester James Gates Jr., Ph.D.
>
> Please call me `Jim' as I don't stand on formalities.
>
> > My name is Conrad J. Countess and I am an independent
> > amateur scientist or at least I like to think so.
>
> It is nice to meet you here in cyberspace.
>
> > I saw the Nova program, ``Einstein's Big Idea'' and
> > found it very interesting.
>
> I am very happy to hear this as I know from working with
> the producer, Gary Johnstone, quite an effort went to
> create an accessible and entertaining video presentation.
>
> > I even tried to get on line the next day to chat with
> > you but could not get through.
>
> I am sorry to hear that. The entire transcript of the
> chatroom is available if you wish to see it. Unfortu-
> nately, it is filled with my spelling and grammatical
> errors which occur whenever I type fast in the attempt
> to answer the most inquiries I could.
>
> > I've written one book in which relativity plays a big
> > part and which also mentions Einstein and a lecture
> > that I attended at your place of work, University of
> > Maryland, years ago as I was living in Baltimore at
> > the time but now reside in Columbia just down the road.
> > Go towww.cjc123.netand hit browse book if you like
Absolute agreement. You must master the proper math,
including the dimensional aspect before you can even
describe correctly what you geometrically understand.
> > e-mail-cjcount...@yahoo.com
> College Park, MD 20742-4111 ...
>
> plus de détails »
You say at the top of this post that you learned a lot from
my responses.
I don't know if you can trust me further, but if you do, my
one recommendation is to invest the energy and time required
to master the real basics of physics. Then we may discuss
further what you apparently understand geometrically if I
am still around.
André Michaud
cjcountess
Will take everything you said into consideration.
Gates said:
One would literally have to be smarter than Einstein to
be successful at what you purport...without formal train-
ing to present advances in physics. Even he first got
a Ph.D. in physics before he was able to present his
amazing discoveries. No one without the mathematical
training similar to what he undertook has ever made any
substantial contribution to theoretical physics.
You said:
Absolute agreement. You must master the proper math,
including the dimensional aspect before you can even
describe correctly what you geometrically understand.
I do not agree with this at all. Mastering proper math and
dimensional analysis has not so far correctly described this in its
entirety or the geometrical description would be obvious and included.
The geometry goes with the math if there is to be a more complete
description. And just as my geometric description is not complete
without math ,the math is not complete without geometry. The math is
already out there and I don't mind using it E=mc^2 and E=hf=mc^2.. I
just want to give form to the math and show that it is not just a
dimensionless mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter but
an actual conversion frequency.
Although flattering because I know that I have succeeded, it is not
necessarily true that one has to be smart, one just has to have enough
sense to know that one has found something new and valuable and
confident enough to not let anyone tell you you haven't or take it
from you.
Furthermore if Gates remembers the very show that he participated in
(and the transcripts are on line if anyone wants to view them)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html , Michael
Faraday was not a formally educated person, yet he made revolutionary
discoveries in physics. And that might be (because of) instead of (in
spite of this). I had a mag. call “The 20th Century in Science” from
Scientific American, in which Einstein in an article, “On The
Generalized Theory of Relativity” stated: and I am paraphrasing this.
“It muses me to wonder if Faraday could have come up with the idea of
the field as primary if he had been encumbered by a normal education”.
He was not saying, I am sure , that normal education does not have its
place, all we have to do is look at the discipline it fosters and the
discoveries and products it has produced. But natural ability has its
place also and no one was better to recognize this than Einstein who
was considered a maverick as I would define the term, working in a
swiss patent office at the time when he came up with one of the
greatest discoveries of all time, (Theory of Relativity) including the
equation that we are discussing.
This last part really surprised me
Gates said:
Due to some previous experiences and on advice
> of counsel, I now operate under policies that
> require contractual arrangements before I dis-
> cuss scientific issues with someone who does
> not hold a recognized scientific affiliation.
> The rate for the consultation is $500/hr. or any
> fraction thereof. There are also forms requiring
> waiver of rights, copyright agreements, a state-
> ment of indemnification, an agreement regarding
> billable hours, etc. and a security deposit of a
> minimum of $1,500.00 non-refundable made prior to
> any such consultation to be paid via a secured fi-
> nancial instrument. If you wish for my attorney
> to send you a complete detailed set of such docu-
> ments, please indicate to what address a C.O.D.
> package may be sent.
Whats up with that?
I know that there is a lot of money involved in this field. A demand
for discoveries that can stir up interest as well as produce practical
applications, lectures, publications and so on. But that response from
Gates really surprised me. Giving up my rights and paying him all
that money for that privilege.
Come on
Oh thats right, it's worth nothing if it's not coming from established
academical. So what is truth? What ever the establishment says it is,
or does it have weight of its own. Well I believe the latter, and I am
willing to partner with someone who believes the same and can see the
value and potential in this. Only because I don't, they would have to
have academic credentials ,and means to publish. If anyones interested
E-mail me cjcou...@yahoo.com
For now as far as this thread is concerned
I REST MY CASE!!!
I will however post more graphics as soon as my site is back up.
Conrad
Some exerts from transcript:
MICHAEL FARADAY: Perhaps some sort of electrical force is emanating
outwards from the wire.
WILLIAM THOMAS BRANDE: Oh, my dear boy, let me tell you that at the
University of Cambridge, electricity flows through a wire, not
sideways to it.
MICHAEL FARADAY: Well, that may be what they teach at Cambridge, but
it doesn't explain what's happening before our eyes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: Michael Faraday was someone who, like Einstein,
thought in terms of pictures.
DAVID BODANIS: Faraday was different from anybody else. He had a flair
for understanding his experiments, for understanding what was really
going on inside them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: This is the experiment of the century. It's the
invention of the electric motor. Scale up the magnets and the wires;
make them really big. Attach heavy weights to them and they'll be
dragged along. But almost more importantly, he's inventing a new kind
of physics here.
