Quantum Gravity
cjcountess
I am an independent researcher who is convinced that he has unified
quantum and general relativity theories. As it turns out matter is
curved space-time even on the quantum level.
Quantum Gravity in 3 steps
1. Assuming that energy is more basic than matter, if we first start
with a field of energy in its ground state it may be below frequency
and hard to detect. This can be dark energy or the Higgs field.
2. Next if we assume that this energy field permeates or is
indistinguishable from space and moves at the velocity of c because it
is energy we have set the stage.
3. Next, just as added energy causes an increase in frequency for
electromagnetic waves but no increase in speed beyond c along the light
path, any disturbance or increase in energy to this background dark
energy field or Higgs field, causes waves of frequency to churn up
within it. These waves of frequency are accelerated motion of centripal
force of gravity that at c2 attains rest mass.
This is because no speed can be added to it in the centrifugal
direction sense it is already moving at c and so any added energy
causes centripetal force of waves that increase with frequency. The
frequency of these waves increase with an increase in energy, mass,
momentum, inertia, and centripetal force of gravity. At a critical
frequency of c2 the speed of light in the right angle frequency
direction equals the speed of light in the forward direction, this is
c2 or c x c. This should result in rest mass for at least two reasons.
1. First because the centripetal speed of the cycles per sec equals and
balances out the centrifugal speed of the wave along the light path
resulting in something analogous to "the speed of light in uniform
circular motion", in a clasical sense. I am involking the principal of
correspondence here.
2. Second, because the background energy field limits the speed along
the light path and in the right angle frequency directions to c.
Thus the speed limit of electromagnetism imposed by the background
energy field is what gives rise to waves and shapes them into a rest
mass particle at the speed of c2. This rest mass particle itself can be
said to be curved space if this space is indistinguishable from the
energy field that gave rise to it. This makes the ultra violet
catastrophe question, which depends on frequency speed being infinite
non-existent because frequency speed is also limited to c at this
level.It instead introducces rest mass particles as the next step up in
the electromagnetic spectrum. Cosmic rays which are rest mass particles
were once considered to occupy this space. This also eliminates the
need for anti matter to come into existence along with every rest mass
particle, which answers the question of why there is not that much anti
matter waiting around to annihilate the matter in the universe.
Gravity might be said to be the result of any added motion to the
centrifugal speed limit of electromagnetism or c of the background dark
energy field which may also be the Higgs field which causes waves of
centripetal force to churn up, increase in mass, momentum, and inertia
with frequency in quantum increments and attain rest mass at c2. Any
deviation from the centrifugal speed limit of c of the background
energy field is accelerated motion and results in centripetal force of
energy or gravity. There is no need for a graviton or a Higgs boson at
this point but if we assume that electromagnetic waves can be broken
down further just as water waves can be broken down further into water
molecules then we may still have gravitons and or Higgs bosons at that
level.
A more complete account is offered at www.emcsquare.net. Could you
please tell me what you think?
Thank You
Conrad Countess
cjcou...@yahoo.com
ad...@emcsquare.net
Zigoteau
Hi, C.J.,
> I am an independent researcher who is convinced that he has unified
> quantum and general relativity theories.
Join the queue.
> A more complete account is offered at www.emcsquare.net. Could you
> please tell me what you think?
I have a soft spot for the "C" of "E2. Maiden aunts cycling past the
village green, warm beer, the sweet sound of leather on willow, that
sort of thing.
Where's the maths? Even Sabbir Rahman had some, and posted a paper to
Arxiv. Let me see yours.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
Uncle Al
>
> My name is Conrad Countess
>
> I am an independent researcher who is convinced that he has unified
> quantum and general relativity theories. As it turns out matter is
> curved space-time even on the quantum level.
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.
> 1. Assuming that energy is more basic than matter, if we first start
> with a field of energy in its ground state it may be below frequency
> and hard to detect. This can be dark energy or the Higgs field.
[snip]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
cjcountess
Sometimes things are simpler than one thinks. We don't need alot of
math just E=mc2 reversed as m=Ec2, logic and imagination.
This idea is based on the fact that if you treat a photon in a
classical manner as a particle and factor in its frequency motion as it
orbits the light path, one could conclude that as frequency increases,
not only does energy, momentum, and relative mass increase, but so does
speed, and that at C2 a photon attains rest mass?
A photon traveling at C in the forward direction, times C in the right
angle frequency direction, is energy traveling at the speed of light
squared or Ec2 and should equal m as in m=Ec2, the reverse of E=mc2. m
in this case refers to rest mass. After all what does c squared mean
anyway? I am betting that it realy means the speed of light in the
forward direction times the speed of light in the right angle frequency
direction, resulting in something analogous to "the speed of light in
uniform circular motion." I am not convinced that c2 is just a
mathmatical expression without a corresponding geometric reality. I am
not a mathmitition but I do have an imagination and I do have
confidence that I am correct in this. Later I came to the conclusion
that it was the background energy field that gave rise to and shaped
these energy waves and rest mass particles. I do not mind if the
responces to this idea are at first negative and it take me a while to
prove it. Because I believe that I can.
Thanks
cjcountess
cjcountess
I was trying to think of what to say to you after that idiot remark.
But that's ok. Obviously you are a very educated person with very
complex theories. That is ok because education and complexity have
their place. But I do not think that quantum gravity is that complex.
Wouldn't it be something if quantum gravity turned out to be like
Einstein and Stephen Hawking said that the ultimate theory might be,
simple enough that average people and even children can understand? And
wouldn't it be something if a simple person, "me" were the one to
discover it? Your remarks only make me more determined to prove my
theory. But lets be civil to each other. To be honest with you, before
now I have never heard of the thinks that you spoke about. And I really
don't think that I have to integrate them into my framework in order
to prove it. But I will look into them out of respect for the subject
of physics and the search for truth and you.
cjcountess
Nick
Hi cj. Al is upset with Einstein for being right about gravity.
I believe like you do. Ultimate theory is accessible to everyone.
The job of the true authority is only to get you to see for yourself.
After that he is nothing and shouldn't try to be any more.
Thankyou cj!
Mitch -- Light Falls --
OsherD
Nick wrote:
>The job of the true authority is only to get you to see for yourself.
>After that he is nothing and shouldn't try to be any more
These are wise words. However, I would slightly change them to say
that A role of an 'expert' is to get you to see for yourself.
Research people don't necessarily see themselves in any particular
roles toward students or toward less proficient research people except
if the students are undergraduate or graduate students whom they are
teaching or supervising or both. Even in the latter cases, do you
know what graduate students do usually when they are more or less
"successful"? They co-author papers with their supervisor. I'd say
that the job of a researcher is usually regarded by researchers as
publishing period. Anything more that you can get out of them is
"extra", although the public and some graduate students and
undergraduates have the fairy tale that research professors or research
professor-teachers are primarily concerned with teaching.
Osher Doctorow
Nick
OsherD
Nick wrote:
>Don't complicate my point Osh
OK, Nick! The role of a researcher definitely should not be (but
alas, often is) to complicate.
Osh
Nick
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Hi this is cj
>
> Sometimes things are simpler than one thinks.
But most often, they are far more complicated than one thinks.
> We don't need alot of
> math just E=mc2 reversed as m=Ec2,
E=mc^2 is reversed not m=Ec^2, but m = E/c^2. Can't you do even the
most simple math?
And how on earth do you plan to be able to make quantitative
predictions with your theory, if it contains no math beyond that?
You *do* know that one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory is that
it is able to make quantitative predictions, don't you?
> logic and imagination.
What about a knowledge of basic physics, such as "c^2 is neither a
speed nor a frequency"?
> This idea is based on the fact that if you treat a photon in a
> classical manner as a particle
What exactly *is* the classical manner to treat something, in your
opinion?
> and factor in its frequency motion
What's that?
> as it orbits the light path,
What makes you think that photons "orbit" the light path?
Do you think of a motion in a spiral, or what? If yes, where does the
necessary force come from?
> one could conclude that as frequency increases,
> not only does energy, momentum, and relative mass increase, but so does
> speed,
How exactly could one conclude that?
> and that at C2
What does "at C2" (at c^2) mean?
> a photon attains rest mass?
How does that follow?
> A photon traveling at C in the forward direction, times C in the right
> angle frequency direction,
What does it mean to say that something travels at C in one direction
times at C in another direction? Why on earth should one *multiply*
the speeds in the two perpendicular directions? Have you never heard
of "vector addition"?
And how is the "forward" direction defined? By the direction of the
beam of light, or what?
> is energy traveling at the speed of light squared
"traveling at the speed of light squared" makes no sense, since c^2 is
not a speed. It's a speed *squared*.
> or Ec2 and should equal m as in m=Ec2, the reverse of E=mc2.
Wrong, see above.
> m in this case refers to rest mass.
