Who ...Really...Discovered the Uncertainty Principle?
John M
Uncertainty principle
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927
"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states
by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like
position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary
precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the
less precisely the other can be measured."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
"Perception of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far."
Emily Dickinson (1830-1888)
http://www.bartleby.com/113/5014.html
And because of this inherent uncertainty, the following poem
clearly shows her contempt for classical objective methods.
" Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.
The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.
The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes
Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."
And in this poem below she again echoes the theme
that as precision increases, the ability to understand
the whole, or nature decreases.
"But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.
To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get."
Jonathan
s
Huang
I'd make love to that woman.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> Uncertainty principle
>
> Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927
>
>
> s
There may be uncertainty about who discovered it first (if you apply
the principle to Socrates' quotes, they convey hiss messages much
clearer).
There is, however , no uncertainty about the uncertainty
principle:-).
It is, in fact, a component of the 'relativity consciousness' as
further illustration of its illusionary nature.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
You may have thought you would have.
Such are the world of illusions to which she refers.
BOfL
Grey box
really know.
Grey box
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45eea1d3-a7b2-440d...@v6g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 9:42 am, "John M" <Jo...@yahou.net> wrote:
> Uncertainty principle
>
> Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927
>
>
> s
There may be uncertainty about who discovered it first (if
you apply
the principle to Socrates' quotes, they convey hiss messages
much
clearer).
***
"hiss" ??? hiss hiss hisss.............
Your true self is showing Fletcher, are you a snake???
Are you the one who tempted Eve to eat of the apple?
Did you tempt her with words on an expanding conscious and
the growing delights of herself?
Was it indeed you who caused mankind to plummet from
Paradise to the suffering and misery of Earth?
Is this why you have such a huge conscious and SELF?
That you are no less than SATAN???
Chazwin
No one discovered the uncertainty principle - they invented it.
Wo invented the uncertainty principle -no one can really be
certain ,,,, boom boom!
Vince Morgan
"Huang" <huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59f941b0-83e6-4fce...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]
I'd make love to that woman.
[/qoute]
You may need to take a shovel with you.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not another 'united states of Borg'.
You will simply stop having the watch that TV program "United States
of Tara", or at least the program should have a warning statement "do
not try this at home"
BOfL
Tom Potter
"John M" <Jo...@yahou.net> wrote in message
news:d4qdnRJOY6QGp_bR...@giganews.com...
>
> Uncertainty principle
>
> Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927
>
> "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by
> precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like
> position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary
> precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less
> precisely the other can be measured."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Epicurus 341 B.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
"There is no top and bottom in infinite space, but up and down are still
meaningful. For wherever we stand it is possible to project a line above
our heads, or below our feet, stretching to infinity. It is possible to do
both without confusing each direction with the other. Therefore it is also
possible to regard one type of motion as upward to infinity, and another
type as downwards to infinity. Even if that which moves from where we are
to the places above our heads arrives countless times at the feet of those
above, or in the other case, at the heads of those below, the two motions
are still opposite.
Atoms move equally fast through the void when nothing collides with them.
Large and heavy ones move no faster than small and light ones, nor vice a
versa, as long as nothing obstructs them. Their movements are neither made
quicker when deflected upwards or sideways, nor when they fall downwards due
to their respective weights. The atom will traverse any kind of trajectory
with the speed of thought as long as the motion caused in either of these
ways maintains itself - that is, until the atom is either re-deflected by
another collision, or its own weight counteracts the force of a previous
collision.
Motion through the void may traverse any ordinary distance in an
extraordinarily short time, because the lack of obstruction from colliding
bodies. Only through collision and non-collision can atomic motion resemble
"slow" and "fast."
On the other hand, a moving body cannot arrive at several places at once in
the shortest conceivable period of time. That is unthinkable. But when in a
perceivable period of time a body arrives along with others from some point
or other in the infinite, the distance covered will be extraordinary. If it
were otherwise, collisions would have been involved - though we still allow
some limit to speed of motion as a result of non-collision. This too is a
useful principle to grasp."
http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/Lives.html#I19
"The Atomic Swerve (*)
From De Rerum Natura by Lucretius ( Follower of Epicurus)
There is one other point on this subject which I want you to understand.