NARRATOR: Although he didn't realize it at the time, Faraday had also
just demonstrated an overarching principle. The chemicals in the
battery had been transformed into electricity in the wire, which had
combined with the magnet to produce motion. Behind all these various
forces there was a common energy.
DAVID BODANIS: A couple of months earlier, Davy had been elected
President of the Royal Society, which was the elite body of English
science. But then he saw this great discovery published in the
Quarterly Journal of Science. I don't know if he was envious, but he
certainly saw that this young man who had been his assistant, this
mere blacksmith's son, had come up with one of the greatest
discoveries of the Victorian era.
Uncle Al
[snip]
> For now as far as this thread is concerned
>
> I REST MY CASE!!!
[snip more crap]
Die, dry up, blow away.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
srp...@gmail.com
> Hi Andre
> Will take everything you said into consideration.
>
> Gates said:
> One would literally have to be smarter than Einstein to
> be successful at what you purport...without formal train-
> ing to present advances in physics.
I will add that even someone smarter than Einstein could
not be successful at this without proper mastery of
math.
> Even he first got
> a Ph.D. in physics before he was able to present his
> amazing discoveries.
Exactly.
> No one without the mathematical
> training similar to what he undertook has ever made any
> substantial contribution to theoretical physics.
> You said:
> Absolute agreement. You must master the proper math,
> including the dimensional aspect before you can even
> describe correctly what you geometrically understand.
> I do not agree with this at all. Mastering proper math and
> dimensional analysis has not so far correctly described this in its
> entirety or the geometrical description would be obvious and included.
Well, who know if some model somewhere has not succeeded. The
future will tell.
> The geometry goes with the math if there is to be a more complete
> description.
Not if there is to be a more complete description, if there is to be
any description at all.
No proper math = no possible description of the geometry.
> And just as my geometric description is not complete
> without math ,the math is not complete without geometry. The math is
> already out there and I don't mind using it E=mc^2 and E=hf=mc^2.. I
> just want to give form to the math and show that it is not just a
> dimensionless mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter but
> an actual conversion frequency.
>
> Although flattering because I know that I have succeeded, it is not
> necessarily true that one has to be smart, one just has to have enough
> sense to know that one has found something new and valuable and
> confident enough to not let anyone tell you you haven't or take it
> from you.
There is a difference between looking at diamond and owning one.
> Furthermore if Gates remembers the very show that he participated in
> (and the transcripts are on line if anyone wants to view them)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html, Michael
> Faraday was not a formally educated person, yet he made revolutionary
> discoveries in physics.
Absolutely. But even if he was not a mathematician by training, he
perfectly mastered the required math and the dimensional aspect.
Besides, he was working in direct collaboration with his friend
Maxwell,
who was one of the best mathematicians around.
> And that might be (because of) instead of (in
> spite of this). I had a mag. call “The 20th Century in Science” from
> Scientific American, in which Einstein in an article, “On The
> Generalized Theory of Relativity” stated: and I am paraphrasing this.
> “It muses me to wonder if Faraday could have come up with the idea of
> the field as primary if he had been encumbered by a normal education”.
I can tell you that he definitely could not. Too early harnessing the
mind with mathematical rules tends to twarts the ability to freely
explore geometries. But eventual math mastery is required all the
same.
> He was not saying, I am sure , that normal education does not have its
> place, all we have to do is look at the discipline it fosters and the
> discoveries and products it has produced. But natural ability has its
> place also and no one was better to recognize this than Einstein who
> was considered a maverick as I would define the term, working in a
> swiss patent office at the time when he came up with one of the
> greatest discoveries of all time, (Theory of Relativity) including the
> equation that we are discussing.
Well, maybe you don't know that Einstein did this after graduating,
so although not a mathematician by formation, he perfectly mastered
the math he required for dealing with Planck's and Wien's discoveries.
> This last part really surprised me
> Gates said:
> > Due to some previous experiences and on advice
> > of counsel, I now operate under policies that
> > require contractual arrangements before I dis-
> > cuss scientific issues with someone who does
> > not hold a recognized scientific affiliation.
> > The rate for the consultation is $500/hr. or any
> > fraction thereof. There are also forms requiring
> > waiver of rights, copyright agreements, a state-
> > ment of indemnification, an agreement regarding
> > billable hours, etc. and a security deposit of a
> > minimum of $1,500.00 non-refundable made prior to
> > any such consultation to be paid via a secured fi-
> > nancial instrument. If you wish for my attorney
> > to send you a complete detailed set of such docu-
> > ments, please indicate to what address a C.O.D.
> > package may be sent.
>
> Whats up with that?
> I know that there is a lot of money involved in this field. A demand
> for discoveries that can stir up interest as well as produce practical
> applications, lectures, publications and so on. But that response from
> Gates really surprised me. Giving up my rights and paying him all
> that money for that privilege.
I think he was politely turning you down.
> Come on
>
> Oh thats right, it's worth nothing if it's not coming from established
> academical. So what is truth? What ever the establishment says it is,
> or does it have weight of its own. Well I believe the latter, and I am
> willing to partner with someone who believes the same and can see the
> value and potential in this. Only because I don't, they would have to
> have academic credentials ,and means to publish. If anyones interested
> E-mail me cjcount...@yahoo.com
Well good luck. But if you don't learn the proper math, I can tell you
that
no one with any sort of academic credential will want to
professionally
associate with you. Without proper math, you are doomed to fail.
The future will tell if Uncle Al was right.
You at least understood why the mass should be part of the equation.
André Michaud
cjcountess
James Gates also said
From the remainder of your message, it is clear to me
that you know precisely what you are doing. Under these
circumstances, I have a simple request. Please do not
send me further communications on this topic is they will,
indeed, elicit no response.
I wonder what he meant by that.