Why should it? In the formula E=mc^2, m refers to the *relativistic*
mass, not the rest mass.
> After all what does c squared mean anyway?
Godd question. Hint: it's not a speed.
> I am betting that it realy means the speed of light in the
> forward direction times the speed of light in the right angle frequency
> direction,
This makes absolutely no sense. Again: velocities in two different
directions are *not* multiplied with each other!!!
> resulting in something analogous to "the speed of light in
> uniform circular motion."
Non sequitur.
> I am not convinced that c2 is just a
> mathmatical expression without a corresponding geometric reality.
Bad for you. Wake up and face reality. Learn some *basics* physics,
such as vector addition of velocities.
As long as you don't even manage to get classical mechanics right,
you shouldn't try to mess around with quantum gravity!
> I am not a mathmitition
"mathematician"?
> but I do have an imagination
Yes, that's clear. Hint: that does not suffice in physics.
> and I do have confidence that I am correct in this.
But you aren't.
<http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html>
You will probably take this as an insult. Please don't.
In contrast, please *think* a bit about your attitude.
Think about why it is necessary to study physics for *years* until
one can become a researcher. Think about if your level of
knowledge of physics really qualifies you to invent models on
your own.
> Later I came to the conclusion
> that it was the background energy field that gave rise to and shaped
> these energy waves and rest mass particles.
How did you come to that conclusion?
> I do not mind if the
> responces to this idea are at first negative and it take me a while to
> prove it. Because I believe that I can.
Suggestion: give your ideas up before you have invented too much time
in them. They are utterly wrong, and show only that you fail to grasp
even the most basic things in physics.
Again, you will probably take this as an insult. Don't.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> My name is Conrad Countess
>
> I am an independent researcher
With what background knowledge?
> who is convinced that he has unified
> quantum and general relativity theories.
Looking at what you wrote below: you have done nothing like that.
You are in need of a thorough physics education instead.
And: there are probably hundreds of people around on the internet who
are convinced of that.
Try looking at <www.crank.net>.
BTW, do you even know what "theory" actually means in science?
> As it turns out matter is
> curved space-time even on the quantum level.
Feel free to support that assertion with evidence.
> Quantum Gravity in 3 steps
>
> 1. Assuming that energy is more basic than matter, if we first start
> with a field of energy in its ground state
Do you know what "field" actually means in physics?
What do you mean with the term "ground state of a field of energy"?
> it may be below frequency
What is that supposed to mean?
> and hard to detect. This can be dark energy or the Higgs field.
The two are totally different. Make up your mind.
> 2. Next if we assume that this energy field permeates or is
> indistinguishable from space and moves at the velocity of c
Fields don't move. Thanks for demonstrating that you do *not* know
what "field" means in physics.
> because it is energy
Err, how do you get from "it is energy" to "it moves at c"?
> we have set the stage.
> 3. Next, just as added energy causes an increase in frequency for
> electromagnetic waves
Are you talking about the formula E = h f?
> but no increase in speed beyond c along the light
> path, any disturbance or increase in energy to this background dark
> energy field or Higgs field, causes waves of frequency to churn up
> within it.
That does not follow from the first half of your sentence.
BTW, what are "waves of frequency"?
> These waves of frequency are accelerated motion of centripal
> force of gravity that at c2 attains rest mass.
What does "accelerate motion of centripetal force" mean?
What does "at c2" mean? Judging from what you write below "c2"
apparently means "c x c", or c^2, or c**2 (all mean the same thing).
But what does it mean to say that a wave of frequency does something
"at c^2"?
How can waves "attain" mass?
> This is because no speed can be added to it in the centrifugal
> direction
What is the "centrifugal direction"?
> sense it is already moving at c and so any added energy
> causes centripetal force of waves
What are "centripetal force of waves"?
> that increase with frequency.
*What* increases with frequency? The waves? The force? Both makes no
sense.
> The frequency of these waves increase with an increase in energy,
Again, apparently E = h f.
> mass, momentum, inertia,
Mass, momentum and inertia of what?
> and centripetal force of gravity.
The frequency of these waves increases with an increase in gravity???
> At a critical frequency of c2
"c2" is not a frequency. Wrong units!
> the speed of light in the right angle frequency direction
What is the "right angle frequency direction"?
> equals the speed of light in the forward direction, this is
> c2 or c x c.
c2 is the speed of light *squared*, not the speed of light!
> This should result in rest mass for at least two reasons.
>
> 1. First because the centripetal speed of the cycles per sec
What is the "centripetal speed of the cycles per sec"?
> equals and
> balances out the centrifugal speed of the wave along the light path
What is the "centrifugal speed of the wave along the light path"?
> resulting in something analogous to "the speed of light in uniform
> circular motion", in a clasical sense.
Incomprehensible.
> I am involking the principal of correspondence here.
What does that principle say, in your opinion?
> 2. Second, because the background energy field limits the speed along
> the light path
Why? How?
> and in the right angle frequency directions to c.
Again, what is the "right angle frequency direction"?
> Thus the speed limit of electromagnetism imposed by the background
> energy field is what gives rise to waves
Why? How?
> and shapes them into a rest
> mass particle at the speed of c2.
Why? How?
> This rest mass particle itself can be
> said to be curved space if this space is indistinguishable from the
> energy field that gave rise to it.
Non sequitur.
You have no clue what "curved space" actually means, right?
> This makes the ultra violet
> catastrophe question, which depends on frequency speed being infinite
> non-existent because frequency speed is also limited to c at this
> level.
What is "frequency speed", and how does this solve the ultraviolet
catastrophe? (which was already solved 105 years ago, BTW)
> It instead introducces rest mass particles as the next step up in
> the electromagnetic spectrum.
Why? How?
> Cosmic rays which are rest mass particles
Cosmic rays also contain a lot of photons.
> were once considered to occupy this space.
Which space?
> This also eliminates the
> need for anti matter to come into existence along with every rest mass
> particle,
Why? How?
Try reading up on "conservation laws".
And explain why every observation so far shows that this indeed
happens, if there is no need for that.
> which answers the question of why there is not that much anti
> matter waiting around to annihilate the matter in the universe.
That question also has been answered already (almost completely).
> Gravity might be said to be the result of any added motion to the
> centrifugal speed limit
What's that, and how does gravity result from that?
> of electromagnetism or c of the background dark
> energy field which may also be the Higgs field which causes waves of
> centripetal force to churn up, increase in mass, momentum, and inertia
> with frequency in quantum increments and attain rest mass at c2. Any
> deviation from the centrifugal speed limit of c of the background
> energy field is accelerated motion
Why???
> and results in centripetal force of energy
What's that?
> or gravity.
Why? How?
> There is no need for a graviton or a Higgs boson at
> this point
Feel free to explain the electroweak theory (which is nicely
consistent with experimental tests) without a Higgs boson. But you
don't even know what the "electroweak theory" actually is, right?
> but if we assume that electromagnetic waves can be broken
> down further just as water waves can be broken down further into water
> molecules
Why should we assume that?
And what makes you think that if one "breaks down" water waves, one
obtains water molecules?
> then we may still have gravitons and or Higgs bosons at that
> level.
How does that follow?
> A more complete account is offered at www.emcsquare.net.
No, thanks.
> Could you please tell me what you think?
You have not the *faintest* clue what you are talking about.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Hey Uncle Al
> I was trying to think of what to say to you after that idiot remark.
That's his way of treating anyone who comes along proposing a new
"theory" while showing simultaneously that he does not understand
basic physics.
> But that's ok. Obviously you are a very educated person with very
> complex theories.
Indeed.
> That is ok because education and complexity have
> their place. But I do not think that quantum gravity is that complex.
If you can explain all observation *quantitatively* without
complexity, feel free to show your work.
So far, all you presented was a lot of rhetoric, assertions which are
trivially false, an inability to do the most basic math, and an utter
lack of knowledge of the meaning of the terms you use. Oh, and a lot
of confidence in your ideas nevertheless.
<http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html>
> Wouldn't it be something if quantum gravity turned out to be like
> Einstein and Stephen Hawking said that the ultimate theory might be,
> simple enough that average people and even children can understand?
It would be news to me that they said something like that. Quotes, please.
> And wouldn't it be something if a simple person, "me" were the one to
> discover it?
Possible, but with a probability that's not worth thinking of.
Someone who says that c^2 is a speed and/or a frequency is not in the
position to make revolutionary discoveries in physics.
> Your remarks only make me more determined to prove my theory.
Lesson 1: in science, theories are not proved (although one often
reads statements to that effect in *popular* science sources).
> But lets be civil to each other.
Sorry, but it is *not* civil to not even bother learning what the
physical terms you use actually mean before trying to talk about physics.
It is *also* not very civil to assert right from the start that you
are brilliant enough to have found a solution to a problem on which
thousands of *educated*, *brilliant* people have worked for decades
now, although you don't even have knowledge of the most basic physics.
