Obsticales to scientific progress
cjcountess
1) Too many people in key positions that control desinemation of
information, are more interested in who is right, and gets subjective
credit for it, than what is more objectively right, and progresses
science. Thank goodness for the internet and Google sci physics.
2) Basing too much on established scientific axions, that have proven
themselfs in past, but are not nessesarily true for all cases, instead
of going to the very foundation of science, which is looking at
something as objective and free of preconcieved notions, as possible.
This means transending the pre-established axioms such as
"The speed of light is constant and the highest possible speed",
frequency along the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite, ect.
3) Desire to maintain "Uncertainty Priciples", mystery, instead of
resolving it.
4) Physisist religious adoration for certain ideas and there authors
resulting in religious and artistic atatchments. The attatchment is so
great, that some look at it as blasphemous and or defiling ones
religion or artwork.
5) Non-recognition of natural ability, and too much relyment on title,
repitation, and degree instead of letting evidence speak for itself
being its own credentials, when we can show an analogy between the
natural ability of artist, is parrallel to the natural ability of
science. It is well known that artist without formal training, can
sometimes achieve much grester results, than their rigorously educated
counterparts. This implies that natural ability, carries just as much
or more, wieght as rigorious training.
If we address these points head on, a new wave of creativity and
discovery will be released.
Conrad J Countess
PD
> Obsticals to progress in science, Physics in particular.
At the risk of encouraging nonsense, I'll respond to this...
>
> 1) Too many people in key positions that control desinemation of
> information, are more interested in who is right, and gets subjective
> credit for it, than what is more objectively right, and progresses
> science. Thank goodness for the internet and Google sci physics.
What you advocate is freedom from quality control, to which you attach
the label "objectively right". What is objectively right is determined
by readers, not by authors. You have no claim on the objective
rightness of what you say, by definition.
>
> 2) Basing too much on established scientific axions, that have proven
> themselfs in past, but are not nessesarily true for all cases, instead
> of going to the very foundation of science, which is looking at
> something as objective and free of preconcieved notions, as possible.
> This means transending the pre-established axioms such as
> "The speed of light is constant and the highest possible speed",
> frequency along the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite, ect.
You are certainly encouraged to dispense with that axiom and start
with something else. However, there should be two ancillaries that
come with any other chosen axiom.
- Demonstrated research that indicates that the new axiom is not
already directly in conflict with experimental measurements
- Development of the new axiom into a quantitative theory that makes
testable predictions that are distinct from the ones derived from the
previous axioms.
From what I can see, you've done neither of these.
>
> 3) Desire to maintain "Uncertainty Priciples", mystery, instead of
> resolving it.
There's nothing mysterious about the uncertainty principle. Now, it
may appear mysterious to people who have only done lightweight reading
about it, because information about the uncertainty principle that is
aimed at amateur audiences is kept deliberately lightweight.
>
> 4) Physisist religious adoration for certain ideas and there authors
> resulting in religious and artistic atatchments. The attatchment is so
> great, that some look at it as blasphemous and or defiling ones
> religion or artwork.
Not at all. See the two requirements that I listed above. That's all
that's really necessary for the serious consideration of a new theory.
But you have to satisfy those two. If you don't, you won't be treated
seriously.
>
> 5) Non-recognition of natural ability, and too much relyment on title,
> repitation, and degree instead of letting evidence speak for itself
> being its own credentials, when we can show an analogy between the
> natural ability of artist, is parrallel to the natural ability of
> science. It is well known that artist without formal training, can
> sometimes achieve much grester results, than their rigorously educated
> counterparts. This implies that natural ability, carries just as much
> or more, wieght as rigorious training.
Natural ability is not self-assessable. It is based on the assessment
of others. Natural ability is determined by performance. See the two
requirements listed above. Have you demonstrated performance in those
two criteria?
Uncle Al
>
> Obsticals to progress in science, Physics in particular.
>
> 1) Too many people in key positions that control desinemation of
> information, are more interested in who is right, and gets subjective
> credit for it, than what is more objectively right, and progresses
> science. Thank goodness for the internet and Google sci physics.
"desinemation" Yer stooopid.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/publon.htm
> 2) Basing too much on established scientific axions, that have proven
> themselfs in past, but are not nessesarily true for all cases, instead
> of going to the very foundation of science, which is looking at
> something as objective and free of preconcieved notions, as possible.
> This means transending the pre-established axioms such as
> "The speed of light is constant and the highest possible speed",
> frequency along the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite, ect.
GR is derived from scratch each year in graduate schools - in several
different ways. Do you have a bone to pick with Ashtekar?
idiot
> 3) Desire to maintain "Uncertainty Priciples", mystery, instead of
> resolving it.
Casimir effect: them half-photons ship in a real big can of whoop-ass.
idiot
> 4) Physisist religious adoration for certain ideas and there authors
> resulting in religious and artistic atatchments. The attatchment is so
> great, that some look at it as blasphemous and or defiling ones
> religion or artwork.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png
idiot
> 5) Non-recognition of natural ability, and too much relyment on title,
> repitation, and degree instead of letting evidence speak for itself
> being its own credentials, when we can show an analogy between the
> natural ability of artist, is parrallel to the natural ability of
> science. It is well known that artist without formal training, can
> sometimes achieve much grester results, than their rigorously educated
> counterparts. This implies that natural ability, carries just as much
> or more, wieght as rigorious training.
You couldn't pass trig in high school, eh? You should have gone for
linear algebra - the one without the curves.
> If we address these points head on, a new wave of creativity and
> discovery will be released.
To criticize is to volunteer. Hey stooopid - publish your miracle
derivations, the ones that are consistent with empirical observation.
> Conrad J Countess
It's hard to make a comeback when you haven't been anywhere.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
hhc...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Posting in a physics thread, he sort of lost me when he went into
"Natural Ability".
Damn, I thought that I had some level of "Natural Ability" when I went
into the study of physics, but after 8 years of undergraduate and
graduate studies, I am not too sure!
I am still struggling with Einsten's basic issue and enigma. That is,
is light (electromagnetic) a particle, or is it a wave.
I am amazed at how many pedestrians know the answer, while serous
scholars wrestle with it for dedades.
Harry C.
A
Frank N. Eskesen
Hi Conrad,
We hobbyists have to realize the time and effort it would take to
examine each and every crackpot theory that comes along. The real
workers have spent the time and effort to go and understand every nook
and cranny that physics has to offer, and can talk to each other at a
level we can only imagine. They don't, for example, want to waste their
time with someone who can't even spell. They don't want to waste their
time with someone who can't get their facts straight the first time
through, either. Sorry for that.
They have their own ideas to consider, measure and test before they go
around looking into hobbyist theories. You think these fellows have
spare time? Think again. Don't berate them for not looking at your
ideas. They won't and shouldn't look at them unless, at first glance, it
seems really, really interesting to them in one way or another. You
haven't seen Stephen Hawking doing a lot of posting here, have you?
If you make stupid mistakes, expect the smarter people to turn away and
perhaps never bother with you again.
On the other hand, we hobbyists can do peer review of other hobbyist
theories. I'm in the preparation stage for starting one of them now. If
we hobbyists can come to a consensus that one of our crackpot ideas has
merit and is 100% technically correct, then maybe we can figure out a
method for bringing that up with the big boys. This might not work,
though, unless the big boys have some trusted intermediary that can
agree that consensus has been really been reached, because it's easy to
fake on the internet. It might work without that, though.
I forgot one step you (and I) need to take. If a theory has already been
reviewed, you have to review the reviews in order to find out whether a
review will result in anything new. It won't help anyone if you just
wind up repeating old information.
It's pretty easy for me to differentiate the types of theories out
there, so that I can have a good idea of whose ideas really differ. This
takes only a cursory glance. I think it would impress the big fellows a
little bit if four or five of us hobbyists could agree with each other.
Mostly all of the stuff I've seen looks pretty far out, even my own.
Most of it looks pretty uninteresting, too.
So, if you're really interested in promoting weird-ass theories, find
someone else's to critique. This might better be done in private, via
e-mail. We hobbyists make lots of mistakes and don't need to expose all
our blunders. Or maybe we should do it in public. Don't know about that
one yet. It's too bad usenet doesn't provide the capability for private
threads.