I would challenge any one on "Nova" and I'll bet a child could
understand what I was saying and exactly because of of the lack of
what you said
“Too early harnessing the mind with mathematical rules tends to twarts
the ability to freely
explore geometries.”
It's funny that you said
“There is a difference between looking at diamond and owning one.”
Because I like to tell a story of a geologist who went to school for
12 college years to learn his trade, was hired by gold company to find
most likely area where gold is to be found by his familiarity with
known minerals found around gold deposits. His years of work yields no
findings. But a 7th grade child after learning of gold in school and
seeing his mothers wedding rings stumbles across a piece and
immediately recognizes it as gold like and looks pretty. He and his
mother takes it to a place that buys gold and what happens.
1 They say “this couldn't possibly be gold because you did not go to
school in order to learn to find gold” and throw it away
2 With my expertise I can assure you that this is gold
3 They say “this couldn't possibly be gold because you did not go to
school in order to learn to find gold” and throw it away wait until
they are gone pick it up and sell it as their own
Why does Uncle Al continue posting to this thread if he doesn't agree
with what I am saying. He is just cluttering the thread with things
nobody wants to read. We already know what he thinks.
Rest your case Al.
Uncle Al seems to be a very bitter old prejudice man who probably
considers himself a failure but wants people to think otherwise. And I
have seen different post around where a certain group who participate
in sci phy discuss certain people and post,and encourage each other to
refute certain people and ideas. They remind me of a team of theory
assassins. I remember seeing an article in either Scientific American
or Discovery on the true existence of theory assassins. I'll have to
get and post it. I think Uncle Al is of this group.
I'd pay him no attention if he were not cluttering this space with
garbage:
I am done
Conrad.
srp...@gmail.com
> Andre
> James Gates also said
>
> From the remainder of your message, it is clear to me
> that you know precisely what you are doing. Under these
> circumstances, I have a simple request. Please do not
> send me further communications on this topic is they will,
> indeed, elicit no response.
>
> I wonder what he meant by that.
Again, seems to me that he was politely turning you down.
Well, Al is rather pessimistic about human nature. He diagnosed
that you were a lost cause from the get go that you couldn't possibly
change your ways and said so in no uncertain terms.
On my side, I am rather optimistic about human nature, so occasionally
try to give a push in what I see as the right direction.
Statistically to date, he apparently seems to be in the lead.
André Michaud
john
better in the lead than
up your butt-
chirally speaking, that's the
side he gravitates to
none
He posts to remind you that you have no clue what you are doing. The
things you are saying are not even close enough to be wrong. They
are just silly and uninformed, spoken from ignorance and ego. You
do not want to learn or study so you bluster. Of course that annoys
people who actually know what they are doing.
> Uncle Al seems to be a very bitter old prejudice man who probably
> considers himself a failure but wants people to think otherwise. And I
> have seen different post around where a certain group who participate
> in sci phy discuss certain people and post,and encourage each other to
> refute certain people and ideas. They remind me of a team of theory
> assassins. I remember seeing an article in either Scientific American
> or Discovery on the true existence of theory assassins. I'll have to
> get and post it. I think Uncle Al is of this group.
> I'd pay him no attention if he were not cluttering this space with
> garbage:
He is pointing out your mistakes as others have done with varying
degrees of politeness. That did not work so maybe the direct approach
will.
>
> I am done
> Conrad.
cjcountess
Here is a graphics link that I hope will help illustrate my point
cjcountess
miles away and proceeded to go there by way of plane geometry or a
straight line I wind up in space somewhere. But if I use a spherical
geometry that conforms to the shape of the earth at its large scale
I'm fine. Following a line of math that was correct for some things
does not necessarily make it right for present situation. It may not
touch basis with reality in the long run and need to be revised. I am
trying to explain c^2 geometrical for the first time, not just as a
lines times a 90 degree angular line of equal measure making a
squared. Although this may in fact describe the amount of energy in
c^2 as compared to just c as a straight line of energy, and I have
used that description in past, it doesn't describe the circular or
spherical shape the energy takes that turns a wave to a particle.
Although I use the analogy of a line times a 90 degree angular line of
equal measure to describe c^2, I am just as interested in the 90
degree arc the energy takes which if constant creates circular or
spherical motion as a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces
that turns a wave into a particle, as I am in the amount of energy
present at c^2.
This is Conrad
Andre
You don't have to respond if you don't want to. I know people have
pretty much made up their minds on this one. Because I have given into
peoples arguments in the past just to avoid conflict and compromise
might at least encourage them to compromise with me, this is not
always the best policy in a situation like this.
You said
E=hf=mc^2 in your paper, but E=hf is formula for radiation and may
vary with strength, while E=mc^2 is energy of rest mass ,that might
includes compound matter. You also in your paper pointed out that
electrons and positrons had an energy of exactly c^2 (probably the
only free particles to do so) and makes a formula of exactly equal to
c^2 taylor made for them just as I have. It only seems logical that
E=hf=c^2 or E=hf@c^2 or E=m=c^2 or E=m@c^2 night be applicable with a
little logical explanation of why this is the case.
No offense, I just thought that was important.
Conrad
srp...@gmail.com
If you read again, you will see that for this specific development,
I set E to the very precise energy making up the rest mass of the
electron (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) . No other energy is considered.
> while E=mc^2 is energy of rest mass ,that might includes compound matter.
The rest mass of the electron can include nothing else but the exact
amount of equivalent energy (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) or else it
wouldn't
be the rest mass of the electron.
> You also in your paper pointed out that
> electrons and positrons had an energy of exactly c^2
If you read again, you will see that nowhere do I point anything
like this out.
> (probably the
> only free particles to do so) and makes a formula of exactly equal to
> c^2 taylor made for them just as I have.
If you read again, you will see that this is not what I do.
> It only seems logical that
> E=hf=c^2 or E=hf@c^2 or E=m=c^2 or E=m@c^2 night be applicable with a
> little logical explanation of why this is the case.