> To be honest with you, before
> now I have never heard of the thinks that you spoke about.
Hint: there are *thousands* of more things you never heard about, and
all of those have to be addressed by a proper quantum gravity theory.
> And I really
> don't think that I have to integrate them into my framework in order
> to prove it.
Then you think wrong. The questions which Uncle Al posed *have* to be
addressed by a proper quantum gravity theory.
> But I will look into them out of respect for the subject
> of physics and the search for truth and you.
If you really respected physics and the search for truth, you would
first get a decent education in physics before coming up with your own
strange ideas.
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
principles like the one that you both mentioned that guide true
teachers and students, prevents people from abusing authority based on
title or degrees and gives evidence itself prime authority. Follow the
evidence with a scientific objective open mind and I think that truth
will be revealed to us including who's overcomplicating it. There is
a principle in science called Occam's razor, and one variation says
"one should not increase beyond what is necessary, the number of
entities required to explain anything."
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Thank you both for understanding.
Hint: Nick is one of the worst crackpots around here, with no
understanding of physics whatever. Judging from the few things I've
read of OsherD so far, he is not much better.
> I am so glad that there are
> principles like the one that you both mentioned that guide true
> teachers and students,
Both are not in the position to judge what principles should guide
teachers and students.
> prevents people from abusing authority based on
> title or degrees and gives evidence itself prime authority.
Fine. I'm all for giving evidence itself prime authority, and against
abusing authority. When will you start to address the evidence? When
will you even start to learn what the evidence actually is?
> Follow the
> evidence with a scientific objective open mind and I think that truth
> will be revealed to us including who's overcomplicating it.
Indeed. When will you start?
> There is
> a principle in science called Occam's razor, and one variation says
> "one should not increase beyond what is necessary, the number of
> entities required to explain anything."
Agreed. Feel free to explain why the current theories in physics are
*not* necessary to explain the observations. I.e. feel free to explain
how one could explain the observations *without* such complex
theories. Be quantitative, please.
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
not going to argue point for point with you now but everything in my
theory may hinge on whether or not c2 is a speed and frequency. I say
that it is both and has to have a geometric reality. After all it's
called the speed of light squared. In classical physics uniform
circular motion is measured by squaring it as in a=v2/r for example.
The v2 could be c2 and represent energy in some sort of uniform
circular motion giving the energy a rest mass because of a more equally
distributed inertia and momentum around a center of rotation as opposed
to being radiated along a more linier path instead. It is true that I
am not proficient in basic physics math but I think that all I need are
a few simple equations to make my point. This idea of mine started with
a vision first not a math formula. Then I ask myself if it made logical
sense and if I thought that I could find evidence in the scientific
world to support it and to me the answer was yes. I also ask myself if
I thought that I could make predictions with it and if it could
possibly help explain some of the questions in physics. I will list
some of those later. Last of all is when I ask myself if I might find
some math to support it. And I do believe that E=mc2 and m=Ec2 does but
it all hinges on whether or not c2 is a speed and frequency. Again I
say yes to both. This would explain why there is not a matching anti
matter particle for every matter particle in the universe, one more but
not the only reason why there is no ultra violet catastrophe or
infinite frequency speed for electromagnetic waves, and that rest mass
particles including certain cosmic rays are the next step up in the
energy spectrum because energy attains rest mass at high enough
frequencies namely c2. I will now leave you to chew on that and chew me
out if you like. I am confident that I will be able to prove what I am
stating in the end.
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Thank you for that critical analysis it will only make me better.
Please answer my questions. Especially, please define all the terms
for which I asked what they mean.
> I am
> not going to argue point for point with you now but everything in my
> theory may hinge on whether or not c2 is a speed and frequency.
It isn't. This is so *basic* physics, it's almost unbelievable that
someone who does not understand that thinks he is qualified to propose
a theory of quantum gravity!
> I say that it is both
Absolute utter nonsense.
Speed is distance travelled per time. I.e. it has the dimensions of
lenght divided by time.
Frequency is number of oscillations per time. I.e. it has the
dimensions of one over time.
c^2 has the dimensions of length squared over time squared.
So the three can't be the same.
It's that simple.
> and has to have a geometric reality.
Why should it?
> After all it's
> called the speed of light squared.
Indeed. Hint: that shows nicely that it's not a speed. "speed squared"
and "speed" are *obviously* not the same thing!
> In classical physics uniform
> circular motion is measured by squaring it as in a=v2/r for example.
Wrong. a = v^2/r is not a "measure" of uniform circular motion; it's a
measure of the *acceleration* which is needed in order to maintain the
circular motion.
Uniform circular motion is usually "measured" by giving the angular
frequency vector w (small greek "omega"). Its direction gives the axis
around which the motion happens, and its magnitude gives the angular
frequency.
You *do* know what "vector" and "angular frequency" mean, don't you?
> The v2 could be c2 and represent energy
No, v^2 can't represent energy. Yet again, wrong dimensions (units).
The energy of a circular motion is given by E = 0.5 m v^2 (for a point
mass), or by E = 0.5 I w^2 (for an extended mass). m is the mass, I is
the moment of inertia.
> in some sort of uniform
> circular motion giving the energy a rest mass
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
> because of a more equally
> distributed inertia and momentum around a center of rotation
Or that.
> as opposed to being radiated along a more linier path instead.
Or that.
> It is true that I am not proficient in basic physics math
Indeed.
> but I think that all I need are
> a few simple equations to make my point.
You think wrong.
And as we have seen, you can't even work with simple equations:
m = E c^2 is *not* the reverse of E = m c^2!
> This idea of mine started with a vision first not a math formula.
A vision? In what sense?
> Then I ask myself if it made logical sense
And what makes you think you can judge if an idea anout physics makes
logical sense without having a good knowledge of physics first?
> and if I thought that I could find evidence in the scientific
> world to support it and to me the answer was yes.
How and where did you look for evidence "in the scientific world"?
> I also ask myself if
> I thought that I could make predictions with it and if it could
> possibly help explain some of the questions in physics. I will list
> some of those later.
When one develops a new scientific theory, making *quantitative*,
testable predictions is one of the most important steps. So please
list them as soon as possible.
> Last of all is when I ask myself if I might find
> some math to support it. And I do believe that E=mc2 and m=Ec2
> does
How on earth did you get from E=mc^2 to m=Ec^2???
> but it all hinges on whether or not c2 is a speed and frequency
It isn't, see above.
> Again I say yes to both.
Again that shows utter ignorance of the most *basic* physics.
> This would explain why there is not a matching anti
> matter particle for every matter particle in the universe,
As I already mentioned, this is already explained.
What you presented as "explanation" was mostly incoherent and made no
sense.
> one more but
> not the only reason why there is no ultra violet catastrophe
Again, that has already been explained 105 years ago.
What you presented as "explanation" was mostly incoherent and made no
sense.
> or infinite frequency speed for electromagnetic waves
Again: What is "frequency speed"?
> and that rest mass
> particles including certain cosmic rays are the next step up in the
> energy spectrum
Step up from where?
> because energy attains rest mass at high enough
> frequencies namely c2.
Again: c^2 is not a frequency!
You could as well say that a length is the same as an area, or
something like that!
> I will now leave you to chew on that and chew me out if you like.
See above.
> I am confident that I will be able to prove what I am
> stating in the end.
<http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html>
Think about that.
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
see that I am going to have to prepare a better argument and evidence
to make my case. But I don't mind because it is just exercise that
will make it better. You are a very precise person and that is going to
make me be more precise and careful. Especially with things like
a=c2/r and my description of it. I am not a mathematician but that's
ok because the math does not tell it all. You need logic and
imagination to tell some of it. For instance if I am right and c2 means
"the speed of light in the right angle frequency direction times the
speed of light in the forward direction", resulting in "the speed
of light in uniform circular motion" or something corresponding to it
on the quantum level, it takes imagination to think about and convey.
Did not Einstein say that imagination is more important than knowledge?
Math is fine, logic is fine, and we need to correspond these things to
objective evidence also in order to stay grounded. But imagination is
also necessary to see what I am talking about here and with that said I
will prepare a better argument to illustrate that point.
So let me leave everyone with this image.
Imagine this, c2 could mean "the speed of light in uniform circular
motion" or something corresponding to it on the quantum level?
That's the picture that I want everyone to try to imagine. What if it
is true? Wouldn't that be a beautiful picture?
cjcountess
cjcountess
Uniform Circular Motion Acceleration a = v2 / r
The Period of Revolution. T = {2 r) / v
Centripetal Force F = ma = mv2 / r
at this site
http://www.slcc.edu/schools/hum_sci/physics/tutor/2210/pointmass_circular/
to help illustrate my point.