But if you want to be a real physics hobbyist, you should be a serious
hobbyist and look at other people's work. There is a vast body of it in
these forums. Find a topic that interests you written by someone who
might be amenable to reason, if you can. Find something that is not just
wrong, right out of the box. If you can get another hobbyist to agree
that his work is just undeniably wrong, and even explain why in a joint
statement that is reasonably cogent, that would impress. (It is not
nearly so impressive to show agreement.) Otherwise, don't be a baby and
just whine, whine, whine.
If you pick a theory to review, you will have to expect to take months
of effort on the review or it won't be worthwhile even starting. We
hobbyists don't think nearly as quickly or cogently as the big boys,
especially when it comes to physics. If you pick something really
simple, you take the chance that someone else will review it on their
own and beat you to determining whatever error there is, just by inspection.
You have to agree to the scientific method, to wit: If a theory does not
match observation, it's wrong. Q.E.D. This method cannot be used to
prove anything, it can only disprove. If you have a theory that, in some
way does not match repeated observation by independent observers, it's
wrong, Q.E.D. That is, if you accept the offer of a peer review, you
must accept the possibility of a negative result, and a detailed
rebuttal of whatever argument you have made. If you don't agree to this
rebuttal and are unwilling to change your position, the reviewer can
post it and let the rest of the world decide if anything at all
meaningful was said. There is a possibility of a nonsense rebuttal to a
nonsense theory, too.
You need to look at something that might add something to the body of
knowledge. It's best when it makes a new prediction that can be tested
by observation. It's just useful when, like string theory, it just adds
to understanding. That last statement implies that string theory makes
no testable predictions, which I don't know to be fact. (Not that string
theory could possibly add to *my* understanding, these guys are way out
of my league.)
Don't complain when you don't understand things that these guys
understand. Just admit that you don't understand, and accept that
they're correct. The big boys don't go around spewing out nonsense, but
they do talk about things that are just beyond our ken. Give them the
credit and respect they deserve for that. Note that if one does start
going around spewing out nonsense, the other big boys are just going to
tear him to pieces. He won't be welcome in the clubhouse any more.
Now, last and not least. If you're too lazy to try to attempt a peer
review on your own, why in the flaming hell should you expect people who
have spent years and years thinking day and night about physics to try
to even begin to consider what you have to say? Maybe you expect Dr.
Hawking to try to teach physics to someone who might have the level of
intelligence and/or knowledge as his dog. I don't. Woof, woof.
If you don't have the capability of attempting such a review, why are
you interested about control of information in the first place? You are
really in the position of asking Dr. Hawking to try to teach his dog's
flea everything he knows. Instead of asking that, you should go out and
explain everything you know to that flea instead.
Androcles
<hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd3268ed-5c64-4350...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Harry C.
=============================================
You are obviously so deranged as to believe you've been
a "serous" scholar for "dedades".
Timo Nieminen
> On Dec 14, 8:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 9:02 am, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 5) Non-recognition of natural ability, and too much relyment on title,
> > > repitation, and degree instead of letting evidence speak for itself
> > > being its own credentials, when we can show an analogy between the
> > > natural ability of artist, is parrallel to the natural ability of
> > > science. It is well known that artist without formal training, can
> > > sometimes achieve much grester results, than their rigorously educated
> > > counterparts. This implies that natural ability, carries just as much
> > > or more, wieght as rigorious training.
> >
> > Natural ability is not self-assessable. It is based on the assessment
> > of others. Natural ability is determined by performance. See the two
> > requirements listed above. Have you demonstrated performance in those
> > two criteria?
>
> Posting in a physics thread, he sort of lost me when he went into
> "Natural Ability".
>
> Damn, I thought that I had some level of "Natural Ability" when I went
> into the study of physics, but after 8 years of undergraduate and
> graduate studies, I am not too sure!
Having a significant level of natural ability is one thing, but having a
significantly higher level of natural ability than your peers is another.
What reliance on title or degree is there? A large chunk of research and
research publication is done by people without either, or just a BSc and
no title. Most of the rest of the researchers have the same degree and the
same title. And yet there is clear stratification in terms of ability and
reputation. That isn't a result of training/degree/title, but a result of
natural ability (and luck and opportunity).
So, ability shows, and is recognised and rewarded. Just look at the praise
heaped on those with the greatest ability! How can you read of Newton,
Huygens, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, etc., and claim that
natural ability is ignored? Much of the writing about such people makes it
very clear that their natural ability is what enabled them to outshine
their peers.
Lack of ability also shows, and is suitably rewarded by the ever-bountiful
physics job market.
It's wrong to put reputation there. Reputation is a result of the
recognition of ability and past success. OK, over-reliance on reputation
can be bad, but reputation is distinct from title and degree.
But wait! What about ability sans training and degree? Those with the
ability and interest can manage the training and degree easily enough, and
usually do so given the opportunity. Do those without the opportunity to
get the training and degree have the opportunity to devote time to
research?
But wait! That doesn't address the artist analogy! Perhaps the artist
analogy is the wrong analogy? Would an athlete analogy have been better?
Consider instead the analogy of a writer. Would you expect an illiterate
"writer" to "write" well, a writer with no experience of reading or
writing? Worse, some who claim to be "untrained researchers" are akin to
the writer who doesn't even know the basics of grammar.
> I am still struggling with Einsten's basic issue and enigma. That is,
> is light (electromagnetic) a particle, or is it a wave.
>
> I am amazed at how many pedestrians know the answer, while serous
> scholars wrestle with it for dedades.
... or consign it to the "too hard" basket as far as serious work is
concerned, pulling it out and looking at it over Friday arvo beer.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://espace.uq.edu.au/list/author_id/1189/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
alie...@gmail.com
> Obsticals
> desinemation
> axions
> themselfs
> nessesarily
> preconcieved
> transending
> ect.
> Priciples
> Physisist
> atatchments
> attatchment
> relyment
> repitation
> parrallel
> grester
> wieght
> rigorious
> If we address these points head on, a new wave of creativity and
> discovery will be released.
See, here's a major part of the problem many people have with you.
Your spelling is objectively sloppy which indicates that your thinking
is sloppy.
Also, you didn't take advantage of the spell-checker built into your
browser indicating you're too lazy to correct your own trivial
mistakes.
By extension, you also won't take the effort to correct any non-
trivial errors you might make, hence all your output is suspect since
it isn't obvious which of the inconsistencies in your output are
trivial errors and which are non-trivial.
Now, why exactly do you think the world ought to take seriously the
product of sloppy, lazy thinking?
Mark L. Fergerson
Autymn D. C.
> Posting in a physics thread, he sort of lost me when he went into
> "Natural Ability".
>
> Damn, I thought that I had some level of "Natural Ability" when I went
> into the study of physics, but after 8 years of undergraduate and
> graduate studies, I am not too sure!
>
> I am still struggling with Einsten's basic issue and enigma. That is,
> is light (electromagnetic) a particle, or is it a wave.
>
> I am amazed at how many pedestrians know the answer, while serous
> scholars wrestle with it for dedades.
Is money a wad, or is it a whit? (It's the latter.)
tj Frazir
.
Thats 175 mpg per ton.
Now whats wrong with your car !
Mine gets 250 mpg per ton and thats less then the rail road but more
then you get with that stupid engine your forced to use.
as long as they can keep you fucking stupid they have monopilies on
energy.
Aleph
sci.physics on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:43:02 -0500, tj Frazir
<Gravity...@webtv.net> imparted these words of wisdom:
>
> So you dont understand that a 25 ton truck thats on the road gets 7 mpg
You dont understand anything. You are a retard at best but most likely a
lying fantasising pre-pubescent cretin.
Where is Relf's money?
--
Aleph
This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
to this account will be ignored.
cjcountess
I appreciate the response
PD, you are not encouraging nonsense, or lack of quality control.
Looking at this is a double edge sword. You get a lot of nonsense.
but you also get nuggets of good stuff in the mix, and therefor not
looking at it is also a double edge sword for same reason.
Let me try and give you some nuggets of good stuff..
The postulates:
The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer and
observed
and,
The speed of light is highest speed in universe
are not entirely true.