> No offense, I just thought that was important.
What would be important really is that you learn coherent math.
André Michaud
cjcountess
Coherent math!! Andre you are nit picking. You seem to be more
concerned about who is right than what is right.
Even if it were technically imperfect the idea itself is not and the
baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. This baby may need a
little cleaning up but so what, I think it is a Noble Prize level
discovery, and anybody with enough courage to collaborate it may
benefit.
If you want to get technical about it, even though you said
You are not far from the truth here even if your formulation is
incomplete,
and this is why I said you have potential, but your equation should
write
E=hf=mc^2
I have explored this in the past and found that this direct equality
can be true only for the energy making up the rest mass of the
electron (or positron), which is 8.18710414E-14 Joules
(or .511 MeV)
in your post, your paper says something different.
In your paper that you linked to
http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/decoupling_orbit.jpg
you said
From the equality of the orbital wavelength and the linear wavelength,
we can draw the following relation:
rest mass wavelength = wavelength = h/mc =c/f
from which we can directly derive the following equation regarding the
energy of a half-photon of a photon energy 1.022 MeV destabilizing
through Coulomb interaction (CI)as it grazes a nucleus that shows how
the decoupling energy allows to smoothly transfer from equation E=hf
for pure energy to famous equation E=mc^2 for massive particles:
h/mc =c/f and finally E = hf =mc^2
Let us note that the energy of the electron (or the positron) is the
only one for which this direct equality is possible.
I interpret this equality to be between (hf) and (mc^2) which is only
possible for electron/positron. It is the only particles where this
energy is equivalent and a taylor made equation would convey this.
There is no mention of (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) which could not
convey this direct equivalence.
Your equation E=hf =mc^2 does not because hf can refer to a wide range
of energies while mc^2 can refer to a wide range of rest mass.
Although they overlap at the mass/energy level of the electron/
positron, they each can be applied to other levels.
Only an equation that refers to energy exactly at c^2 can convey this
and is Taylor made for them. I submit E =hf =C^2 or E=hf @ c^2 and its
derivatives that I earlier mentioned with a logical explanation of
why, to convey this exact equality.
As for coherent math, if you and your colleagues can't understand this
than I am talking to wrong people. I know what I am talking about and
I know how to convey it. I also know when some one is deliberately
trying to over complicate things just to win an argument. Truth is
there is no way around this reality of c^2 as frequency measurement
although there may be a way around including me as its discoverer.
Time will tell.
I really rest my case now
Conrad
srp...@gmail.com
Yes, but only if the energy considered is exactly 8.18710414 E-14
Joules
> It is the only particles where this
> energy is equivalent and a taylor made equation would convey this.
> There is no mention of (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) which could not
> convey this direct equivalence.
If you understood the math you would see that there is no other
possibility.
> Your equation E=hf =mc^2 does not because hf can refer to a wide range
> of energies while mc^2 can refer to a wide range of rest mass.
Not in this case. It refers to the exact mass of the electron.
> Although they overlap at the mass/energy level of the electron/
> positron, they each can be applied to other levels.
Not for E=hf=mc^2. Only one value possible.
> Only an equation that refers to energy exactly at c^2 can convey this
> and is Taylor made for them. I submit E =hf =C^2 or E=hf @ c^2 and its
> derivatives that I earlier mentioned with a logical explanation of
> why, to convey this exact equality.
If you only used a hand calculator to verify your equation with
actual
values , you would immediately see that it is wrong.
> As for coherent math, if you and your colleagues can't understand this
> than I am talking to wrong people. I know what I am talking about and
> I know how to convey it. I also know when some one is deliberately
> trying to over complicate things just to win an argument. Truth is
> there is no way around this reality of c^2 as frequency measurement
> although there may be a way around including me as its discoverer.
> Time will tell.
>
> I really rest my case now
Well, I give up.
I will try to explain why you are wrong with words, the same way
that you are trying to explain what you see with math. Try to see
how much sense this makes.
You say that some math from reality. If I to that China 1000 miles
away and to there by way of plane geometry or a straight line I up in
space somewhere. But if I a spherical geometry that to the shape of
the earth at its large scale fine. Following a line of math that
correct
for some things not necessarily it right for present situation. It not
touch
basis with reality in the long run and to. I to c^2 geometrical for
the first
time, not just as a lines times a 90 degree angular line of equal
measure
a squared. Although this in fact the amount of energy in c^2 as to
just c
as a straight line of energy, and I that description in past, it the
circular
or spherical shape the energy that turns a wave to a particle.
I will stop here.
This is how your math looks to anyone who tries to read them. I was
not
deliberately trying to over complicate things just to win any
argument.
Just trying to give you a hint that with coherent math, people would
at least have the possibility of understanding what you are trying to
describe.
Math is just a language, and you have to speak it coherently if
you want people to understand what you say.
But I am done with this. Won't try any more.
André Michaud
Y.Porat
> On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 mai, 10:59,cjcountess<cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some math diverges from reality. If I were to say that China is 1000
> > > miles away and proceeded to go there by way of plane geometry or a
> > > straight line I wind up in space somewhere. But if I use a spherical
> > > geometry that conforms to the shape of the earth at its large scale
> > > I'm fine. Following a line of math that was correct for some things
> > > does not necessarily make it right for present situation. It may not
> > > touch basis with reality in the long run and need to be revised. I am
> > > trying to explain c^2 geometrical for the first time, not just as a
> > > lines times a 90 degree angular line of equal measure making a
> > > squared. Although this may in fact describe the amount of energy in
> > > c^2 as compared to just c as a straight line of energy, and I have
> > > used that description in past, it doesn't describe the circular or
> > > spherical shape the energy takes that turns a wave to a particle.
> > > Although I use the analogy of a line times a 90 degree angular line of
> > > equal measure to describe c^2, I am just as interested in the 90
> > > degree arc the energy takes which if constant creates circular or
> > > spherical motion as a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces
> > > that turns a wave into a particle, as I am in the amount of energy
> > > present at c^2.