I will prepare a point-by-point response to you but I do not want to
clutter this space with that because it will not be interesting reading
but I will bet all my marbles on this. If 50 mph squared or 1000 mph
squared can mean those speeds in uniform circular motion than c squared
can be interpreted in that way also if one uses imagination and is
flexible with these equations. I am not a mathematician like you seem
to be but. I'll bet I 'm right about this.
cjcountess
cjcountess
It is said that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and the
highest possible speed in the physical universe. Yet evidence show that
higher frequency photons have more energy, mass, and momentum than
lower frequency photons. This implies that higher frequency photons
travel faster than lower frequency photons. Also, the equation E=mc2
implies that the speed of light is not the highest possible speed in
the universe because it can be squared.
Is it a coincidence that if you treat a photon in a classical manner as
a particle and factor in its frequency motion as it orbits the light
path, one might conclude that as frequency increases, not only does
energy, momentum, and relative mass increase, but so does speed, and
that at c2 a photon attains rest mass?
A photon traveling at c in the forward direction, times c in the right
angle frequency direction, is energy traveling at the speed of light
squared or Ec2 and should equal m as in m=Ec2, the reverse of E=mc2. m
in this case refers to rest mass.
There are two good reasons that photons should travel in a closed loop
at c2 and attain rest mass, which are:
1. According to classical physics and New Webster's Dictionary and
Thesaurus of the English Language 1995, "centrifugal force is - a force
generally considered to act on a body moving along a curved path and to
be equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the centripetal
force. It is often invoked to show that an object moving under the
influence of a constant centripetal force must be acted upon by a
centrifugal force to keep it in orbit."
If this is correct when the speed of light in the right angle frequency
direction is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the
constant speed of light along the light path, this should create the
necessary balance between centripetal and centrifugal force to create a
closed loop or orbit which should create rest mass.
2. When light reaches its speed limit of C in the forward direction;
all added motion goes into its frequency. This is why an increase in a
photons energy results in extra frequency speed but not in extra speed
along the light path. And likewise, when the frequency speed reaches
the limit of c that is c2. This should cause the photon to be rounded
into a closed loop or orbit because at this point all excess motion
should be channeled into the only direction left open, the backward
direction because no more motion can go into the forward direction or
the right angle direction if both have a speed limit of c. This should
round the wave out against the background energy field or Higgs field
and gives it "rest mass".
In other words the speed limit and barrier of light may act as a matrix
that shapes the energy that pushes up against it into a ball or loop of
matter at high enough energies.
This is analogous to a hollow point bullet being fired into water or
sand and mushroomed by both the solidness and the fluidity or
graininess of the medium that it encounters. This may be evidence of
the fluidity, graininess or quantum nature of space - time also as well
as a background energy or Higgs field that producese mass by causing
drag on the energy waves.
Important Questions
1. If the speed of light does not increase with frequency, where is the
increase in energy, relativistic mass, and momentum coming from?
2. If c is the speed limit of light in the direction along the light
path, than why is it not the speed limit of light in the right angle
frequency direction also, which together would equal c2?
3. And at c2 why shouldn't the wave be rounded into a closed loop to
cause rest mass because of the centrifugal force equaling the
centripetal force and the rounding of the wave as it is squeezed up
against the light barrier in the forward direction into the frequency
and right angle frequency direction into a closed loop orbit?
4. Why does c2 seem to be the transition point between energy and
matter when one factors in the frequency motion in agreement with
E=mc2's revelation that energy and matter are equivalence?
Is all of this just a string of coincidences, or is it true that Ec2
does =m or rest mass? Because you know what they say; too many
coincidences may mean that they are not coincidences but a pattern of
real supporting relationships.
Also, just as doubling the frequency of an electromagnetic wave
increases the energy and mass 4x, doubling the speed of an object such
as a bullet, increases the kinetic energy and mass 4x also indicating
that higher frequency has the same effect as higher speed. Is that a
coincidence also?
If this theory is correct, it may help explain that gravity and mass as
well as energy and momentum is generated by the accelerated motion of
photons orbiting the light path, that the strength of this gravity,
mass, energy, and momentum is proportional to the frequency, and that
rest mass is just the result of the frequency motion balancing out the
forward motion of the energy to form a closed loop as it encounters the
speed limit of light in both the forward and right angle frequency
directions and that it is by no means invariable. This would reveal a
more direct relationship between energy and matter, electromagnetism
and gravity, relativistic and rest mass.
Of course if this assumption is correct then some we will have to
change some of our most cherished beliefs like, the speed of light is
constant and the highest possible speed and that rest mass is
invariable also. And that I am sure will be met with a lot of
resistance.
I have stated that c2 is analogous to and corresponds to "the speed of
light in uniform circular motion" but this is just an approximation and
attempt to draw a picture of c2. It could very well lead to an
expanding and contracting point particle or rotating vortex or
something else. Whatever the case may be I am convenced that it will be
some sort of rotating energy with a rest mass.
"the 'rest mass' of an object is the inertial mass that an object has
when it is at rest. Mass measures the amount of inertia an object has,
with inertia defined as the resistance the object offers to a change in
its state of motion."
Definition from: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae161.cfm
Equivalence principal - inertia mass = gravitational mass
If inertia and gravity are generated by accelerated motion, than the
"rest mass" of particles must also be generated by internal accelerated
motion of orbiting energy within these particles.
cjcountess
cjcountess
increase in energy with frequency. Yes in this case I do. And sense
energy and mass increase at the same rate, 4x each time the frequency
doubles, we might even say that M=hf and sense gravity and inertia mass
are equivalent we can even say that G=hf to quantify mass and gravity
also.
It seems to me that Planck's constant, dark energy, and the
cosmological constant are the same thing and that as electromagnetic
waves travel across this sea of dark energy that is already moving at
c, they inherit that energy plus their frequency. The strength of this
ground state energy, which moves at c, is the Planck energy and is the
common denominator of all the waves and rest mass particles that arise
from it. Therefore if we say E=cf or "energy =c x the frequency" we
should still be correct. Because if you factor in the right angle or
vertical frequency speed of a wave as it travels in the horizontal
direction at the constant speed of c, then that wave should increase in
energy, mass, and gravity 4x each time the vertical speed, which is the
frequency, doubles on top of the constant energy of h which can only
come from it's constant speed of c. And so c must be the basic
constant speed and energy and is multiplied by the frequency that gives
a wave or particle its strength of energy, mass, and Gravity. Thank you
Bjoern.
Let me add that at the point where E, M, and G = c x c or c2 that
energy is in something analogous to "the speed of light in uniform
circular motion" and should have rest mass as it now generates
gravity in a way that the centripetal force balances out the
centrifugal force. But before an electromagnetic wave acquires that
balance the centrifugal force keeps it moving at a constant speed of c
along the light path but the centripetal force of the cycles per sec or
the right angle vertical frequency speed if we look at it in two
dimensions, adds mass, energy, and gravity in a way that gives the wave
striking powering the direction of its motion demonstrated by the photo
electric effect but not rest mass or equally distributed energy, mass,
and gravity around a center of rotation. We can even say that G=E/c2 or
G=m/c2 and it will amount to the same thing.
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Ok Bjoern, I will take the time and go over this point for point and I
> see that I am going to have to prepare a better argument and evidence
> to make my case.
A much better idea would be if you first learned what physics actually
says, and even more important, *why* it says that.
> But I don't mind because it is just exercise that
> will make it better. You are a very precise person
You *need* to be precise in physics! If you want fuzziness, try
philosophy.
> and that is going to
> make me be more precise and careful. Especially with things like
> a=c2/r and my description of it. I am not a mathematician
Hint: interpreting and describing an equation has little to do with
being a mathemacian. Scientists and even engineers of all professions
can do that.
> but that's ok because the math does not tell it all.
Clear. Equations without explaining text are worthless.
> You need logic and
> imagination to tell some of it. For instance if I am right and c2 means
> "the speed of light in the right angle frequency direction times the
> speed of light in the forward direction", resulting in "the speed
> of light in uniform circular motion" or something corresponding to it
> on the quantum level, it takes imagination to think about and convey.
What you apparently fail to realize is that what physics *really* says
1) requires also a lot of imagination, probably much more than all you
dreamt up so far
2) contrary to your assertions, is supported by actual experimental
data from the real world, and is coherent and logically consistent.
> Did not Einstein say that imagination is more important than knowledge?
Perhaps. So what? He didn't say that knowledge isn't necessary at all.
> Math is fine, logic is fine, and we need to correspond these things to
> objective evidence also in order to stay grounded. But imagination is
> also necessary to see what I am talking about here and with that said I
> will prepare a better argument to illustrate that point.
>
> So let me leave everyone with this image.
> Imagine this, c2 could mean "the speed of light in uniform circular
> motion" or something corresponding to it on the quantum level?
> That's the picture that I want everyone to try to imagine.
Sorry, I can't imagine something that makes no sense.