While the atoms are being carried down in a straight line through the void
by their own weight, at quite uncertain times and at uncertain intervals
they swerve slightly out of their course - just enough for one to be able to
say that there has been an alteration in their movement. For if they had not
this characteristic of moving out of the direct line, they would all fall
downwards like drops of rain through the depths of the void; no collision
would take place, no one atom would strike upon another; and so nature would
never have produced anything at all. "
http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/introlucretius.html#II
"All atoms, whether unattached in the void or joined in compounds, are
always in motion (2.80-141). Those moving freely through the void fall
downward by reason of their weight, and fall at a uniform speed despite
their varying weights. The idea that they move downward is naive: there can
be no "up" or "down" in infinite space. However, the idea that objects of
different weights falling in a vacuum move with equal velocity-an idea that
Epicurus could not prove by experiment-is correct. But his brilliant
inference created a problem: the formation of compound bodies cannot take
place without atoms colliding and, if all the atoms are moving in the same
direction and at the same speed, how can collisions occur? The answer
(2.216-293) is that at unpredictable times and places the atoms swerve very
slightly from their straight course. This assumption of an atomic swerve was
ridiculed for two millennia: Cicero thought it "puerile" as well as
unscientific, and Lord Macaulay pronounced it to be "the most monstrous
absurdity in all Epicurus' absurd theory," but in the modern atomic age it
has been treated with more respect. An extremely important point, which
emerges clearly from Lucretius' account, is that the supposition of the
swerve was made not only to explain how compound bodies can be formed, "
http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/Lives.html#I19
--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://xrl.in/63g4
http://www.tompotter.us
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/
http://tdp1001.wordpress.com/
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com
http://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androcles
"Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c6bbd0f$0$25359$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Darwin123
cjcountess
revised.
(h/2pi/2), is no longer a measure of a particles uncertainty but the
very measure of its certainty.
And just as photn wavelength automaticaly implys its mass, energy, and
time cycle, as wavelength and momentum as well as time and energy are
inversely proportional to eachother so too the uncertainty priciple
rule that these cannot be measured at same time is in reevaluation.
see:http://wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf
Conrad J Countess
bert
Best to keep in mind that in QM microscopic world this uncertainy gets
more severe as time and distance gets smaller and smaller. It fits
well knowing this tiny world is a realm of quantum fluctuations.
TreBert
Immortalist
Any time in the ancient past when parents worried about another
child's influence upom their own child, in this way they practiced
statistical usage of independent and dependent variables. For example;
The independent variable is typically the variable representing the
value being manipulated or changed and the dependent variable is the
observed result of the independent variable being manipulated. For
example concerning nutrition, the independent variable of daily
vitamin C intake (how much vitamin C one consumes) can influence the
dependent variable of life expectancy (the average age one attains).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables
Or for instance when researchers try and not let themselves or
participants "influence" the experiment.
A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some
of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information
that might lead to conscious or unconscious bias on their part,
invalidating the results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
http://www.experiment-resources.com/research-bias.html
My opinion is that humans have this hard wired into their brains and
awareness of these dependent variable probably helped humans determine
where animals were and what their intentions.
We have all these specialized neural circuits because the same
mechanism is rarely capable of solving different adaptive problems.
For example, we all have neural circuitry designed to choose
nutritious food on the basis of taste and smell -- circuitry that
governs our food choice. But imagine a woman who used this same neural
circuitry to choose a mate. She would choose a strange mate indeed
(perhaps a huge chocolate bar?). To solve the adaptive problem of
finding the right mate, our choices must be guided by qualitatively
different standards than when choosing the right food, or the right
habitat. Consequently, the brain must be composed of a large
collection of circuits, with different circuits specialized for
solving different problems. You can think of each of these specialized
circuits as a mini-computer that is dedicated to solving one problem.