If one factors in the right angular speed of light as frequency
changes, the speed of light does depend on the motion of observer and
observed. Radar uses Doppler effect to figure speed of object because
frequency speed is directly proportional to and either added or
subtracted from, objects speed. Furthermore frequency increase,
carries kinetic energy, mass, and momentum increase.
Isn’t this how Einstein himself derived his E=mc^2 in the first place?
It is said that he measured light emitted from a souse at rest, and
one in motion, relative to each other, and found a frequency
difference and corresponding energy = to E=m/c^2. From this it is
said, he reasoned that E=mc2 for matter.
From this he could have gone on to reason that, if E=m/c^2 for
photons ,and E=m/^2 for matter, as determined by frequency, than c^2
must be a frequency, where energy turns to matter.
DeBroglie stipulated as much with his E=hf=mc^2, indicating a smooth
transition from energy to rest mass, along the same EM spectrum, which
can be considered the energy / matter, as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum.
This is the reasoning I used. But added to that, if one used the
analogy of “a line of 1 inch in linear direction x a line of 1 inch in
90 degree angular direction to = a square inch” and extend that to c
in the linear direction x c in the 90 degree angular direction creates
a 90 degree arc which if constant creates circular motion and a
balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, this further backs the
evidence.
Circular motion is called v^2 in circular equations such as a=v2/r and
F=mv^2/r of which the v^2 can be exchanged for c^2. And furthermore c
in circular motion would be cx2pi which coincides with Bohr idea that
wavelength of electron equals circumference of circle with angular
momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi.
And so I have logical, mathematical, analogical, geometrical, and
statistical sense it would be very statistical improbable that this
much evidence points to the same conclusion and it just keeps
growing.
Conrad J Countess see: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&hl=en
Al
As for you statement:
>You couldn't pass trig in high school, eh? You should have gone for
linear algebra - the one without the curves.
I already showed you “how a Lorentz contraction, turns to space-time
curvature”,
remember this:
>Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same
>predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place -
>as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have
>it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars
>and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and
>pseudotensors with spacetime torsion.
>Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force.
I figured something out using simple geometry, which you could not do
using your sophisticated mathematics.
This is an example of natural ability. It doesn’t mean I am better
than the next person, I simply trust simplicity, commonsense, and
myself to a certain degree, which allows me to discover things that
you overlooked, depending too much on your complex mathematics.
This is exactly demonstrated and collaborated by E=hf =mc^2 as
Lorentz contraction of EM waves measured at E=hf, turn to space-time
curvature of EM waves, measured at E=mc^2 which is how energy turns to
and = rest mas at c^2.
So apparently my linear equations flow smoothly into my circular
equations.
You do have natural ability, and I did not mean to imply that no one
else did, only that it is just as important or more so as learned
knowledge, which I will prove as we continue.
Frank N Eskesen
I am not quite sure how to process what you said. Sometime you seemed
to be talking to me straight, and sometime you seemed to be talking
down to me, but nevertheless, I too had an Idea about our own peer
review panel, which we can discuss latter, but for now. I would be
interested in seeing your idea. My email is cjcou...@yahoo.com and a
link to my idea is http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&hl=en
Mark L. Fergerson
I do stuff like that to screen people like you out.
You got any ideas to contribute to science, Physics in particular?
Conrad Countess
cjcountess
have gone on to reason that, if E=m/c^2 for
must be a frequency, where energy turns to matter
And in the very first post Instead of : 4) Physisist religious
adoration for certain ideas and there authors
resulting in religious and artistic atatchments. The attatchment is so
great, that some look at it as blasphemous and or defiling ones
religion or artwork.
it should say:
4) Physicist religious adoration for certain ideas and there authors
resulting in religious and artistic attachments. The attachment is so
great that some criticizing looks like blasphemy and or defiling ones
religion or artwork.
Well I guess I got to give Al and Mark L. Fergerson, something to
criticize, because I know there is no way they can prove the theory
itself wrong
PD
> Hi this is Conrad J Countess
>
> I appreciate the response
>
> PD, you are not encouraging nonsense, or lack of quality control.
> Looking at this is a double edge sword. You get a lot of nonsense.
> but you also get nuggets of good stuff in the mix, and therefor not
> looking at it is also a double edge sword for same reason.
"Goodness" of nuggets is not for the author to judge. It's for others
to judge. You may not care for that.
>
> Let me try and give you some nuggets of good stuff..
>
> The postulates:
>
> The speed of light is constant regardless of motion of observer and
> observed
> and,
>
> The speed of light is highest speed in universe
>
> are not entirely true.
To support your claim that they are not true, you need *experimental*
information that indicates that they are not true. What experimental
information do you have?
>
> If one factors in the right angular speed of light as frequency
> changes,
No, now we're talking sloppy terminology. Angular speed of light
(frequency) is NOT what is referred to in the postulate, nor does it
contribute. Please understand the meaning of the terms in the
postulate first.
> the speed of light does depend on the motion of observer and
> observed. Radar uses Doppler effect to figure speed of object because
> frequency speed is directly proportional to and either added or
> subtracted from, objects speed. Furthermore frequency increase,
> carries kinetic energy, mass, and momentum increase.
>
> Isn’t this how Einstein himself derived his E=mc^2 in the first place?
No!
>
> It is said that he measured light emitted from a souse at rest, and
> one in motion, relative to each other, and found a frequency
> difference and corresponding energy = to E=m/c^2. From this it is
> said, he reasoned that E=mc2 for matter.
No! I don't know where you found it "said" this is the case, but this
is NOT how he found this.
I'm sorry, but if you think this is what you call "good nuggets" then
you are fooling yourself.
cjcountess
you are playing the part of a prosecutor who does not care if party
is guilty or not you, you just want to win an argument, or your pride
just won’t let you admit that you are wrong.
Sometimes you have to judge things for yourself, especially if you are
the first one in the group to see something. I know what I see, and I
am trying to explain it to you as clearly as possible, although I
might have failed, but I don’t think so.
See:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
This is a prime example of an obstacle.
As for proof, Doppler radar detects speed everyday. If I get stopped
for speeding, and go into court saying that “the radar gun couldn’t
possibly detect my speeding, because the radar gun uses
Electromagnetic waves, and they travel at constant rate regardless of
motion of observer or observed, therefor the speed is not added to or
taken away from the waves, do you think that will get me off. No way
because the speed of light is not constant when you factor in the
frequency.
This has profound effects.
First, it is the only way to truly see how (E=hf = E=mc^2), at level
of electron, geometrically. Which shows, not just that energy and
matter are one, related through mathematical conversion factor c^2, it
shows exactly how energy equals and turns to matter at c^2, because
c^2 is a frequency, where energy acquires circular and or spherical
rotation, which gives it rest mass,and also stops it from radiating as
a photon although it still radiates a charge to other charged
particles.
The geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) contains more information
than just the equation alone, It has effect on the idea of infinite
frequency, which leads to renormalization and running coupling
constants problems.
Frequency does not diverge to (v^2), interpreted as infinity, it
converges to (v^2 as c^2), which is rest mass. This is the true reason
that radiation drops to zero when frequency approaches so called (v^2)
interpreted as infinity, because it is not infinity it is (c^2) which
is rest mass.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
Where it states: The radiated power eventually goes to zero at
infinite frequencies,
under section: Solution
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html#c3
See: Are there limits on frequency?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html#c5
Where it states: But the frequency available is continuous and has no
upper or lower bound, so there is no finite lower limit or upper limit
on the possible energy of a photon.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
2) Einstein discovered - E=mc^2 for electrons/matter
3) deBroglie discovered - E=hf=mc^2 for electron, which has -1
charged, and that electron is also wave
4) Bohr discovered - wavelength of electron = circumference of circle,
with angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi.
Therefore it follows from this and geometrical interpretation that -
( E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c = sqrt -1)
Analogous to a line of 1” in linear direction x 1” in 90 degree
angular direction = 1 “ squared, c in linear direction x c in 90
degree angular direction creates a 90 degree arc trajectory which if
constant creates a circle with a balance of centripetal and
centrifugal forces with wavelength of (cx2pi) and angular momentum of
(h/2pi)? And furthermore if amplitude is constant will make 2
rotations (spin ½) in order to complete 1 wave cycle with angular
momentum of (h/2pi/2), which is well know to be angular momentum of
electron. And if it spins counter to its trajectory it is (-1 charge),
thereby showing geometrically how a wave turn into a rest mass
particle along the same EM spectrum which can now be seen
geometrically to be not just the EM as in electromagnetic but energy/
matter spectrum.