Speed is *defined* as "length traveled divided by time it took to
travel". It follows then logically that speed has the dimensions
length per time. c^2 does not have these dimensions, hence it is not
a speed.
It's that simple.
Saying that c^2 is a speed is equally wrong as saying that charge is a
length. Or that an apple is an orange. etc.
> What if it is true? Wouldn't that be a beautiful picture?
No. What's beautiful about that, in your opinion???
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> I found this:
> Uniform Circular Motion Acceleration a = v2 / r
If you mean "v squared", please write "v^2", "v**2", "v x v" or
something like that. "v2" is very misleading - it looks like "v times 2".
> The Period of Revolution. T = {2 r) / v
> Centripetal Force F = ma = mv2 / r
> at this site
> http://www.slcc.edu/schools/hum_sci/physics/tutor/2210/pointmass_circular/
> to help illustrate my point.
I know all these formulas very well, thanks.
[snip]
> If 50 mph squared or 1000 mph
> squared can mean those speeds in uniform circular motion
Sorry, what on earth do you mean here?
> than c squared
> can be interpreted in that way also if one uses imagination and is
> flexible with these equations. I am not a mathematician like you seem
> to be
I'm a physicist.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Let me add that at the point where E, M, and G = c x c or c2 that
> energy is in something analogous to "the speed of light in uniform
> circular motion" and should have rest mass as it now generates
> gravity in a way that the centripetal force balances out the
> centrifugal force. But before an electromagnetic wave acquires that
> balance the centrifugal force keeps it moving at a constant speed of c
> along the light path but the centripetal force of the cycles per sec or
> the right angle vertical frequency speed if we look at it in two
> dimensions, adds mass, energy, and gravity in a way that gives the wave
> photo electric effect but not rest mass or equally distributed energy,
> mass, and gravity around a center of rotation.
Illucid.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> In response to Bjoern's asking if I mean the formula E=hf concerning
> increase at the same rate, 4x each time the frequency doubles,
WRONG!!!
When the frequency doubles, E doubles also! It does *not* get
multiplied by 4!
Do you fail to understand proportionality?
> we might
> even say that M=hf
No!!! Why on earth do you think so???
Yet again:
1) The units are not even right! hf has units of Joule, M has units of
kilogram!
2) This formula does *not* follow from E=Mc^2 and E=hf! In fact, what
follows from these two formulas is Mc^2=hf! Can't you do even the
*most* *simple* algebra???
> and sense gravity and inertia mass are equivalent
Do you know what that statement actually means?
> we can even say that G=hf to quantify mass and gravity also.
Ouch!!!!!
This becomes worse and worse! You write utter complete nonsense here!
1) What exactly do you *mean* with gravity? The gravitational force?
The gravitational potential? The gravitational constant? Or what???
Do you even know what there three terms actually mean?
2) How is this quantity "G" defined?
3) What units does this quantity "G" have?
4) How is it related to energy and/or mass? Please give a formula that
follows from its definition.
etc. etc. etc.
> It seems to me that Planck's constant, dark energy, and the
> cosmological constant are the same thing
Dark energy is a form of energy, a phenomenon. Planck's constant and
the cosmological constant are constants of nature, essentially
*numbers*. A phenomenon is not a number! What you do here is *worse*
than comparing apples with oranges!
Additionally, Planck's constant and the cosmological constant have
different *units*!
Additionally, they have different numerical values!
> and that as electromagnetic
> waves travel across this sea of dark energy that is already moving at
> c,
What on earth makes you think that dark energy is moving at c?????
> they inherit that energy
How???
> plus their frequency.
Huh???
> The strength of this ground state energy,
What ground state energy? Dark energy is not ground state energy!
And what is "strength of energy" supposed to mean?
> which moves at c, is the Planck energy
Dark energy is not the Planck energy. The Planck energy is not a
ground state energy.
Do you know what these three types of energy are? Please give
definitions, in your own words (quoting from dictionaries does not
show if you really understood the terms!).
> and is the
> common denominator of all the waves and rest mass particles that arise
> from it.
What exactly do you mean with "common denominator" here?
> Therefore if we say E=cf or "energy =c x the frequency" we
> should still be correct.
No, we wouldn't!
1) This formula does not follow in *any way* from what you said above.
2) Wrong units.
3) Contradicts E = hf, since E=hf and E=cf together would imply c=h,
which is obvious nonsense.
You seem no have no idea
1) how formulas are derived in physics
2) how they are manipulated (algebra)
3) how one interprets them, i.e. how they relate to reality.
As long as you don't understand such basic things, you shouldn't try
to come up with physical theories.
Try reading "The Feynman lectures on physics". The first of the three
volumes should be enough to make you learn the three points above; but
maybe you first need a book on *basic* math, in order to teach you how
one deals with variables (algebra).
[snip more of the same]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> The logic and evidence that led me to these conclusions.
>
> It is said that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant
Do you know what the "constant" here means? I.e. do you know constant
*with respect to what* is meant?
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html>
> and the highest possible speed in the physical universe.
Not perfectly true: it's the highest possible speed for information
or energy transfer.
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html>
> Yet evidence show that
> higher frequency photons have more energy,
Right.
> mass,
Wrong.
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html>
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html>
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/mass.html>
> and momentum than lower frequency photons.
Right.
> This implies that higher frequency photons
> travel faster than lower frequency photons.
No. Why do you think that this is implied???
> Also, the equation E=mc2
> implies that the speed of light is not the highest possible speed in
> the universe because it can be squared.
So what????? Why on earth should the fact that is can be squared imply
that it is not the highest possible speed?????
c^2 is numerically higher than c, right - but c^2 is not a speed!
> Is it a coincidence that if you treat a photon in a classical manner as
> a particle and factor in its frequency motion as it orbits the light
> path,
Huh? Photons don't orbit the light path. What are you talking about?
> one might conclude that as frequency increases, not only does
> energy, momentum, and relative mass increase, but so does speed, and
> that at c2 a photon attains rest mass?
I already told you that "at c^2" makes no sense at all.
Please try to understand the *very* *basic* fact that c^2 is not a
speed!!!
> A photon traveling at c in the forward direction, times c in the right
> angle frequency direction, is energy traveling at the speed of light
> squared
NO!!!!! Speeds in different directions are *not* *multiplied* in order
to get the total speed!!!
If the speed in one direction is v and in a direction perpendicular
to that is v, the *total* speed is given by sqrt(v^2 + V^2)! ("sqrt"
means taking the square root). Read up on "velocity addition", "vector
addition", "magnitude of a vector", the difference between velocity
and speed, and Pythogoras' theorem (you probably learnt the latter in
school).
> or Ec2 and should equal m as in m=Ec2, the reverse of E=mc2.
m=Ec^2 is in no way the "reverse" of E=mc^2!!!
The reverse of E=mc^2 is m = E/c^2!!!
This is the *most* *basic* algebra!
> m in this case refers to rest mass.
> There are two good reasons that photons should travel in a closed loop
> at c2 and attain rest mass, which are:
>
> 1. According to classical physics and New Webster's Dictionary and
> Thesaurus of the English Language 1995, "centrifugal force is - a force
> generally considered to act on a body moving along a curved path and to
> be equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the centripetal
> force. It is often invoked to show that an object moving under the
> influence of a constant centripetal force must be acted upon by a
> centrifugal force to keep it in orbit."
Ouch. Don't rely on dictionary of common language to get explanations
of the meaning of physical terms.
> If this is correct
It is quite garbled.
> when the speed of light in the right angle frequency
> direction
You have still not told me what "right angle frequency direction" means.
> is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the
> constant speed of light along the light path,
Huh? If the speed is at an right angle, it can't simultaneously
be in the opposite direction!
Come on, this is *basic* geometry!
> this should create the
> necessary balance between centripetal and centrifugal force
HOW ON EARTH DOES THAT FOLLOW?
> to create a closed loop or orbit which should create rest mass.
How on earth should that loop create rest mass?
BTW, photons don't have rest mass. See the links above.
> 2. When light reaches its speed limit of C
Light does not "reach" that limit; it *always* travels at C (in a vacuum).
> in the forward direction;
Which direction is "forward"?
> all added motion
What "added motion"? Do you mean "added energy"?
> goes into its frequency. This is why an increase in a
> photons energy results in extra frequency speed
What is a "frequency speed"???
> but not in extra speed
> along the light path. And likewise, when the frequency speed reaches
> the limit of c that is c2.
Huh??? This sentence does not even make sense grammatically.
> This should cause the photon to be rounded
> into a closed loop or orbit because at this point all excess motion
> should be channeled into the only direction left open,
How does "channeling" motion work?
Ever heard of F = m a, and that F and a are *vectors*? Do you even
know what a vector actually is?
> the backward
> direction because no more motion can go into the forward direction or
> the right angle direction if both have a speed limit of c.