>
> > > This is Conrad
> > >
> > >
>
> > The rest mass of the electron can include nothing else but the exact
> > amount of equivalent energy (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) or else it
> > wouldn't
> > be the rest mass of the electron.
>
> > > You also in your paper pointed out that
> > > electrons and positrons had an energy of exactly c^2
>
> > If you read again, you will see that nowhere do I point anything
> > like this out.
>
> > > (probably the
> > > only free particles to do so) and makes a formula of exactly equal to
> > > c^2 taylor made for them just as I have.
>
> > If you read again, you will see that this is not what I do.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------------
now how about photons??
can you apply the
hf =mc^2 as well ??? (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Eric Gisse
The answer hasn't changed from the last thousand times you asked it.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------------
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----------------
but the question was aimed to ***thinking people***
not to little
CRACKPARROTERS !! (:-)
Y.P
-----------------------------
Eric Gisse
Exactly. You want to suck more educated people into spending more
hours explaining the same thing to you yet again.
Y.Porat
---------------------------
little moron Bonaparte
i am not discussing with you
i will discuss with more cleaver people than you are :
so
a bit of other reasoning:
E=hf is the energy of the photon
E=mc^2 is the general formula for all energies
so there is some connection between the two
formulas
whether the moron Gisse understands it or not
(the massless entities is only in the skull of Gisse
and other crackparroters !!!)
now Gisse
you just fuck off with Porar breas of Alaska
and their frozen braines
and let others come in
others that are more open minded than you are
at the age of 24!!!!.........
TIA to others except Gisse
Y.Porat
------------------------------
cjcountess
Hello All
Andre, I did not mean any disrespect and don't want to turn the Google
dialogs into The Google - Gaga as in childish dialogs. That would not
be very interesting and I would rather be known for a civil
disagreement even if I am found to be wrong than a nasty one even if I
am found to be right.
E=hf=mc^2 is correct if the mathematical conversion factor between hf
and mc^2 is the rest mass of the electron. You are right. I only
wanted to point out that without it (hf) can be applied to a whole
range of energies below it and (mc^2) can be applied to a whole range
of rest mass above, making them equivalent only at the level of the
rest mass of electron, but diverging from equivalence below or above
it. That is all I meant.
Peace
Conrad
Eric Gisse
No, it isn't.
Y.y.Porat
----------------------
mc^2 = hf
is right for the photon case as well !!!
the only thing that is missing is some
coefficient the will settle the equation
because the photon has mass
and there is just one kind of mass !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.y.Porat
----------------
pc for photons - is as well mc^2
see the dimensions there
BYE
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
In the end Einstein concluded what he won the Nobel Prize for was
actuallly irrreconsirable. He said he could not treat a wave as a
particle at the same time. He questioned what he won the prize for.
The energy of light is not in a photon but spread out accross its wave
and defined by frequency.
Y.Porat
>
> > > > > > not to little
> > > > > > CRACKPARROTERS !! (:-)
>
> > > > ------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > ----------------
> > pc for photons - is as well mc^2
> > see the dimensions there
> > BYE
>
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> In the end Einstein concluded what he won the Nobel Prize for was
> actuallly irrreconsirable. He said he could not treat a wave as a
> particle at the same time. He questioned what he won the prize for.
>
> The energy of light is not in a photon but spread out accross its wave
?????
whats wrong with the understanding that
energy is **mass in movement**
so
it some basic particle is moving in some geometric pathern
then it is carying energy ???
i think that all that unnecesary confusion **started wi the **
**stoopid idea** that
photons have no mass !!!
and that no mass can reach c..
there was no idea then that
**the photon is the only mass that can move at c !!
ie an exception to the above rule !!!
so
a wave is some mass in some sort of movemet!!
can there be something simper than that??
andit is under that more abstarct law of physics that
ENERGY IS MASS IN MOVEMENT!!
EXACTLY AS IN MACROCOSM !!!!!!!!!!!!
(iow
physics 'scholars invented a scarecrow
and do not stop for more than a century
to fight the **scarecrow****** they themselves invented !!!
can you immagine something more stupid
by people who consider themselved the Elite of mankind ??
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
> and defined by frequency.- Hide quoted text -
john
What is wrong is it is backwards.
The movements of energy define borders
that are particles. Masses.
Particles *are made from energy*.
Here's a molecular pattern:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/win1.GIF
John
Galaxy Model
Eric Gisse
It still isn't the right equation. Why are you still arguing about
this?
john
> It still isn't the right equation. Why are you still arguing about
> this?
The man obviously doesn't want to hear
from you.
Why are you still yapping?
Perhaps you have an idea about the geometry
of energy movement in particles?
Not.
John
cjcountess
This is Conrad
If a picture is worth a thousand words I hope this one can explain
what I could not in words.
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------------------
so according to you
energy creates mass from nothing ???...............
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
--------------------
'your ' eauation is
E^2=(mc^2 )^2 + pc)^2
all along it
you have the mass dimension
i am a crkparroter as you are (:-)
but may be a bit more creative than you are .....
and may be a bit more experienced byunderstanding the
*basics of physics * (unlike the basics of just dry paroting
mathematical physics ..
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------
so waht is your bottom line??
does energy contain rest mass or not ??
2
do you beleive as me that there is jsut one kind of mass ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------
john
Different configurations of energy have different
characteristics.
Energy in a 1-to-1 linked rotation is emr:
depending on which axis of this pattern it is
'falling' along at c, it is a photon or a neutrino.
Energy in a 1-to-2 linked rotation is matter.
When matter 'travels' through spacetime from place
to place, it doesn't push the spacetime aside-
the spacetime *becomes* matter in that place because
the energy has arrived there.
It's *all* moving energy.