Such dedicated mini-computers are sometimes called modules. There is,
then, a sense in which you can view the brain as a collection of
dedicated mini-computers -- a collection of modules. There must, of
course, be circuits whose design is specialized for integrating the
output of all these dedicated mini-computers to produce behavior. So,
more precisely, one can view the brain as a collection of dedicated
mini-computers whose operations are functionally integrated to produce
behavior.
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html
John M
"Tom Potter" <xpriv...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4c6b...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> "John M" <Jo...@yahou.net> wrote in message
> news:d4qdnRJOY6QGp_bR...@giganews.com...
>>
>> Uncertainty principle
>>
>> Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927
>>
>> "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by
>> precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like
>> position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary
>> precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less
>> precisely the other can be measured."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
>
> Epicurus 341 B.C.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
>
> The atom will traverse any kind of trajectory
> with the speed of thought
I really like that line. Not too shabby for 341 B.C.
> "The Atomic Swerve (*)
> From De Rerum Natura by Lucretius ( Follower of Epicurus)
>
> There is one other point on this subject which I want you to understand.
> While the atoms are being carried down in a straight line through the void
> by their own weight, at quite uncertain times and at uncertain intervals
> they swerve slightly out of their course - just enough for one to be able
> to
> say that there has been an alteration in their movement. For if they had
> not
> this characteristic of moving out of the direct line, they would all fall
> downwards like drops of rain through the depths of the void; no collision
> would take place, no one atom would strike upon another; and so nature
> would
> never have produced anything at all. "
Almost the same thing as saying that motion is due to atoms 'vibrating".
Not bad!
John M
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85028fe6-64fd-4408...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> For
> example concerning nutrition, the independent variable of daily
> vitamin C intake (how much vitamin C one consumes) can influence the
> dependent variable of life expectancy (the average age one attains).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables
Exactly, and this feedback means that a simple deterministic
equation, iterated repeatedly, can produce highly complicated
behavior. Because of this, a change in one variable could
have very unpredictable results.
> Or for instance when researchers try and not let themselves or
> participants "influence" the experiment.
There is no such thing as an objective reality. Our observations
have an effect on our environment, so the observer, or our
ability to perceive, must be included for a complete view.
John M
"Huang" <huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59f941b0-83e6-4fce...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> I'd make love to that woman.
She was always considered a recluse, but I'm
pretty sure that was because she was a lesbian
There's a bunch of her poems like this~
"Her smile was shaped like other smiles
The Dimples ran along
And still it hurt you, as some Bird
Did hoist herself, to sing"
Ya know, the more I read her stuff, the more amazed
I am at her ability to intuitively understand nature.
She wrote an astonishing 1500 poems. To put that in
perspective that's one a week, every single week for
thirty years. Many of the great poets are known for
a few dozen. And I'd bet money that the only people
that've read through them all are lit majors and such.
People that have little background in math or
natural science. I'm still only half way through them.
Fortunately someone placed all her poems in single
long string so it can be word searched.
http://www.repeatafterus.com/author.php?f=Emily&l=Dickinson&PHPSESSID=6b932e79db113f7353c4096d3ce32721
Immortalist
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I agree but in empirical research methodology the goal is to reduce
these influences as much as possible to increase the probability that
those influences we do find by making them stand out better. In Social
Psychology this has nearly become a science itself since the goal of
the soft science is to understand influences in society and
relationships. But I detect a note of futility and giving up and
resignation in the tone of your text. As if we shouldn't try and move
one and discover what the world is and how it works.
------
The METHOD OF AGREEMENT involves ascertaining a "common factor. The
common factor should be one that is present whenever the effect is
present.
"If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have
only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all
the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given
phenomenon."
The METHOD OF DIFFERENCE involves evaluating two cases, one in which
the effect is present, and one where it is absent. If when the effect
is absent, the possible cause "X" is also absent, the test lends
support to "X" as the cause.
"If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs,
and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance in
common save one, that one occurring only in the former; the
circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect,
or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of the
phenomenon."
The JOINT METHOD involves combining the first two methods.
"If two or more instances in which the phenomenon occurs have only one
circumstance in common, while two or more instances in which it does
not occur have nothing in common save the absence of that
circumstance: the circumstance in which alone the two sets of
instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or a necessary part of the
cause, of the phenomenon."