This is in direct agreement with existing evidence and demystifies the
uncertainty principle which treats electron as probability wave and
point particle whose momentum and position cannot be measured at same
time due to faulty math which does not commute.
It also brings the (sqrt-1) out of the imaginary realm, into the real
realm, as the natural unit (sqrt -1 = c), of the natural unit (-1 =
electron), and may have significant implications in electronics.
It puts a natural limit on frequency, which considered as infinite,
gives rise to renormalization and running coupling constants problem
that plague physics and may reduce a lot of unnecessary work.
(c^2 = G = h/2pi) (c = h = r or radius = sqrt-1) which indicate new
Planck relations
(E=mc^2 = F=mv^2) and (E=hf/c^2 = F=mv/r^2) on quantum level, and
they are in direct proportion on macro level, as the same force that
compresses energy into rest mass particles, pushes rest mass particles
together as gravitation. Thus quantum gravity is revealed to equal
quantum rest mass because of (the inertia mass/gravity mass
equivalence) and c^2 is revealed to be the conversion factor between,
not only energy and matter because of energy / mass equivalence, but
also gravity, because of inertia / gravity mass equivalence, as well
as time because of energy / space equivalence and space / time
equivalence, as well as charge, because of the c^2 produces -1 charge,
temp, because c^2 as a frequency, is where energy cools to become
matter.
The implications are far reaching
Conrad J Countess
Y.Porat
> Obsticals to progress in science, Physics in particular.
>
> 1) Too many people in key positions that control desinemation of
> information, are more interested in who is right, and gets subjective
> credit for it, than what is more objectively right, and progresses
> science. Thank goodness for the internet and Google sci physics.
absolutly right !!you forgot to add another
peoblem:
science became a BUSINESS !!
a source of living
nmo matter whatit is
just wait and see all the parasite gangsters
parrots
comming on you because you are threatening their business!!
----------------
> 2) Basing too much on established scientific axions, that have proven
> themselfs in past, but are not nessesarily true for all cases, instead
> of going to the very foundation of science, which is looking at
> something as objective and free of preconcieved notions, as possible.
> This means transending the pre-established axioms such as
> "The speed of light is constant and the highest possible speed",
may be constant maybenot
but there are much more serious fucks:
like
aprticles without mass (Higgs Bosons)
3 quarks that their mass is 10percent of the mass of the proton
and therest is GLUEONS .. (:-)
exactly an electron for any proton in a heavy Atoms
'''the HUP prevents us from deciding the inner structure of the nuc
'''
photons without mass !!
etc etc
current physics was taken over by fucken
mathematician that have not the slightest physics touch
so they started loosing the ground of reality
and soaring above solid ground
etc etc
----------------
> frequency along the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite, ect.
>
> 3) Desire to maintain "Uncertainty Priciples", mystery, instead of
> resolving it.
>
> 4) Physisist religious adoration for certain ideas and there authors
religion thats the correct definition
including the gangster priests !
> resulting in religious and artistic atatchments. The attatchment is so
> great, that some look at it as blasphemous and or defiling ones
> religion or artwork.
>
> 5) Non-recognition of natural ability, and too much relyment on title,
> repitation, and degree instead of letting evidence speak for itself
-------------
right ! that is part of the gang system!
-----------
> being its own credentials,
right !! 9a closed gild of interesants
when we can show an analogy between the
> natural ability of artist, is parrallel to the natural ability of
> science. It is well known that artist without formal training, can
> sometimes achieve much grester results, than their rigorously educated
> counterparts. This implies that natural ability, carries just as much
> or more, wieght as rigorious training.
>
> If we address these points head on, a new wave of creativity and
> discovery will be released.
>
> Conrad J Countess
well said Conrad
jsut dont detere from saing it
again and again
untle
THE HIGGS bOSONS WILL BE FOUND
WITH THE PROBABILITY OF
ONE TO 100 BILLION (:-)
and the Higgs is just one example
we have the W Boson the Z Boson
etc etc
and the crooks are selling it to the suckers
to swallow it without blinking an eye !!!
crooks and suckers was all along history
a winning game !!!
2
we cant say that** all* current science is wrong!!
but it is much worse than crooks(and suckers ) are ready to admit !
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Aleph
e4fe5f...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri,
18 Dec 2009 09:35:43 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted
these words of wisdom:
>
> current physics was taken over by fucken
> mathematician
Damn that Math. Its such a shame it is so important, isnt it? Physics
would be so much more fun if we could just make shit up and not worry
about how it works.
What fool thinks math answers anything, eh? Its not like we can use
algebra to solve anything.
Fight the power, Porat, fight the power.
cjcountess
2pi), and unifies special general relativity with quantum theory and
also = (G) as (c^2) is the ultimate (L/T^2) just as (G = L/T^2). Thus
(c^2 = h/2pi = G). They are all energy in circular motion with rest
mass at the quantum level. It is realy just that simple and is
probably why it was missed using such complex mathematics which seems
to have let this equality slip right through it. The Swartzchild
radius of (r=Gm/c^2), which is said to be the radius below which mass
becomes a black hole according to General Relativity and the reduced
Compton wavelength (wavelength/2pi) below which if a particle is
squarshed more particles will be created according to quantum theory
are equal here at the frequency/wavelength of (c^2). They are the
radius of the electron as a circle and diameter of elestron as a
spherical particle which is why squashing it below this has said
effects.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not it is still the case and will be
revealed in time
Conrad J Countess
BradGuth
Greed, a system of ethnic castes and always good old corruption should
be at the top of your list.
~ BG
Y.Porat
> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons
just a little example of wrong paradigm:
E=hv .....
and here you have the profe that
photon energy has mass !!!
------------------
> 2) Einstein discovered - E=mc^2 for >electrons/matter
enery= matter and mass
actually - mass in motion as in macrocosm !!
no mass -- no real physics !!!
Y.P
----------------------------
Y.Porat
> In article <e4e0e079-14dc-4dba-9c04-
> e4fe5fece...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri,
> 18 Dec 2009 09:35:43 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.po...@gmail.com> imparted
> these words of wisdom:
>
>
>
> > current physics was taken over by fucken
> > mathematician
>
> Damn that Math. Its such a shame it is so important, isnt it? Physics
> would be so much more fun if we could just make shit up and not worry
> about how it works.
>
> What fool thinks math answers anything, eh? Its not like we can use
> algebra to solve anything.
>
> Fight the power, Porat, fight the power.
>
> --
> Aleph
>
> This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
> to this account will be ignored.
----------------
mathematics cannot make pioneering science
it can be only an aiding tool
(after that new*physics* ideas were introduced by physics thinkers
not paper thinkers !!)
Y.P
------------------------------
eric gisse
> On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons
>> ---------------------------
> just a little example of wrong paradigm:
>
> E=hv .....
> and here you have the profe that
> photon energy has mass !!!
And thus Porat enters 2010 by failing the same introductory physics course
again for the thousandth straight year.
Dimensions do not dictate physics, chuckles.
Y.Porat
disturbed imbecile MORON !!
people like that psychopath Gisse
are a wonderful example OF obstacles to science progress !!!
that psychopth morron does not know
how a physics formula is built and used
and yet such a little kaker want to teach us physics !!!
they are not only parrots
THEY ARE GANGSTERS AS WELL
just little indiaction:
no one except those gangsters is snipping Ng s
from the above address
Y.Porat
Y.P
------------------
Igor
> On Dec 14, 5:02 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Obsticals to progress in science, Physics in particular.
>
> > 1) Too many people in key positions that control desinemation of
> > information, are more interested in who is right, and gets subjective
> > credit for it, than what is more objectively right, and progresses
> > science. Thank goodness for the internet and Google sci physics.
> > ----------------------
>
> absolutly right !!you forgot to add another
> peoblem:
> science became a BUSINESS !!
Sounds like you're confusing process and product, Borat.