The speed limit is not c in different directions separately. The speed
limit is c for the *total* speed. I.e. if the speed in one direction
is v and in another direction, perpendicular to the first, the speed
is V, then sqrt(v^2 + V^2) has to be equal to c.
> This should round the wave out
What does "rounding a wave out" mean?
> against the background energy field or Higgs field
I already told you that the two are not the same.
> and gives it "rest mass".
How? What has "rounding out a wave", whatever that is supposed to
mean, have to do with rest mass?
And why has no one ever observed that adding energy to a photon
creates rest mass?
> In other words the speed limit and barrier of light may act as a matrix
What exactly do you mean with "matrix" here? Something like a pattern?
> that shapes the energy
How does one "shape" energy?
Do you know what "energy" actually means in physics?
> that pushes up against it
Huh? What pushes up against what? The matrix pushes up against the
energy, or what???
> into a ball or loop of matter
Since when does matter consist of balls of loops?
> at high enough energies.
How high, specifically?
(Sorry that I broke up your sentence above into so many pieces, but
there so many things in it which all needed a comment.)
> This is analogous to a hollow point bullet being fired into water or
> sand and mushroomed by both the solidness and the fluidity or
> graininess of the medium that it encounters.
Sorry, I fail to see an analogy here.
Photons do not act like bullets, and there is no medium through which
they travel. Also, the speed limit of c is not a medium, and not in
any way analogous to one.
> This may be evidence of
> the fluidity, graininess or quantum nature of space - time also as well
> as a background energy or Higgs field that producese mass by causing
> drag on the energy waves.
Yet again a sentence that is filled with strange stuff and
inconsistencies.
Could you please first learn what all those fancy terms actually mean
before using them?
> Important Questions
> 1. If the speed of light does not increase with frequency, where is the
> increase in energy, relativistic mass, and momentum coming from?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Why on earth do you think an increase in speed is needed for an
increase in energy, relativistic mass and momentum?
> 2. If c is the speed limit of light in the direction along the light
> path, than why is it not the speed limit of light in the right angle
> frequency direction also, which together would equal c2?
I addressed that above.
> 3. And at c2 why shouldn't the wave be rounded into a closed loop to
> cause rest mass because of the centrifugal force equaling the
> centripetal force and the rounding of the wave as it is squeezed up
> against the light barrier in the forward direction into the frequency
> and right angle frequency direction into a closed loop orbit?
I addressed that above.
> 4. Why does c2 seem to be the transition point between energy and
> matter
c^2 is simply a number, a conversion factor in an equation. It's not a
"transition point".
> when one factors in the frequency motion
What is "frequency motion"?
> in agreement with
> E=mc2's revelation that energy and matter are equivalence?
Do you know what one actually means when one says that energy and
matter are equivalent?
> Is all of this just a string of coincidences,
Huh? Where exactly do you see even one coincidence here?
> or is it true that Ec2 does =m or rest mass?
No, it isn't.
m = E/c^2.
Learn basic algebra.
> Because you know what they say; too many
> coincidences may mean that they are not coincidences but a pattern of
> real supporting relationships.
What coincidences are you talking about?????
> Also, just as doubling the frequency of an electromagnetic wave
> increases the energy and mass 4x,
Wrong. It doubles the energy and (relativistic) mass.
The formula is E = h f (f: frequency, h: Planck's constant). Energy
is *proportional* to frequency. Hey, you wrote that yourself lower
down! Don't you know what "proportional" means?
> doubling the speed of an object such
> as a bullet, increases the kinetic energy and mass 4x
Right only for slow velocities.
You probably think that the kinetic energy of an object with rest mass
m and speed v is *always* E = 0.5 m v^2, right?
Hint: that's wrong. That formula is only valid as long as v is much
smaller than c.
The *general* formula is E = m c^2 (gamma - 1). "gamma" is here the
usual Lorentz factor.
> also indicating
> that higher frequency has the same effect as higher speed. Is that a
> coincidence also?
There is no coincidence here, since your original assertion that the
energy of a photon is multiplied by 4 when its frequency is double is
simply wrong.
> If this theory is correct,
Haven't you understood what I told you about the meaning of the word
"theory" in science?
> it may help explain that gravity and mass as
> well as energy and momentum is generated by the accelerated motion of
> photons orbiting the light path,
What force causes that acceleration?
And what has that to do with gravity?
> that the strength of this gravity,
> mass, energy, and momentum is proportional to the frequency, and that
> rest mass is just the result of the frequency motion balancing out the
> forward motion of the energy to form a closed loop as it encounters the
> speed limit of light in both the forward and right angle frequency
> directions
All commented on above.
> and that it is by no means invariable.
*What* is not invariable?
> This would reveal a
> more direct relationship between energy and matter,
What relationship could be more direct than E=mc^2 and the fact that
matter can be created from energy? Ever heard of LEP, for example?
> electromagnetism and gravity,
So far, I don't see a relationship between electromagnetism and
gravity in what you wrote.
> relativistic and rest mass.
What could be more direct than m_rel = gamma m_rest?
> Of course if this assumption is correct then some we will have to
> change some of our most cherished beliefs like, the speed of light is
> constant and the highest possible speed and that rest mass is
> invariable also.
Why should we change these "beliefs" as long as all experimental tests
tell us that they are right?
Actually, the fact that all experimental tests tell us that these
"beliefs" are right is strong evidence that your assumption is *not*
correct, don't you think?
> And that I am sure will be met with a lot of resistance.
Hint: the best way to overcome resistance to new ideas in science is
to come up with supporting experimental evidence.
> I have stated that c2 is analogous to and corresponds to "the speed of
> light in uniform circular motion" but this is just an approximation and
> attempt to draw a picture of c2.
In fact, this is simply wrong.
> It could very well lead to an
> expanding and contracting point particle
Points can't expand and contract (by definition!). You make no sense.
> or rotating vortex or
> something else. Whatever the case may be I am convenced that it will be
> some sort of rotating energy with a rest mass.
Someone who fails to understand that c^2 is not a speed should not be
convinced of his ideas.
> "the 'rest mass' of an object is the inertial mass that an object has
> when it is at rest. Mass measures the amount of inertia an object has,
> with inertia defined as the resistance the object offers to a change in
> its state of motion."
> Definition from: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae161.cfm
I agree with that definition.
> Equivalence principal - inertia mass = gravitational mass
Right.
> If inertia and gravity are generated by accelerated motion,
"generated" in what way?
> than the
> "rest mass" of particles must also be generated by internal accelerated
> motion of orbiting energy within these particles.
How on earth does that follow?
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
Bjoer said
WRONG!!!
When the frequency doubles, E doubles also! It does *not* get
multiplied by 4!
Do you fail to understand proportionality?
I might be wrong about this and if I am I will have to rethink the
whole thing although I still believe that the general idea is correct
and just needs to be modified. I understood it to be multiplied by 4.
If we use Planck's constant x frequency as a measure of energy you
are correct the energy increase twice if the frequency increase twice
in a sense. But I read several places including in Scientific America
Sept. 2004 special Einstein issue page 28 paragraph 3 that the
wavelength of a particle is inversely proportional to its mass. And
according to this site,
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/U10L2c.html
for amplitude, energy increases 4x when amplitude doubles.
Thus I assumed that sense doubleling the frequency could mean halving
the wavelength either one of these would increase energy and mass 4x
but maybe I was wrong. I will have to do more research and report back.
I do believe though that the essence of the idea is correct because of
too many coincidences and I am not giving up
Thank you for your critical eye.
Bjoern said
Yet again:
1) The units are not even right! hf has units of Joule, M has units of
kilogram!
2) This formula does *not* follow from E=Mc^2 and E=hf! In fact, what
follows from these two formulas is Mc^2=hf! Can't you do even the
*most* *simple* algebra???
You are technically correct but if energy and mass are interchangeable
then mass and the amount of energy in mass could very well be measured
in joules-could it not? And if you say Mc2=hf I would not disagree.
> and sense gravity and inertia mass are equivalent
Bjoern said
Do you know what that statement actually means?
Ø we can even say that G=hf to quantify mass and gravity also.
/General/open_questions.html
under cosmology and astrophysics question 6 where it states: "The
simplest model is a cosmological constant, meaning that so-called
"empty" space actually has a negative pressure and positive energy
density, with the pressure exactly equal to minus the energy density in
units where the speed of light is 1".
> and that as electromagnetic
> waves travel across this sea of dark energy that is already moving at
> c,
Bjoern said
What on earth makes you think that dark energy is moving at c?????
> they inherit that energy
How???
> plus their frequency.
Huh???
> The strength of this ground state energy,
What ground state energy? Dark energy is not ground state energy!
And what is "strength of energy" supposed to mean?
> which moves at c, is the Planck energy
Dark energy is not the Planck energy. The Planck energy is not a
ground state energy.