The METHOD OF CONCOMITANT VARIATION involves showing that as one
factor varies, another varies in a corresponding way.
"Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon
varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of
that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of
causation."
The METHOD OF RESIDUES involves "subtracting out" those aspects of the
effect whose causes are known and concluding that the rest of the
effect ("the residue") is due to an additional cause.
The method of residues is applied when some of the causes of a
phenomenon have already been tested and verified; we then conclude
that a remaining factor completes the causal account. The method of
residues could almost be referred to as the method of elimination.
"Deduct from any phenomenon such part as is known by previous
inductions to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the residue of
the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents."
Quotes from Mills in quote marks.
http://www.ehow.com/how_4857860_identify-mills-methods-of-induction.html
And that is about all us apes have, our dilemma and our condition, we
learn from that or just go back to the primitive wilds.
Tom Potter
Epicurus conceived and Lucretius reported that:
1. It was impossible to make a thing disappear by splitting it into parts,
thus "atoms" must exist.
2. These atoms combined to make larger and more complex things.
3. That larger and more complex things could not
come about in cooking, chemical reactions, aging, etc.
unless "atomic swerve" existed to arrange the "atoms"
so they could bond and create the more complex things.
"About 460 B.C. Democritus, develop the idea of atoms. He asked this
question: If you break a piece of matter in half, and then break it in half
again, how many breaks will you have to make before you can break it no
further? Democritus thought that it ended at some point, a smallest possible
bit of matter. He called these basic matter particles, atoms."
Basically the evolution of thoiught that lead to the concept of atoms
went as follows.
Parmenides (Fifth century BC) considered that everything was one, and that
the one was being.
Melissus (Fifth century BC) accepted and defended Parmenides' doctrine of
being,
but unlike Parmenides, he maintained that being is infinite rather than one.
Like Parmenides, he maintained that change and motion did not exist in
nature.
Zeno of Elea (490-430 BC) constructed paradoxes that challenged the concept
of infinity.
Democritus(~460-550 BC), caught between the oneness of Parmenides and the
infinities of Melissus, and having to address the problems with
infinitesimals raised by Zeno, came up with a compromise, the concept of
atoms.
Epicurus conceived the idea of "atomic swerve"
to allow Democritus' atoms to arrange themselves into more complex matter.
( Otherwise there would be just mixtures rather than chemical reactions.)
For a more detailed history of the evolution of thought about "being" and
"becoming"
visit the following URL.
http://www.tompotter.us/being.html
John M
On Aug 18, 5:56 pm, "John M" <Jo...@yahou.net> wrote:
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > There is no such thing as an objective reality. Our observations
> > have an effect on our environment, so the observer, or our
> > ability to perceive, must be included for a complete view.
> I agree but in empirical research methodology the goal is to reduce
> these influences as much as possible to increase the probability that
> those influences we do find by making them stand out better.
The problem isn't with basing knowledge on observation, the problem
is with how we've chosen to observe. Which is to intuitively believe
we should begin by observing the parts in order to understand
the whole. In the natural world it's not possible to extrapolate
from the parts to the whole. Yet we've been beating our heads
against the wall for centuries now, trying to do just that.
If only we had a bigger computer, they say...sheez!
The Big Collider overseas is the Penultimate Monument to
our collective ignorance of Nature. So many people seem
to think the scientific Dark Ages were a thing of history.
Imagine the ancient Egyptians building their pyramids for
the express purpose of proving the Earth was flat?
That's what that Big Collider represents today.
The biggest scientific folly in all of history.
The Great Search...sparing no expense...for that
which matters The Least.
Life and organization are.....robust...to initial conditions.
Not sensitive to them, that's what is meant by self organizing.
The initial conditions aren't terribly important, just as it isn't
all that important exactly where in a strong gravitational
field one happens to be, you're still gonna end up at the
same place everything else does. Sooner or later.
Because the physical and living realms both follow inverse
square law, or power-law behavior. Both gravity and fitness
share the property of being very strong nearby, but quickly
diminishing with distance/time and so on.