Igor
Let me guess. All of this was revealed to you by the Cheshire Cat and
the White Rabbit after you stepped through the looking glass?
Y.Porat
------------------
what is your income from science parroting??
(and mumbling ??)
iow
from what are you doing your living ??.....
ie
what is your day job as well ??
Y.P
---------------------------
Aleph
@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 19 Dec 2009
03:53:01 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
>
> just little indiaction:
> no one except those gangsters is snipping Ng s
> from the above address
Is that your "mark of teh gangsta?"
If so, you have managed to appear even more clueless than I thought.
Wow.
Aleph
7cb3d7...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri,
18 Dec 2009 11:18:17 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted
these words of wisdom:
>
>
> ----------------
> mathematics cannot make pioneering science
> it can be only an aiding tool
> (after that new*physics* ideas were introduced by physics thinkers
> not paper thinkers !!)
>
Are you some kind of retard?
Aleph
@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 19 Dec 2009
08:44:33 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
>
> what is your income from science parroting??
> (and mumbling ??)
> iow
> from what are you doing your living ??.....
> ie
> what is your day job as well ??
What a retort! You were wrong, you were called on it and rather than
defend your nonsense or say sorry, you come up with that!
Fight the power Poohrat, fight the power.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Obsticals to progress in science, Physics in particular.
>
> 1) Too many people in key positions that control desinemation of
> information, are more interested in who is right, and gets subjective
> credit for it, than what is more objectively right, and progresses
> science. Thank goodness for the internet and Google sci physics.
It's been so long since crank science has been interested
in anything other than quantum field equations, that's why the non-
simpletons
started Desktop Publishing and On-Line Publishing, It's been so
long since wank
science has done anything other than PGP, that's why non-idiot
engineering people work on atomic clock wristches, light sticks,
xml, hdtv, home broadband, self-assembling robots, data fusion,
rapid prototyping,
usb, external emulators, post bitmap digital terrain mapping, uavs,
self-replicating machines, blue ray, mp3, mpeg, and the 21st
Century.
Inertial
news:cd10333f-ae80-4da1...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons
>> ---------------------------
> just a little example of wrong paradigm:
>
> E=hv .....
Yeup
> and here you have the profe that
> photon energy has mass !!!
No .. it does show the energy of a photon is completely proportional to the
frequency of light(and so frame dependent). Which would imply that there is
no amount of the energy that come from a non-zero mass. Also, a non-zero
mass cannot be accelerated to a speed of c with a finit amount of energy.
This has been explained to you countless times, and you still persist with
your lies.
> ------------------
>> 2) Einstein discovered - E=mc^2 for >electrons/matter
>
> enery= matter and mass
> actually - mass in motion as in macrocosm !!
E = mc^2 is the rest energy of some mass (ie when it is NOT in motion). So
you claim that energy is only mass in motion is flawed.
> no mass -- no real physics !!!
There is more to physics than just mass.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------------
By Feuerbacher Nazi psychopath
imbecile moron parrot
Y.P
---------------------
Y.Porat
> In article <6f1d20b7-9a78-4695-b403-99b06fb49d23
> @j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 19 Dec 2009
> of wisdom:
>
>
>
> > just little indiaction:
> > no one except those gangsters is snipping Ng s
> > from the above address
>
> Is that your "mark of teh gangsta?"
>
> If so, you have managed to appear even more clueless than I thought.
> Wow.
>
> --
> Aleph
>
> This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
> to this account will be ignored.
-----------------
Bye Aleph (Igor ) bolshevic psychopath
gangster
Y.P
------------------------
Inertial
You still lie about who I am .. you're clearly an idiot.
Y.Porat
> In article <64bda67c-fbdd-4e36-b551-0ea26a61c580
> @a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 19 Dec 2009
> of wisdom:
>
>
>
> > ------------------
> > what is your income from science parroting??
> > (and mumbling ??)
> > iow
> > from what are you doing your living ??.....
> > ie
> > what is your day job as well ??
>
> What a retort! You were wrong, you were called on it and rather than
> defend your nonsense or say sorry, you come up with that!
>
> Fight the power Poohrat, fight the power.
>
> --
> Aleph
>
> This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
> to this account will be ignored.
----------------
just let anyone here know
what is you ray job ???
(i was working 40 productive years
before retiring ...
and you ???)
Y.P
--------------
-------------------------------
Igor
You forgot to ask whether I've stopped beating my wife, Borat.
Y.Porat
-------------------
who knows ?? (:-)
considering your honesty and integrity
(of a Bolshevik )
it might well be (:-)
there is another possibility
ie
that *she is beating you* (:-)
therefore you come here to spill your frustration here ??? (:-)
if you believe in Higgs Bosons
anything can be believed .....(:-)
Y.P
--------------
PD
> PD,
> you are playing the part of a prosecutor who does not care if party
> is guilty or not you, you just want to win an argument, or your pride
> just won’t let you admit that you are wrong.
>
> Sometimes you have to judge things for yourself, especially if you are
> the first one in the group to see something. I know what I see, and I
> am trying to explain it to you as clearly as possible, although I
> might have failed, but I don’t think so.
>
> See:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
>
> This is a prime example of an obstacle.
Why is this an obstacle? It's pretty straightforward.
> As for proof, Doppler radar detects speed everyday. If I get stopped
> for speeding, and go into court saying that “the radar gun couldn’t
> possibly detect my speeding, because the radar gun uses
> Electromagnetic waves, and they travel at constant rate regardless of
> motion of observer or observed, therefor the speed is not added to or
> taken away from the waves, do you think that will get me off.
No, because the evidence of your speeding is in the shifted
*frequency* of light, not in the shifted *speed* of light.
> No way
> because the speed of light is not constant when you factor in the
> frequency.
Those are two different and independent things. The frequency shifts,
and the speed does not.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
I was reading about St Anthony, the first monk. He had power over
politicians because he had no part of their world. Once they get their
hook, their subisdy, into you, you are finished.
Most of what we call religious extremism or oppresion came about that way.
Read Paul Johnson's Modern TImes on EInstein. Newton and Darwin have also
been abused. See Hofstadter's Social Darwinism book.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm http://www.facebook.com/vasjpan2
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> <IMG SRC="http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vjbiz.jpg"></P>
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
Androcles
<vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com> wrote in message
news:hgp6st$5qo$6...@reader1.panix.com...
> Science, religion and economics suffer when they depend on politicians.
>
> I was reading about St Anthony, the first monk.
>
Never heard of him. What's a "saint"?
> He had power over
> politicians because he had no part of their world. Once they get their
> hook, their subisdy, into you, you are finished.
> Most of what we call religious extremism or oppresion came about that way.
Did it really? Amazing.
> Read Paul Johnson's Modern TImes on EInstein.
Who is Paul Johnson and what does he know that I don't?
> Newton and Darwin have also
> been abused. See Hofstadter's Social Darwinism book.
Who is Hofstadter and what does he know that I don't?
tj Frazir
c plus v is STUPID..
any time you muliply wavelength X frequency and is DONT fucking equal c
let us know..
better yet cheKK your MATH stupid..
YOU WILL FIND THAT ANT WAVELEGTH x ITS FREQUENCY WILL EQUAL C ad never
ever ever anything else.
tj Frazir
You tell me the frequancy and Ill tell you its wavelength ...it will
ALLWAYS be its division from c.
OR any wavelength times its ferquency is c.
keep in mine its TIME thats not constant not light
cjcountess
The statement refering to "obstical to science", was misplaced
concerning a specific case, sorry for that confusion. I do not want
any unessesary confusion. Thank you for taking me serious enough to
reply back. Even if we do not agree, I do respect your view and know
that you have valid reason for them. So I'll just restate a couple of
things, hopefuly more clearly, and simply, and with another
interesting refference concerning uncertainty principle.
I have read and do appreciate all coments pro and con but will not
comment on each and everyone unless I think something specific should
be addressed. But if anyone wants me to address something spicific I
will.
Go Tell it on the Internet Go tell it on the Mountain
This is such a SIMPLE, yet PROFOUND Discovery, it must be told
A new REVOLUTION in physics, revolves around THIS
(E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c= sqrt-1)
By CONRAD J COUNTESS
Quantum Gravity in 3 STEPS
1) c in linear direction
2) x c in 90 degree angular direction
3) c in circular motion, (wavelength = (cx2pi) with angular momentum
(h/2pi)
After this simple geometrical discovery, everything just falls into
place naturaly.