See expiation above and I will try to explain even better as time goes
on.
Bjoern said
Do you know what these three types of energy are? Please give
definitions, in your own words (quoting from dictionaries does not
show if you really understood the terms!).
I will give definitions in time.
> and is the
> common denominator of all the waves and rest mass particles that
arise
> from it.
Bjoern said
What exactly do you mean with "common denominator" here?
Just as Planck's constant could be considered a common denominator of
all particles whose energy is multiplied by it times the frequency, the
dark energy of the background energy field that these particle emerge
from that forms the basis of these particles are also the common
denominator.
> Therefore if we say E=cf or "energy =c x the frequency" we
> should still be correct.
Bjoern said
No, we wouldn't!
1) This formula does not follow in *any way* from what you said above.
2) Wrong units.
3) Contradicts E = hf, since E=hf and E=cf together would imply c=h,
which is obvious nonsense.
This is exactly what I think is correct.
You seem no have no idea
1) how formulas are derived in physics
2) how they are manipulated (algebra)
3) how one interprets them, i.e. how they relate to reality.
As long as you don't understand such basic things, you shouldn't try
to come up with physical theories.
Just because the math is not as accurate as it could be doesn't mean
that the main idea is not correct only that it will take some work. But
I do think that yes c = h = the basic ground state dark energy =
cosmological constant but it will take time to prove. See this site
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html
Concerning Stephen Hawking's theory of "The Wave Function of the
Universe", by
Michio Kaku (Professor of Theoretical Physics). In it he indicates
that the theory precedes the mathematics to prove it. Sometimes this is
the order in which ideas come. In it he states: The goal facing quantum
cosmologists is to verify this conjecture mathematically, to show that
the wave function of the universe is large for our present universe and
vanishing small for other universes. This would then prove that our
familiar universe is in some sense unique and also stable. (At present,
quantum cosmologists are unable to solve this important problem.)
Bjoern said
Try reading "The Feynman lectures on physics". The first of the three
volumes should be enough to make you learn the three points above; but
maybe you first need a book on *basic* math, in order to teach you how
one deals with variables (algebra).
Will take this into consideration.
I really have to resolve this question of whether energy doubles or
increases 4x and I will address the other questions also but very
carefully. This has been a real lesson and I will be better for it.
Cjcountess
cjcountess
WRONG!!!
When the frequency doubles, E doubles also! It does *not* get
multiplied by 4!
Do you fail to understand proportionality?
I am really concerned about whether or not energy increases 4x or 2x
each time frequency doubles and wavelength halfs. This is as crucial to
my argument as the idea that the speed of light squared is analogous to
the speed of light in uniform circular motion. I have been describing
photons and waves as orbiting the light path because I think that is a
good analogy and increasing in speed with frequency because I think
that energy of photons and waves increase as if they are increasing in
speed following the inverse square law in the same way that planets and
bullets do. I have found collaborating evidence to support this. This
site relates it to planetary motion:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/orbit.htm
It contains the text:
"Kepler's Laws were used to explain the orbital motion of the planets
around the Sun, as well as the various moons around the planets. You
can use the laws to calculate the speed at any point, the time of
rotation and distances for any objects in space. They can also be
applied to the motion of electrons around the nucleus of an atom."
And sense electron orbits correspond to wavelength and frequency these
frequencies should have energies matching this inverse proportion
This site proposes that wavelength is inversely proportional to the
energy also giving the photon model below.
http://users.owt.com/flesher/photonics/photon2.html
It contains this text:
"2. The second key concept is a model of a photon. It is proposed as an
induction that a photon consists of two opposite charged "poles," one +
and the other -, which rotate about one another such that the distance,
d, between them is inversely proportional to the energy, E, of the
photon, E= L/d where L = 3.443780 x 10-29 Joule meters (or 10-21 erg
cm) (eq 1) This then implies the poles have a charge of 6.19004 x 10
-20 coulombs or roughly 1/3 that of the electron."
This site also gives. "Albert Einstein in 1905 stated that mass and
energy were inter-convertible: mC2 = E, (eq 6), so that we may deduce
that all MASS is quantized, m = hf/C2 = h/lC and the quantum of MASS is
the photon".
It seems that photons can obey both laws and not be in conflict, here
is my attempt to put it in a simple formula relating bullets and energy
measured in foot pounds, found at this ballistics site, to photons and
Planck's constant as it relates to energy.
http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/energy.htm?bw=100&bv=4000
Energy of 222 foot-pounds for a 100 grain bullet at 1000 fps.
Energy of 888 foot-pounds for a 100 grain bullet at 2000 fps.
If we say that
E or foot pounds = 100grains (a constant) x 1000 fps (a variable) And
E or foot pounds = 100grains (a constant) x 2000 fps (a variable),
If we change the quantities to notations it starts to resemble the
Planck formula: (E=hf)
if we make it ( E=gv), the first could be E=g1v and E=g2v and E = 222
and 888 foot pounds respectively.
Will address the other issues latter,
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> I would like to address your response of
>
> Bjoer said
>> WRONG!!!
>> When the frequency doubles, E doubles also! It does *not* get
>> multiplied by 4!
>> Do you fail to understand proportionality?
>
> I might be wrong about this and if I am I will have to rethink the
> whole thing although I still believe that the general idea is correct
> and just needs to be modified. I understood it to be multiplied by 4.
Then you understood wrong, plain and simple.
> If we use Planck's constant x frequency as a measure of energy
You *have* to use this, since that's what the formula says! And that
formula was derived from experimental data, and tested hundreds of
thousands of times since then.
> you are correct the energy increase twice if the frequency increase twice
> in a sense. But I read several places including in Scientific America
> Sept. 2004 special Einstein issue page 28 paragraph 3 that the
> wavelength of a particle is inversely proportional to its mass.
That's right. But we were talking about photons here, and you have to
be careful when talking about the mass of photons.
> And according to this site,
> http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/U10L2c.html
> for amplitude, energy increases 4x when amplitude doubles.
Yes, the energy in a *wave* quadruples when the amplitude of the
wave doubles. But what has that to do with the problem at hand?
Amplitude wasn't involved anywhere! Do you maybe confuse amplitude
with wavelength???
> Thus I assumed that sense doubleling the frequency could mean halving
> the wavelength either one of these would increase energy and mass 4x
Sorry, I don't understand your logic here.
> but maybe I was wrong. I will have to do more research and report back.
As I said: I would *heavily* recommend to you that you first learn
some basic physics, and especially how equations in physics are
derived from experimental data, how they are manipulated, and how they
are used.
> I do believe though that the essence of the idea is correct because of
> too many coincidences
I still have no clue what coincidences you are talking about. I have
seen none so far from you.
> and I am not giving up
> Thank you for your critical eye.
>
>> Yet again:
>> 1) The units are not even right! hf has units of Joule, M has units of
>> kilogram!
>> 2) This formula does *not* follow from E=Mc^2 and E=hf! In fact, what
>> follows from these two formulas is Mc^2=hf! Can't you do even the
>> *most* *simple* algebra???
>> You are technically correct but if energy and mass are interchangeable
>> then mass and the amount of energy in mass could very well be measured
>> in joules-could it not? And if you say Mc2=hf I would not disagree.
>>
>>> and sense gravity and inertia mass are equivalent
>>
>> Do you know what that statement actually means?
>>
>>
>>> we can even say that G=hf to quantify mass and gravity also.
>
> /General/open_questions.html
> under cosmology and astrophysics question 6 where it states: "The
> simplest model is a cosmological constant, meaning that so-called
> "empty" space actually has a negative pressure and positive energy
> density, with the pressure exactly equal to minus the energy density in
> units where the speed of light is 1".
And what has that to do with the stuff above???
[snip]
>> Do you know what these three types of energy are? Please give
>> definitions, in your own words (quoting from dictionaries does not
>> show if you really understood the terms!).
>
>
> I will give definitions in time.
I'm waiting.
>>>and is the
>>>common denominator of all the waves and rest mass particles that
>>>arise from it.
>>
>> What exactly do you mean with "common denominator" here?
>
> Just as Planck's constant could be considered a common denominator of
> all particles whose energy is multiplied by it times the frequency,
I don't see why Planck's constant could be considered a "common
denominator" of all particles, sorry.
> the dark energy of the background energy field that these particle emerge
> from that forms the basis of these particles are also the common
> denominator.
That didn't make it any clearer.
>>>Therefore if we say E=cf or "energy =c x the frequency" we
>>>should still be correct.
>>
>>
>> No, we wouldn't!
>> 1) This formula does not follow in *any way* from what you said above.
>> 2) Wrong units.
>> 3) Contradicts E = hf, since E=hf and E=cf together would imply c=h,
>> which is obvious nonsense.
>
> This is exactly what I think is correct.
You think that c=h is correct, or what???