> In Social
> Psychology this has nearly become a science itself since the goal of
> the soft science is to understand influences in society and
> relationships. But I detect a note of futility and giving up and
> resignation in the tone of your text. As if we shouldn't try and move
> one and discover what the world is and how it works.
I'm trying to say there's a new way, that can deal with the messy
real world in a scientific way, a subjective mathematics that
turns the current dismal situation I describe on it's head.
What was hard, is now easy. That's the splendid result of a
mathematics that...rigorously...inverses all the initial frames
of scientific references. A mathematics which begins with
imagination, not facts, and ends with a single universal
discipline, instead of the /thousands/ of narrow specialized
scientific myopia's which exist today. On it's head.
Only when all of the physical and living realms can be
described with a common/single universal mathematics
can the...commonalties...among them all be seen.
And it takes the form of an abstract mathematical model
of what most would consider classical Darwinian
evolution. With a few twists. Not so radical really.
The reason the world is still mired in the scientific Dark Ages
is the glaring and fatal assumption, The Great Mistake
that universal law will be found with the simplest the universe
has to offer. When in truth, complexity is the source of
fundamental law. Which means, that LIFE teaches us
how the physical universe works.
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
The most complex in the universe, like the larger statistical
sample, best shows the underlying patterns of Nature.
The most complex is life, and especially intelligence.
Hence, the reason the study of our imagination
becomes Science 101.
By imagination, I mean the...future we deserve and need
is our initial condition or starting point. Then last your
precious objective reality (the present) comes into the
picture. Only in this way can we possibly draw a path
between there and here. It's the only way to gain any
predictability with Natural world, by making it happen.
Not trying to number crunch predictions.
People that used to solemnly believe the Earth was flat
were merely limited in their conclusions.
The so-called modern science of recent centuries
are completely, exactly and perfectly...backwards.
Far worse.
Jonathan
Self Organizing Faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Calresco.org
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm
Dynamics of Complex Systems
Full online text
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/
s
cjcountess
But TreBert
This is because in the "QM microscopic world" as they see it,
electron is considered a point particle with potential infinitely
small dimensions, which is being measured by a photon, whose
wavelength is longer than it. And so there is leftover metrics that
must eliminated through averaging and the mathematical method that
does not allow the simultaneous measurement of momentum and position,
or energy and time, because the measurements do not commute according
to presently accepted theory.
But it is well know that momentum is inversely proportional to
wavelength, and so the method that I used allows me to use this
inverse proportion as well as see that E or energy, L or wavelength, T
or time cycle, Q or charge, t or temperature, and G or gravity
rest mass constant as (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) are all equal through
mathematical conversion factor c^2.
The uncertainty principle as put forth by Heisenberg according to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
includes
“Heisenberg's microscope
Main article: Heisenberg's microscope
One way in which Heisenberg originally argued for the uncertainty
principle is by using an imaginary microscope as a measuring device.
[3] He imagines an experimenter trying to measure the position and
momentum of an electron by shooting a photon at it.
If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore a large momentum,
the position can be measured accurately. But the photon scatters in a
random direction, transferring a large and uncertain amount of
momentum to the electron. If the photon has a long wavelength and low
momentum, the collision doesn't disturb the electron's momentum very
much, but the scattering will reveal its position only vaguely.”
But according to “The Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) =
(E=mc^circled and or sphered)”
an electrons certain measure is (h/2pi/2) not its “uncertainty”, and
also contrary to “Uncertainty Principle,” as establish by previous
method, its wavelength,. momentum, time cycle, and energy, are all
simultaneously measured and equal through conversion factor “c^2”
Conrad J Countess
Kevin
> Uncertainty principle
Nothing travels in a straight line... The straightest line that
particles travel in approximates a skier going down a slope...
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Electron is not a point its a cloud made up of photons. Its speed and
location can't be measured together. Realativity does not fit with
QM(Its not compatable.) Planck knew this. Einstein knew this. I knew
this TreBert
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
TreBert
Did you see this Latest Evidence
Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time. It
resembles a elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two
axis, fitting description which I have geometrically demonstrated, as
opposed to a point particle or probability wave.