1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons
2) Einstein discovered - E=mc^2 for electrons/matter
3) deBroglie discovered - E=hf=mc^2 for electron, which has -1
charged, and that electron is also wave indicating a smooth transition
between energy and matter along the same EM spectrum which can be seen
to be not only the electromagnetic but the energy/matter spectrum.
4) Bohr discovered - wavelength of electron = circumference of circle,
with angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi.
5) And if amplitude remains constant, the wave makes 2 rotations at 90
degree to eachother, to complete 1 wave cycle, making it a standing
spherical wave of spin 1/2. And if it spins counter to its trejectory,
it has -1 charge, and momentum of h/2pi/2.
Thus the "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE", becomes the "CERTAINTY PRINCIPLE,"
as (h/2pi/2), is revealed to be measure of, not just the position and
momentum of uncertainty, but the very certainty of the particles
position and momentum. It is not a point particle, or probability
wave, it is a standing spherical wave with rest mass, as the product
of, 2 perpendicular vectors of c. c in linear direction time c in 90
degree angular direction = c, in circular, and or, spherical motion.
Therefore it follows from this, and geometrical interpretation that,
( E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c = sqrt -1)
Just as (sqrt-1), cannot be derived from linear equations alone, but
can be geometricaly, as I attemp to show in my own geometry and the
reference below, showing the limits of certain mathematical methods,
so too is it with the "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE" as is also attempted, by
author refferenced below.
See this concerning "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE" being just a matter of
limits of mathematical method without geometry:
See:
arXiv:physics/0404044 [pdf]
Title: What is rest mass in the wave-particle duality? A proposed
model
Authors: Donald C. Chang
"pages 8, 9
1. It provides a simple explanation for the “Uncertainty principle” of
Heisenberg.
When one regards the particle as a point-like object, as in the
traditional concept of quantum physics, it is very difficult to
explain the “Uncertainty principle” of Heisenberg. We were usually
told that this principle is an observation of nature, and we have not
found any a priori 8
explanation behind it [12]. If the particle is indeed a wavepacket
representing the excitation of a real physical field, as suggested in
this model, we can explain the “Uncertainty principle” in a straight
forward way based on the wave nature of the “particle”. As shown in
Eq. (16), the longitudinal component of the wave function has a phase
angle (k·x – ωt). Because the particle is a wavepacket, it must have
certain widths in the spatial and temporal dimensions, Δx and Δt,
which can be linked to the linewidths of the wave number and frequency
by the following relations,
Δk·Δx ~ 2π , (31A)
and Δω·Δt ~ 2π . (31B)
Substituting Eqs. (18) and (19) into the above relations, we have
Δp·Δx ~ h , (32A)
and ΔE·Δt ~ h , (32B)
Thus, one cannot simultaneously determine the values of position and
momentum (or time and energy) of a free particle more precisely than
what is described in Eqs. (32A) and (32B), which are basically the
“Uncertainty principle” of Heisenberg.
page 11
5. "It implies a consistent geometrical relationship between mass,
energy and momentum.
In the study of theoretical physics, it is not uncommon to consider
some of the physical relationships in term of geometry. We would like
to explore if the result of our model makes good sense based on a
geometrical consideration. Using the natural unit in which c = 1, the
well established mass-energy relation (i.e., Eq. (26)) can be written
as E2=P2 + m2
which appears as a geometrical relationship that E is the vector sum
of two perpendicular vectors with amplitudes equal to p and m. (See
Fig. 2a). Since m (or E) is a scalar instead of a vector, Eq. (39)
cannot be regarded as a real vectorial relationship. Instead, it may
suggest that m is associated with some sort of “intrinsic momentum”
that characterizes the spatial variation of the wave function in
directions orthogonal to p."
An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1
by Paul J. Nahin
page 53 paragraph 2:, page 54 paragraph 2:, page 104 paragraph 2:
arXiv:physics/0505010 [pdf]
Title: On the wave nature of matter
Authors: Donald C. Chang
arXiv:physics/0404044 [pdf]
Title: What is rest mass in the wave-particle duality? A proposed
model
Authors: Donald C. Chang
An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1
by Paul J. Nahin
page 53 paragraph 2:
“square root of -1 is directed line segment of length 1 pointing
straight up along the vertical axis
or at long last, [i = sqrt-1 = 1 ∠ 90 degree angle]. This is so
important a statement that it is the only mathematical expression in
the entire book that I have enclosed”
page 54 paragraph 2:
“multiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation
by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense
Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator
operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.”
page 104 paragraph 2:
“In a revealing article criticizing Einstein's and Minkowski's (c x
sqrt-1), a national bureau of Standards physicist admitted that
Square root of -1 has a legitimate application in pure mathematic,
where it forms a part of various ingenious devices for handling
otherwise intractable situations”
Conrad J Countess
Igor
Nobody believes in the Higgs Boson, dumbass. It's a prediction based
on a scientific hypothesis. They apparently still have yet to teach
scientific method to your elementary school class. Let us know when
you graduate from the sixth grade. Then you'll be as smart as Jethro
Bodine. But alas, not yet.
Autymn D. C.
> In article <17095-4B2713D6-3...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net>, sent to
> sci.physics on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:43:02 -0500, tj Frazir
> <GravityPhys...@webtv.net> imparted these words of wisdom:
> > So you dont understand that a 25 ton truck thats on the road gets 7 mpg
>
> You dont understand anything. You are a retard at best but most likely a
> lying fantasising pre-pubescent cretin.
>
> Where is Relf's money?
5*
Igor
Congratulations for taking this thread, making a quick right turn, and
driving it into brick wall.
Autymn D. C.
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cd10333f-ae80-4da1...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons
> >> ---------------------------
> > just a little example of wrong paradigm:
>
> > E=hv .....
>
> Yeup
>
> > and here you have the profe that
> > photon energy has mass !!!
>
> No .. it does show the energy of a photon is completely proportional to the
> frequency of light(and so frame dependent). Which would imply that there is
> no amount of the energy that come from a non-zero mass. Also, a non-zero
> mass cannot be accelerated to a speed of c with a finit amount of energy.
Cough, I already proved a mass can reach celerity within one lambda.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
Liht fares outward. 90° off would be rimmward; thet it doesn't.
PD
> PD
> The statement refering to "obstical to science", was misplaced
> concerning a specific case, sorry for that confusion. I do not want
> any unessesary confusion.
Forgive me, but this is the point where you lost me.
If your goal was to get some attention to your ideas, and to get that
attention you were willing to make a post about obstacles to
scientific progress, the content of which you did not really believe
and aren't willing to support, then this is what is known as
"trolling" and it is intellectually dishonest.
> Thank you for taking me serious enough to
> reply back. Even if we do not agree, I do respect your view and know
> that you have valid reason for them. So I'll just restate a couple of
> things, hopefuly more clearly, and simply, and with another
> interesting refference concerning uncertainty principle.
> I have read and do appreciate all coments pro and con but will not
> comment on each and everyone unless I think something specific should
> be addressed. But if anyone wants me to address something spicific I
> will.
>
>
> Conrad J Countess
Autymn D. C.
> On Dec 14, 5:02 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Obsticals to progress in science, Physics in particular.
> > themselfs in past, but are not nessesarily true for all cases, instead
> > of going to the very foundation of science, which is looking at
> > something as objective and free of preconcieved notions, as possible.
> > This means transending the pre-established axioms such as
> > "The speed of light is constant and the highest possible speed",
>
Of course not: Huygens, Chèrèncov.
> but there are much more serious fucks:
> like
> aprticles without mass (Higgs Bosons)
> 3 quarks that their mass is 10percent of the mass of the proton
> and therest is GLUEONS .. (:-)
Quarks are always in compounds; when one quark drifts froward the
others--that is, grows--it loses mass until its field--which is now
full of virtval quark compounds and weihty--breaks off into further
hadròns. When a hadròn is at ground, its quarks are at their
weihtiest. I think I got thet wriht...