John
cjcountess
This is Conrad
I am glad you ask the question
so what is your bottom line??
does energy contain rest mass or not ??
2
do you believe as me that there is just one kind of mass ??
The bottom line is this:
According to classical physics, there is no difference between an
object at rest and one moving at a constant speed in straight line.
Therefore the speed of light in straight line at constant speed is
like being at rest. Since the speed of light is constant regardless of
frequency and the energy of light involves the constant (h) regardless
of frequency, if you take away the frequency in both situations you
are left with the constants c and h. Just as E=hf = M=hf with h as
constant of energy and mass. The constant (c) is equivalent to the
constant (h). Therefore this mass (h) that travels at (c) before
frequency is factored in, might be considered the rest mass of photon
if being at rest is equivalent to moving in straight line at constant
speed.
But from our perspective rest mass is energy at mc^2 instead of c. And
so it depends on the frame of reference.
I do believe that there is just one kind of mass, that builds from (c)
a constant speed in straight line equal to (being still), which also
equals (h) which is the constant mass as well as energy as in (E=hf)
=(M=hf) (c=h). From there it builds further as described:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_209723wdc9
Conrad
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
Mass in motion is an extension of E=MC^2
Mass in motion is Energy=Gamma MC^2
Autymn D. C.
> Hello this is Conrad Countess. I first published this idea of c^2 as a
> frequency at the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum where energy
> turns to matter back in May of 2005 on sci physics and got some
> interesting responses. I explained it as the speed of light in linear
> direction times the speed of light in frequency or right angular
> direction, resulting in the speed of light in circular motion due to a
> balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces as one of the
> explanations .
> Some say that c^2 in the most famous equation in the world "E=mc^2" is
> just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter with no
> physical geometry. But I intent to show that c^2 is actually a
> conversion frequency at the high end of EM spectrum where energy turns
> to matter because it takes on a geometrical form of energy in circular
> or spherical motion such as a standing spherical wave because of the
> angular momentum of the wave being strong enough to now create
> circular motion.
E=mcc is true for all energies/wavestints/wavelengths/wavearms/
wavespans. For complex motion, one adds linear and circular
velocities or energies; one does not multiply them. You are full of
bullshit, and your axes are wrong.
Autymn D. C.
> E=hf=mc^2 is correct if the mathematical conversion factor between hf
> and mc^2 is the rest mass of the electron. You are right. I only
any mass [shift]
> wanted to point out that without it (hf) can be applied to a whole
> range of energies below it and (mc^2) can be applied to a whole range
> of rest mass above, making them equivalent only at the level of the
> rest mass of electron, but diverging from equivalence below or above
> it. That is all I meant.
No, at any range.
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
----------------
moving energy is moving mass
even in rotation
it is not ghosts that are moving there
'no mass no real physics' !!!
2
just forget about curved space-time
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Autymn D. C.
> Energy *is* everything.
> Different configurations of energy have different
> characteristics.
If you do not trim quotes, you should not be on the internet.
> Energy in a 1-to-1 linked rotation is emr:
> depending on which axis of this pattern it is
> 'falling' along at c, it is a photon or a neutrino.
>
> Energy in a 1-to-2 linked rotation is matter.
Rub, neutrino is matter as much as hydrogen or helium is matter. And
each fotòn or neutrino has any polarisation [in princip]. And energy
is not "inerty" (matter) by definition.
> When matter 'travels' through spacetime from place
> to place, it doesn't push the spacetime aside-
> the spacetime *becomes* matter in that place because
> the energy has arrived there.
Field does them.
Y.Porat
---------------
ok nice
we see some advance at last !!
btw
you can easily see that the photon containes mass
just by looking to the dimensions of the formulas
of say momentum of photon which is
p=mc
or
E=mc^2 (see the m there)
or even
E=hf
the mass is 'hiding ' in the h !!!
now
though moving in a straight lin is domiannt since Newton
there must be some basic barticle
**that moves natually in a curved path**
(please note that 'naturally' of mine)
i called it
the Circlon
it is an exception case to Newtons second law
(a few hundrends of years later (:-)...)
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
-----------
right by a little correction
**the Gamma factor **does not aply to the photon**!!
again becuse the photon is an exception case!!
a case for itself
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------
Autymn D. C.
> On Sat, 10 May 2008, Eric Gisse wrote:
> > I argue about MOND a lot, but that didn't mean I ignored papers that
> > show how MOND made such an excellent fit to a large swath of data. I
> > think there is something to MOND the same way there is something to
> > the Rydberg formula - not a theory on itself, but still representative
> > of what's going on.
>
> > My hope was to basically directly reverse-engineer the data used to
> > support MOND by use of Poisson's equation to obtain a density profile
> > of dark matter in a galaxy. It turns out someone effectively already
> > did that, but it made my happy that I thought of something like that
> > independently.
>
> It's nice to have ideas that are good, even if somebody else had it first.
> It's nice to have ideas that are correct. Again, even if already known.
No, it's /not/ nesciense.
> One of my bosses commented that no matter what new idea you have, it turns
> out in the end that Lord Rayleigh published it 100 years ago. Novelty is
> not a requirement for an idea to be good. Alas, at least to some extent,
> it's a requirement for the resulting paper to be publishable in a good
> journal.
Did Lord Rayleigh ever publish my elaboration of F and E?
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remember Curved space time is not energy.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
cjcountess
this is Conrad
Andre said that E=hf=mc^2. I saw this before attributed to Compton and
even referred to it in a previous website. As hf is a frequency
measurement, equating mc^2 with it is equating it with frequency
measurement also. de Broglie associated mc^2 with frequency of
electron.
Since 1/1=1x1=1 m/c^2 = mc^2 concerning one quantum particle namely
energy of electron. Also since energy and matter are interchangeable
as shown also by equations m=Ec^2 for rest mass and M=E/c^2 for
relative mass, E/c^2 and Ec^2 might be used also.