Latest evidence on geometrical structure of electron from site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
which fits the geometrical interpretation of the electron as a
standing spherical wave making two rotations at right abgle to
eachother to complete one wave cycle making it spin 1/2 and -1 charge
if spin is coubter to trejectory.
There is just too much evidence for this to be just a coincidence.
All the evidence points too a particle at c^2 that also equals G as L/
T^2 and h/2pias energy in circular motion and/or h/2pi/2 as energy
making 2 rotations to complete one wave cycle creating a standing
spherical wave of spin 1/2 -1 charge if spin is counter to trajectory
as state earlier and angular momentum of h/2pi or h/2pi/2,
This clearly makes (c^2 of Special Relativity) = (G of General
Relativity and Newtons theory) as "c^2" is the ultimate "L/T^2 and
also the ultimate "v^2", making (F=mv^2) = (E=mc^2) and also equals (h/
2pi) and/or (h/2pi/2) as energy in circular and or spherical
rotation.
on quantum level.
This cancels "Uncertainty Principle" as write by Heisenberg,
This changes everything. SR, GR, and QT are completely compatable from
this (Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled and or
sphered)
This is indeed a revolution in physics
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
> this TreBert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
TreBert
Did you see this Latest Evidence
Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time. It
resembles a elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two
axis, fitting description which I have geometrically demonstrated, as
opposed to a point particle or probability wave.
Latest evidence on geometrical structure of electron from site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
which fits the geometrical interpretation of the electron as a
standing spherical wave making two rotations at right abgle to
eachother to complete one wave cycle making it spin 1/2 and -1 charge
if spin is coubter to trejectory.
There is just too much evidence for this to be just a coincidence.
All the evidence points too a particle at c^2 that also equals G as L/
T^2 and h/2pias energy in circular motion and/or h/2pi/2 as energy
making 2 rotations to complete one wave cycle creating a standing
spherical wave of spin 1/2 -1 charge if spin is counter to trajectory
as state earlier and angular momentum of h/2pi or h/2pi/2,
This clearly makes (c^2 of Special Relativity) = (G of General
Relativity and Newtons theory) as "c^2" is the ultimate "L/T^2 and
also the ultimate "v^2", making (F=mv^2) = (E=mc^2) and also equals (h/
2pi) and/or (h/2pi/2) as energy in circular and or spherical
rotation.
on quantum level.
This cancels "Uncertainty Principle" as writen by Hiesenberg,
This changes everything. SR, GR, and QT are completely compatable from
this (Geometrical Interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled and or
sphered)
This is indeed a revolution in physics
Conrad J Countess
John Stafford
<3b864940-da13-43f7...@v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
bert <herbertg...@msn.com> wrote:
> Electron is not a point its a cloud made up of photons.
Nope. Into the bin with you.
Tom Potter
Great post!
I especially liked:
"The Great Search...sparing no expense...for that
which matters The Least."
The goal of physics, like astrology and fortune telling,
is auguring the future.
As "John M" suggests
taxpayer funded "big physics"
focuses on costly experiments that
try to extrapolate from the infinite to future observations,
( Big Bang to tomorrow.)
and from institutionalized models to future observations.
(General Relativity to tomorrow.).
As tomorrow arises from "butterflies" in environments.
the most rational, cost-effective way to comprehend
the unfolding of tomorrow
is to focus on the butterfly's in the immediate environment
that we inhabit, and are likely to inhabit tomorrow.
Edison and Faraday looked for butterflies
and how they affected tomorrow,
whereas big, taxpayer funded physics
looks at the infinite and how it affects
their tenure, income, security and reputation.
There is nothing wrong with developing
cost-effective algorithms that augur the markets,
the action of electronic circuits, mechanics,
biological functions, individual and group behavior, etc.
but big science like Gravity Probe B, the "Big Collider", etc.
are wastes of time, money and minds.
The focus should be on butterflies to the infinite,
( Expanding centers of action that affect the presence
and the foreseeable future based on discounted rate of return.)
not from the infinitely small and the infinitely large
to the butterfly effects.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.