> exactly an electron for any proton in a heavy Atoms
> '''the HUP prevents us from deciding the inner structure of the nuc
> '''
> photons without mass !!
> etc etc
> current physics was taken over by fucken
> mathematician that have not the slightest physics touch
> so they started loosing the ground of reality
> and soaring above solid ground
> etc etc
money without mass!!
time without mass!!
room without mass!!
charge without mass!!
color without mass!!
fasis without mass!!
freedom without mass!!
dumbshit
-Aut
cjcountess
This is such a SIMPLE, yet PROFOUND Discovery, it must be told
A new REVOLUTION in physics, revolves around THIS
(E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c= sqrt-1)
By CONRAD J COUNTESS
Quantum Gravity in 3 STEPS
1) c in linear direction
2) x c in 90 degree angular direction
3) = 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle and balence of
centripital and centrifugal forces = c in circular motion, with
wavelength = (cx2pi) with angular momentum (h/2pi) and rest mass = to
G.
After this simple geometrical discovery, everything just falls into
place naturaly. c^2 as the ultimate L/T^2 = G which also = L/T^2. And
so c^2 = h/2pi = G and c = h = r or radius of circle = sqrt-1 = 2pi in
this special case.
All constants of nature, that I examined so far, can be directly
related to c. This seems to be a law of nature, which too, may have
profound effects.
I am so completely in awe.
I do not have to fabricate anything, the idea has a momentum of its
own. The style of my writing at time may be not just to develop the
idea but also to sell it. But it seems to me to be selling itself
starting with me. If I believe it to be true it radiates confidence,
if I believe it to be beautiful it adiates adoration, if sound it
radiates paitience. If all the above is true than it radiates wisdom.
If this appears to be circular reasoning than the point of all my
reasoning is to be circular as a self explanitory process. To connect
the cause and effect with the objective itself. To make it so clear
that it speks for itself and I can get out of the way.
In this way the argument will attain rest mass, having stibility in
motion and the gravitational attraction to attract you and be
attracted to you and to reasonate with what you know to be.
When it attains rest mass, I can get out of the way, let the truth
speak for itself, and rest my case.
The truth has its own beauty, confidence, and wisdom.
This project has put me in a state of "Zen". It to me, is so
wonderful. I am simply expressing an idea as ancient as that of Zen,
that matter is just a form of high vibrational formless primordial
energy, irculating at the speed of light in circular and or spherical
motion. E=mc^2 and m=Ec^2 as the universe expands and contracts coming
into and out of form.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
> On Dec 22, 11:19 am,cjcountess<cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > PD
> > The statement refering to "obstical to science", was misplaced
> > concerning a specific case, sorry for that confusion. I do not want
> > any unessesary confusion.
>
> Forgive me, but this is the point where you lost me.
> If your goal was to get some attention to your ideas, and to get that
> attention you were willing to make a post about obstacles to
> scientific progress, the content of which you did not really believe
> and aren't willing to support, then this is what is known as
> "trolling" and it is intellectually dishonest.
PD
I can't believe you don't know what I am talking about, or maybe you
realy don't.
But you just gave me an example of an obstical to scientific progress,
knowingly or unknowingly.Of course the whole reason for the starting
this thread is to address obsticals to scientific progress but that
particular sentence was misplaced as reguards to a particular example
that I did not relate it to at the time and place. But you now have
given me a prime example of an obstical to scienctific progress which
is not appying common sense to these simple sometimes inperfect
sentences. While you make a big thing out of that you missed to point
of the thread, which is to get around stuff like that.
That was an unimportant little misplacement of a sentence and you want
to hang or disguard an intire argument on it.
That's an obstical get over it
Conrad J Countess
Autymn D. C.
> Go tell it on the Mountain - Go Tell it on the Internet
> This is such a SIMPLE, yet PROFOUND Discovery, it must be told
> A new REVOLUTION in physics, revolves around THIS
> (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c= sqrt-1)
You are full of shit and no one believes you.
alie...@gmail.com
> On Dec 22, 1:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 11:19 am,cjcountess<cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > PD
> > > The statement refering to "obstical to science", was misplaced
> > > concerning a specific case, sorry for that confusion. I do not want
> > > any unessesary confusion.
>
> > Forgive me, but this is the point where you lost me.
> > If your goal was to get some attention to your ideas, and to get that
> > attention you were willing to make a post about obstacles to
> > scientific progress, the content of which you did not really believe
> > and aren't willing to support, then this is what is known as
> > "trolling" and it is intellectually dishonest.
>
> PD
> I can't believe you don't know what I am talking about, or maybe you
> realy don't.
You misspelled "whining".
> But you just gave me an example of an obstical to scientific progress,
> knowingly or unknowingly.Of course the whole reason for the starting
> this thread is to address obsticals to scientific progress but that
> particular sentence was misplaced as reguards to a particular example
> that I did not relate it to at the time and place. But you now have
> given me a prime example of an obstical to scienctific progress which
> is not appying common sense to these simple sometimes inperfect
> sentences. While you make a big thing out of that you missed to point
> of the thread, which is to get around stuff like that.
It is abundantly clear that you want others to compensate for your
laziness. You are unwilling to make the effort to be clearly
understood.
> That was an unimportant little misplacement of a sentence and you want
> to hang or disguard an intire argument on it.
When you make an argument you are offering others the opportunity to
see a pattern you believe you perceive so that others can confirm or
rebut your perception. Details make or break a pattern; those that
don't fit it falsify it.
When you don't bother to conform your spelling and grammar to
accepted standards, you corrupt your entire presentation; how is
anyone to know if flaws in your presentation are misspellings, wrong
numbers accidentally entered, or actual falsifiers?
You want others to correct your misspellings and grammatical errors
as they read your efforts. Trouble with that is that your readers have
to make _assumptions_ about what you actually meant to say, and those
assumption will not always match your intent.
Is that really what you want, or do you want others to actually
understand you?
> That's an obstical get over it
The biggest obstacle to you gaining the interest you seek is your
own laziness.
Grow up and put the polish necessary on your efforts to get others
to take them seriously.
Mark L. Fergerson
Inertial
news:4385fb19-d268-4fe8...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Your sentence is nonsense as it stands, as you've neither defined a value of
celerity, nor to what lambda refers.
If you mean you have proven a particle with mass can achieve a speed of c,
then I'd like to see how. If you mean instead that it can achieve a speed
as close to 'c' as you want, then thats fine .. all you need is enough
energy.
cjcountess
Mark L. Ferguson
You can tell your grand children that you corrected the man who
started the next great revolution in physics.
They may even think you contributed to the revolution itself. Cool
enough for you?
Conrad J Countess
tj Frazir
alie...@gmail.com
Please, grow up.
Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
--------------------
so what happened?
suddenly you dont beleive in the Higgs ??
i just wonder what will you say
while Higgs will be found in the
LHC
what and how big - will be the trumpet that you will blow then !!
may e i am a moron
but CERTAINLY YOU ARE
A FUCKEN shameless BOLSHEVIC PIG !!!
Y.P
---------------------------
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Obsticals to progress in science, Physics in particular.
>
> 1) Too many people in key positions that control desinemation of
> information, are more interested in who is right, and gets subjective
> credit for it, than what is more objectively right, and progresses
> science. Thank goodness for the internet and Google sci physics.
>
> themselfs in past, but are not nessesarily true for all cases, instead
> of going to the very foundation of science, which is looking at
> something as objective and free of preconcieved notions, as possible.
> This means transending the pre-established axioms such as
> "The speed of light is constant and the highest possible speed",
>
> 3) Desire to maintain "Uncertainty Priciples", mystery, instead of
> resolving it.
It's much simpler for String Theory clowns to build things with
100% uncertainty,
so that's why work on Fortran. And the educable people work on Blue
Ray,
Multiplexed Fiber Optics, Self-Replicating Machines, Digital Books,
and
Post muon Cell Phones.
And it's much simpler for Darwin wannabees to work with the New
York Times,
so that's why they work on GM, and the educable people work XML,
Desktop Publihshing, On-Line Publishing, GPS, Atomic Clock
Wristwatches,
Self-Assembling Robots, Data Fusion, UAVs, Holographics, Microwave
Cooling
Post ASCII-thons, and The 21st Century.