I took what was common to all which is (c^2) and emphasized that rest
mass of single particle such as electron = exactly (c^2). This is
because divided by (c^2) can apply to all EM waves, and multiplied by
(c^2) can apply to all rest mass. @ or (at) c^2 and = or (equal) c^2,
seemed to be the only logical choice to indicate this. New incites
sometimes require new math.
Andre also equated (mc^2) with (9.10938188E-31kg), .511 MeV, and
(8.18710414 E-14 Joules), which are measurements of electron arrived
at independently, and ends with a statement that the calculations
allow for a smooth transfer from E=hf to E=mc^2. He also included a
note that the energy of the electron (or positron), is only one for
which this direct equality is possible.
All of this cannot be just coincidence. The more coincidence there are
the more probable this geometric interpretation of (c^2) is. I also
can show smooth transition between waves measured as (E=hf) and
particles measured as (E=mc^2). Furthermore, I also point out that
this can lead to backward spinning particle making 2 rotations to
complete one wave cycle, which is description of electron and pointing
out that this transition happens exactly at (c^2).
And so this accumulation of coincidences increases the probability
that it is correct and adds one more mathematical proof or
collaboration to this theory, a statistical one.
Not only does this description of (c^2) coincide with description of
square root of -1 in book , “The story of (the square root of -1)”,
but also the idea that a particle gets its charge from its spin and
that a backward spin results in negative charge.
And thus this natural high frequency cut off of (c^2) not only
eliminates the ultra violet catastrophe idea of infinite degrees of
freedom in quantum physics resulting in renormalization problems, it
naturally leads to coupling constants of charge and mass in natural
unites. Even though ultra violet catastrophe idea was addressed by
Planck for electromagnetism, by introducing the quantum, it still did
not get rid of the infinite frequency idea.
If there is a smallest quantum of space than frequency must have
smallest quantum also. And if frequency in black box radiation is what
led to infinite frequency idea, than if electrons, which are rest mass
particles that cannot move at infinite speeds are making these
frequencies, than these frequencies must be limited to speed of
electrons. Also sense frequency carries momentum, at some point the
frequency momentum should catch up to the linear momentum and create
rest mass under right conditions.
Beside unifying “Quantum and General Relativity Theory's”, by showing
that and electron is curved space on the quantum level and precesses
just as John said which is reminiscent of Mercury precession, due to
curvature of space time, it also explains how (long strings turn into
round strings) pertaining to String Theory, as well as (waves to
particles) and or (energy to matter), due to Lorentz contraction
leading to space time curvature of on quantum level.
It also unifies so many constants such as c=h=g (g=quantum gravity
constant) while c^2 = h/2Pi = Newton's big G gravity constant.
There is just too much logical consistency and evidence for this
theory to be wrong. It could use improvement as could anything but it
is not wrong.
Conrad
cjcountess
I too believe that the universe is based on something that is cyclical
rather than linear. I wrote a book on the universal pattern of
expansion/contraction in 2004 which you can see at:
http://www.iuniverse.com/lookinside/LookInside.jsp?isbn=0595317707
The constant linear path of light is in part illusion as motion is
relative and from one aspect the light which is constant and moving in
straight line is highest possible speed in the universe and from
another it is the slowest as it is equivalent to being still and what
we consider rest mass which to us is at rest, travels faster than
light. Rest mass travels at c^2 and c^2 is faster than c. One can also
look at someone next to you who is apparently at rest and look at the
accumulated motions of the Earths rotation, orbit around sun, galaxy,
and so on to see that it's all relative.
But if we closer examine the idea that the speed of light is constant
regardless of motion of observer and observed, and that it is the
highest possible speed, we might find that this is only true in the
linear direction.
In other words even though the linear speed of light may be highest in
universe from one perspective and constant regardless of motion of
observer and observed, the frequency that we measured from a moving
object or our moving selves, is not constant thus allowing police to
directly deduce ones speed from the frequency, as it is directly
related to it increasing speed in direction of motion.. Furthermore
frequency carries momentum. The higher the frequency, the higher the
mass, energy, and momentum as though the frequency takes on the
kinetic energy of the extra motion of observer and or observed. I say
that it does take on the extra speed thereby increasing the speed of
light beyond c to include frequency speed. Furthermore since higher
frequency results in harder, shorter waves, making waves more particle
like, demonstrated by photo electric effect, it is only logical to
assume that the higher the frequency the harder the particle and that
at some point a wave becomes a particle. I say that point is (c^2)
when the angular speed of (c) equals and balances the linear speed of
(c) resulting in a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces and
circular or spherical motion, binding energies and standing spherical
waves. And just as the wave goes through a quantum change to a
particle the math that describe it may also go through a quantum
change from adding vectors to squaring them. This puts a finishing
touch on changing a linear string to a circular one on the quantum
level.
Conrad Countess
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-31770-7
Y.Porat
> This is Conrad
>
> I too believe that the universe is based on something that is cyclical
> rather than linear.
if you mean waht i claim
it i snot exactly waht i say (more then 10 years !!)
my Circlon is a basic particle that moves naturally
in a closed circle -unless disturbed by another circlon
that does not mean that
'*there is no linerar movement as well '!!!!!!!!!
both movements exist !!
the circlon moves in a clsed circle
BUT ITS CENTER OF GRAVITY CAN MOVE IN A STRAIGHT LINE !!!
now about eqaution
mc^2 to hf
in order to do it properly **for a photon** =
**you have to add to it some scalr constant *!!
ie
E = mc^2= (SC) hf
while SC is a scalar constant that must be determined by
experiment !!
it means as well that there is as well
some smallest photon quantity
I wrote a book on the universal pattern of
> expansion/contraction in 2004 which you can see at:http://www.iuniverse.com/lookinside/LookInside.jsp?isbn=0595317707
my book and the 'Circlon' in its appendix
is copyrighted since 1993 !!
the 'Circlon' can be both
a particle builder
and a force maker as well
if you understand it properly
and it containes mass !! (:-)
because quoting myself
'no mass no real physics !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
cjcountess
This is Conrad
Did you see the geometry? When two vectors of motion are equal and
perpendicular to each other they counter balance each other as a
centripetal / centrifugal force balance, to create circular motion.
Circular motion can be considered velocity squared if one takes a
horizontal vector and multiply it by a right angled vertical vector.
This is analogous to taking a line of one inch and multiplying it by a
line of one inch in right angle direction to create a square inch. And
furthermore if one takes the trajectory a projectile would follow if
it follows an arc from beginning of horizontal line to end of vertical
line it would be a 90 degree arc which if constant would be a circle.
This is new stuff and so I can see why you may not see. It is taught
in schools that vectors are added not multiplied and so following this
strictly it will not lead to the conclusion that I came to. This might
indicate a quantum change in the math describing vectors that
corresponds to the quantum change in the wave as it changes into a
particle. And this may be why people have not seen this in the past. I
did not arrive at this through math and probably could not have if I
did not anticipate a quantum change in the math as well as the wave to
particle. This may in fact be a whole new field "Quantum math". First
rule: Two vectors of motion generated by two forces are added, until
they are both equal and perpendicular, at which point the velocity is
squared.
Conrad
Autymn D. C.
> Hello Autymn D.C.
> This is Conrad
> Did you see the geometry? When two vectors of motion are equal and
> perpendicular to each other they counter balance each other as a
> centripetal / centrifugal force balance, to create circular motion.
> Circular motion can be considered velocity squared if one takes a
> horizontal vector and multiply it by a right angled vertical vector.
No, their resultand is the diadacton. (You say "diagonal".) In
circular motion the lone v-vector is tangent and oscillatory in time.
> This is analogous to taking a line of one inch and multiplying it by a
> line of one inch in right angle direction to create a square inch. And
> furthermore if one takes the trajectory a projectile would follow if
> it follows an arc from beginning of horizontal line to end of vertical
> line it would be a 90 degree arc which if constant would be a circle.
so¿
> This is new stuff and so I can see why you may not see. It is taught
> in schools that vectors are added not multiplied and so following this
> strictly it will not lead to the conclusion that I came to. This might
> indicate a quantum change in the math describing vectors that
> corresponds to the quantum change in the wave as it changes into a
Vectors do both. But the cc in E=mcc is a linear square in time, not
a rectangular square in span. Your maths suck.
-Aut
cjcountess
This is Conrad Countess
You are using a different math system. But as math is a man made
measuring system of what we hope may be reality, my math as unorthodox
as it is cannot be that far off. Two vectors of motion applied by two
equal and 90 degree angular forces will create circular motion., its
as simple as that.
see this:: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
You said: Vectors do both. But the cc in E=mcc is a linear square in
time, not
> a rectangular square in span. Your maths suck.
>
Its not either in this case although it might be translated into each
other. The cc in this case is c in circular motion such as a
trajectory that would follow a 90 degree arc which if constant
creates a circle
or a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces to produce orbital
or circular motion. v^2 and c^2 can be interpreted and translated into
all of these forms, but in this situation where energy turns to matter
at the high end of the EM spectrum it is precisely because it takes on
a circular or spherical form in order to form a particle or matter
wave, not a linear x linear form or a square form.. I only use the
rectangular form as an analogy and start off point to show that the
same two 90 degree angular lines that create the square can also
create a 90degree arc trajectory which if constant creates a circle.
The amount of energy in a rest mass particle can probably be
illustrated by comparing a square area to a straight line, but the
trajectory of the wave can only be shown by the 90 degree arc which if
constant creates a circle, that it would take following the two 90
degreed lines of force.
As an example see this :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html
Containing this passage:
EMILIE DU CHÂTELET: Using Newton's formulas, Monsieur Voltaire, he
then drops a second ball from a higher height, calculated to exactly
double the speed of the first ball on impact.
So, Messieurs, care for a little wager? Newton tells us that by
doubling the speed of the ball, we will double the distance it travels
into the clay. Leibniz asks us to square that speed. If he is correct
the ball will travel not two, but four times as far. So who is
correct?
They are demonstrating the difference between Newton's (F=mv) and
Leibniz (F=mv^2) as an indication that force increase 4x as velocity
doubles, not that velocity is multiplied by itself in a linear manner
v^2 and c^2 can be interpreted in all these ways.
Conrad Countess
Spaceman
> Hi Autyumn D.C
> This is Conrad Countess
>
> You are using a different math system. But as math is a man made
> measuring system of what we hope may be reality, my math as unorthodox
> as it is cannot be that far off. Two vectors of motion applied by two
> equal and 90 degree angular forces will create circular motion., its
> as simple as that.
> see this:: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
I think you are missing the fact that both of the 90 degree forces
are actually changing direction (The gravity and the "turn" of the path)
The 90 degrees of the gravitational force is actually spinning
around in 360 degrees along with the forward force so that is why
you will get the "circle".
Instead of a diagonal line that 2 "normal" 90 degree equal
forces will create.
In a flat plane, 2 forces at a 90 degree seperation will create
a diagonal motion. (not circular)
If you allow the 90 degree forward force to turn the motion and keep
the diversional force point stationary (like a string tied on to it) you
will then
get the dual rotating 90 degree forces creating a circle.
When you look at this from a euclidian 3D point of view the 90 degree
forces both sweep all around 360 degrees and end up 90 again after
one "circle" (revolution)
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
john
Here, Conrad- circular movement in the xy plane linked with circular
movement
in the xz plane creates 3D spherical waves:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/methane%20animation.html
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/standingwave.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/H.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/He.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Li.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Be.GIF
and so on
John
Galaxy Model
cjcountess
>
> and so on
>
> John
> Galaxy Model
Hi John
This is Conrad and I agree