>
> 4) Physisist religious adoration for certain ideas and there authors
> resulting in religious and artistic atatchments. The attatchment is so
> great, that some look at it as blasphemous and or defiling ones
> religion or artwork.
>
> 5) Non-recognition of natural ability, and too much relyment on title,
> repitation, and degree instead of letting evidence speak for itself
> being its own credentials, when we can show an analogy between the
> natural ability of artist, is parrallel to the natural ability of
> science. It is well known that artist without formal training, can
> sometimes achieve much grester results, than their rigorously educated
> counterparts. This implies that natural ability, carries just as much
> or more, wieght as rigorious training.
>
> If we address these points head on, a new wave of creativity and
> discovery will be released.
>
> Conrad J Countess
Autymn D. C.
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:4385fb19-d268-4fe8...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 10:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:cd10333f-ae80-4da1...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Dec 18, 6:30 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> 1) Planck discovered - E=hf originally stated E=hv, for photons
> >> >> ---------------------------
> >> > just a little example of wrong paradigm:
>
> >> > E=hv .....
>
> >> Yeup
>
> >> > and here you have the profe that
> >> > photon energy has mass !!!
>
> >> No .. it does show the energy of a photon is completely proportional to
> >> the
> >> frequency of light(and so frame dependent). Which would imply that there
> >> is
> >> no amount of the energy that come from a non-zero mass. Also, a non-zero
> >> mass cannot be accelerated to a speed of c with a finit amount of energy.
>
> > Cough, I already proved a mass can reach celerity within one lambda.
>
> Your sentence is nonsense as it stands, as you've neither defined a value of
> celerity, nor to what lambda refers.
Those are standard terms.
> If you mean you have proven a particle with mass can achieve a speed of c,
> then I'd like to see how. If you mean instead that it can achieve a speed
> as close to 'c' as you want, then thats fine .. all you need is enough
> energy.
The proof is in a link in my "gimme money" thread; sith then, I learnd
the Planck units are a limiting condition, and any ol wavespan would
work; a convenient wavespan is of your ranging probe's peak--microwave
or infrared, and therefore a mote's coherent width would be greater
and its packet longer matches its signal speed.
-Aut
Inertial
No, they aren't
>> If you mean you have proven a particle with mass can achieve a speed of
>> c,
>> then I'd like to see how. If you mean instead that it can achieve a
>> speed
>> as close to 'c' as you want, then thats fine .. all you need is enough
>> energy.
>
> The proof is in a link in my "gimme money" thread;
As if I'd read a thread with that title .. ha!
Autymn D. C.
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:aa6cda93-82e4-48f0...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
How would you know? Here're more foreign terms for you: sigma,
hilfensvariable, freedom, O(x), attractor, plasmòn, evanescent, fibre
bundle, residue, hýpergheometric, conformal.
> >> If you mean you have proven a particle with mass can achieve a speed of
> >> c,
> >> then I'd like to see how. If you mean instead that it can achieve a
> >> speed
> >> as close to 'c' as you want, then thats fine .. all you need is enough
> >> energy.
>
> > The proof is in a link in my "gimme money" thread;
>
> As if I'd read a thread with that title .. ha!
Troll, leave.
PD
> On Dec 22, 1:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 11:19 am,cjcountess<cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > PD
> > > The statement refering to "obstical to science", was misplaced
> > > concerning a specific case, sorry for that confusion. I do not want
> > > any unessesary confusion.
>
> > Forgive me, but this is the point where you lost me.
> > If your goal was to get some attention to your ideas, and to get that
> > attention you were willing to make a post about obstacles to
> > scientific progress, the content of which you did not really believe
> > and aren't willing to support, then this is what is known as
> > "trolling" and it is intellectually dishonest.
>
> PD
> I can't believe you don't know what I am talking about, or maybe you
> realy don't.
> But you just gave me an example of an obstical to scientific progress,
> knowingly or unknowingly.Of course the whole reason for the starting
> this thread is to address obsticals to scientific progress but that
> particular sentence was misplaced as reguards to a particular example
> that I did not relate it to at the time and place. But you now have
> given me a prime example of an obstical to scienctific progress which
> is not appying common sense to these simple sometimes inperfect
> sentences.
It seemed pretty plain to me what you were trying to say. Then you
said MUCH later that you didn't mean it after all, and would somebody
please pay attention to you. The obstacle is dishonesty, and you
created it for yourself. You have no one to blame but yourself.
cjcountess
Are you seeing things?
I said nothing that remotely even resembles that at all.
Now that is dishonesty, you are making things up.
This is a kind of mental sickness.
I am through with you. And remember,
the more you claim to know - the more you reveal what you don't know.
I am watching you, and the world is watching you
Mark Ferguson,
I just have to respond again to your lazy comment, which I found
itself to be really lazy, and disrespectful, and see if you think this
is lazy.
I worked so hard and long, researching and collecting evidence, which
I put together, like points connected through a line of logic, or
pieces of a puzzle, that don’t reveal the emergent properties of the
whole, which is much greater than the sum of its parts, until it is
put together, in order to contribute to the knowledge base of
humanity, which I think is so very important, because the emergent
picture is so simple yet so profound, and is, I am sure, a Noble Prize
Level discovery.
At time I feel like a construction worker, who after a long, hard days
work, comes home so tired, that he is barely able to lift his own
body, and because of this, is called lazy. The mental work that I put
into this is such that at times, I do feel so tired that I make
spelling and grammatical errors,, that I may not normally. But if one
reads between the lines or looks at the words in their context, it
should not be as bad as you make it out to be.
I discovered great things, and yes I am blowing my own horn, because I
know what I am up against. Like I stated earlier, people more
interested in who is right and gets credit for it, than what is right.
I don’t have time for games. I know that the theory is correct, and
that I have enough evidence to prove it.
(E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c = sqrt-1), along with (h/2pi/2),
being geometrically revealed as the measure of a particles certainty
as opposed to its uncertainty among many other things that come out of
this very fertile idea. This discovery has lead to a wave of other
discoveries.
These are bold and strong statements, that require clarity and
confidence to make and prove. Do you have that?
Just as you cannot find the square root of -1, using linear equations,
because there are no such numbers that equal -1 when multiplied by
itself, but you can find it geometrically using methods that I
referenced, the same is true with “Uncertainty Principle”. You must
solve it geometrically. I have done this and have collaboration for
both. And these are thing that I share with other researchers who
discovered a lot of what I did independently.
It is too much evidence to be just coincidence. And there is just so
much that I have not informed this group of. Lots of new stuff. This
is a GOLD mine of new ideas and discoveries, and those with the incite
to recognize this will benefit while those who don’t just won’t. Just
that simple.
This is a GREAT find, whether your pride allows you to acknowledge it
or not. I am moving forward with the presentation of my discoveries.
and will tolerate less and less bull.
Conrad J Countess
Aleph
@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sun, 20 Dec 2009
02:33:09 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
>
> On Dec 19, 9:05 pm, Aleph <Usenet....@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> > In article <64bda67c-fbdd-4e36-b551-0ea26a61c580
> > @a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 19 Dec 2009
> > 08:44:33 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.po...@gmail.com> imparted these words
> > of wisdom:
> >
> >
> >
> > > ------------------
> > > what is your income from science parroting??
> > > (and mumbling ??)
> > > iow
> > > from what are you doing your living ??.....
> > > ie
> > > what is your day job as well ??
> >
> > defend your nonsense or say sorry, you come up with that!
> >
> > Fight the power Poohrat, fight the power.
>
> ----------------
> just let anyone here know
> what is you ray job ???
I am a contracted consultant working in various large, multinational,
organisations.
Why do you ask?
> (i was working 40 productive years
> before retiring ...
And now you are senile.
> and you ???)
Well, since leaving school I have worked for 32 years and have been in
tertiary education for six years. I have another 10 - 15 years work left
in me, depending on how interesting I find it.
Do you still want to stalk me?
--
Aleph
This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
to this account will be ignored.
Aleph
@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sun, 20 Dec 2009
00:21:24 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
>
> -----------------
> Bye Aleph (Igor ) bolshevic psychopath
> gangster
>
Hey, Tony, why have you started calling me Igor? Is that your boyfriends
name?