>> You seem no have no idea
>> 1) how formulas are derived in physics
>> 2) how they are manipulated (algebra)
>> 3) how one interprets them, i.e. how they relate to reality.
>> As long as you don't understand such basic things, you shouldn't try
>> to come up with physical theories.
>
> Just because the math is not as accurate as it could be
Your math is not just "not as accurate as it could be". It is *plain
wrong*. As wrong as 1+1=3.
> doesn't mean
> that the main idea is not correct only that it will take some work.
Suggestion: before attempting to do that work, first learn how physics
deals with equations. See above.
> But I do think that yes c = h
c = 300 000 000 m/s
h = 6.626 * 10^(-34) J s.
You think that 300 000 000 m/s = 6.626 * 10^(-34) J s???????????
Say, do you also think that 2 = 3? That makes equally much sense!
> = the basic ground state dark energy
Neither c nor h is an energy! c is a speed, h is essentially an action!
BTW, "ground state energy" and "dark energy" does *not* mean the
same thing!
Could you *please* first learn what the terms you use actually mean
before using them?
> = cosmological constant
The cosmological constant is not a speed, not an action, and not an
energy!
> but it will take time to prove.
No, proving this is simply impossible. Just as proving 2=3 is
impossible. Since it's simply wrong.
> See this site
> http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html
>
> Concerning Stephen Hawking's theory of "The Wave Function of the
> Universe", by
> Michio Kaku (Professor of Theoretical Physics). In it he indicates
> that the theory precedes the mathematics to prove it.
Theories in science are not proven.
And Kaku does *not* say that *no* mathematics is needed in order to
bring up a new theory. He merely oints out that when a new theory is
brought up (using math!), not every of its consequences is at once
fully clear. These consequences still have to be examined using math.
> Sometimes this is the order in which ideas come.
I know of not one single example where someone who did not understand
the most basic math (algebra) managed to come up with a good new idea
in physics.
> In it he states: The goal facing quantum
> cosmologists is to verify this conjecture mathematically,
I.e. to explore the mathematical consequences of the theory. This does
in no way imply that math was not needed in order to come up with the
theory!
[snip]
>> Try reading "The Feynman lectures on physics". The first of the three
>> volumes should be enough to make you learn the three points above; but
>> maybe you first need a book on *basic* math, in order to teach you how
>> one deals with variables (algebra).
>
> Will take this into consideration.
Thinking about this again, the Feynman lectures are probably too
advanced for you. Try a highschool physics book.
> I really have to resolve this question of whether energy doubles or
> increases 4x
The energy of a photon doubles when the frequency of the wave doubles.
The energy of a wave quadruples when the amplitude of the wave doubles.
The energy of a non-relativistic particle quadruples when its speed
doubles.
Ask *any* physicist on this.
> and I will address the other questions also but very
> carefully. This has been a real lesson and I will be better for it.
I would *really* recommend to you to stop coming up with your own
ideas for some time, to stop posting here even, and instead first
reading some books on basic physics and math.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> I am really concerned about whether or not energy increases 4x or 2x
> each time frequency doubles and wavelength halfs.
E=hf.
> This is as crucial to
> my argument as the idea that the speed of light squared is analogous to
> the speed of light in uniform circular motion.
c^2 is not a speed. Stop ignoring my arguments.
> I have been describing
> photons and waves as orbiting the light path
With "light path", do you mean the direction of the light rays?
> because I think that is a
> good analogy and increasing in speed with frequency because I think
> that energy of photons and waves increase as if they are increasing in
> speed following the inverse square law in the same way that planets and
> bullets do.
Ouch. What on Earth has this to do with the inverse square law now?
You *do* know what that law says, don't you?
> I have found collaborating evidence to support this. This
> site relates it to planetary motion:
> http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/orbit.htm
> It contains the text:
>
> "Kepler's Laws were used to explain the orbital motion of the planets
> around the Sun, as well as the various moons around the planets. You
> can use the laws to calculate the speed at any point, the time of
> rotation and distances for any objects in space. They can also be
> applied to the motion of electrons around the nucleus of an atom."
The last sentence is wrong. That would be Rutherford's atomic model,
which has been outdated for about 80 years now.
> And sense electron orbits correspond to wavelength and frequency
Huh??? What on Earth is this supposed to mean?
> these
> frequencies should have energies matching this inverse proportion
Huh??? Why???
> This site proposes that wavelength is inversely proportional to the
> energy also giving the photon model below.
> http://users.owt.com/flesher/photonics/photon2.html
This is the site of a crackpot, not of a physicist. It contains *lots*
of errors. Ignore what it says.
[snip]
> It seems that photons can obey both laws and not be in conflict,
You mean both E=mc^2 and E=hf? Yes, indeed they can. Why should there
be a conflict? You just have to be careful what the "m" in the first
equations actually means.
> here
> is my attempt to put it in a simple formula relating bullets and energy
> measured in foot pounds, found at this ballistics site, to photons and
> Planck's constant as it relates to energy.
> http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/energy.htm?bw=100&bv=4000
> Energy of 222 foot-pounds for a 100 grain bullet at 1000 fps.
> Energy of 888 foot-pounds for a 100 grain bullet at 2000 fps.
Ouch. Could you please use SI units, like every sane human?
> If we say that
> E or foot pounds = 100grains (a constant) x 1000 fps (a variable) And
>
> E or foot pounds = 100grains (a constant) x 2000 fps (a variable),
Err, the energy is *not* simply given by the product of the mass and
the speed. Your own examples above clearly show that!
> If we change the quantities to notations it starts to resemble the
> Planck formula: (E=hf)
What on earth has grains * fps to do with h * f?
> if we make it ( E=gv), the first could be E=g1v and E=g2v and E = 222
> and 888 foot pounds respectively.
Huh?????
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
relationship of dark energy, the cosmological constant, and the Planck
constant as well as what I have called the right angle frequency motion
contributing to speed as well as increase in mass.
To begin with let's start with dark energy, Planck's constant,
which might also be considered the Planck energy, and the cosmological
constant, which I think are related in this way.
Assuming that energy is more basic than matter and that the expansion
of the population of material bodies in the Universe can be traced back
to energy, if we begin with a field of energy in its ground state, in
principal it should be moving at c because energy moves at c.
Furthermore if the Universe including space itself is expanding and or
rotating like a universal wave or just because everything seems to be
orbiting something on ever larger scales suggesting that this rotation
is universal, we can say that this field moves. I am referring to the
dark energy in its most basic ground state, not all dark energy. Any
energy that is below detectable frequency might be considered dark
energy but I am referring to the most basic energy.
If we trace the electromagnetic spectrum back in energy intensity to
the lowest possible energy it should be h without frequency or c
without frequency in principal. In other words if one could measure the
energy of a photon that did not have frequency but still moved at c, it
should have an energy of only h because it is the extra momentum,
relative mass, and energy that is generated by frequency that increases
the energy to h x f. I also say that the energy of c and h without
frequency are the same because if all energy quanta have a constant
energy level of h x the frequency and a constant speed of c regardless
of frequency then if there is no frequency this basic constant
foundation energy upon which all other energy and rest mass particles
are built must be just h and move at the velocity of c without
frequency. Furthermore it must also be the background basic dark energy
upon which all other energy waves and rest mass particles emerge from
and are formed from. Thus they inherit this basic foundation energy
that they are composed of, and is the common denominator of them all as
indeed all of them are composed of and measured as (h the common
denominator) x (f the variable) and furthermore all of them inherit the
speed of light as a part of their makeup as in E=mc2 or m =E/c2.
I consider an increase in frequency to be an increase in speed because
as the photon or wave moves up and down or round and round, which I
have been referring to as the right angle frequency motion, or whatever
form of oscillation it takes to move it more cycles per second, it is
only logical to conclude that something is moving faster if it is
making more cycles per second and acquiring more energy as a result of
it. And this is true regardless if energy increase 2x or 4x each time
frequency doubles.
I think that the most basic dark energy is the cosmological constant
because it is the background energy and the foundation of waves and
rest mass particles, and because this background energy field is always
there providing a constant expansive energy as well as the foundation
for the contracting energy of waves and rest mass particles that are
built on it. It is the source of these waves and rest mass particles
and should not be out weighed or have less expansive energy than all
the waves and rest mass particles have contracting energy. They should
balance out as c in the centrifugal expansive direction by c in the
right angle frequency centripetal direction as c2. The energy or
centrifugal force should equal and balance out the mass or centripetal
force as in E = mc2 and although they go back and forth, neither one
should ultimately win the tug of war between them. And so the ultimate
cosmological constant may be a universal pattern of
expansion/contraction itself instead of an expansive or contractive
force alone. Or maybe the expansive force should out weight the
contracting force sense energy is more fundamental then matter. I do
not know, but I think it is very interesting. The only point that I can
confidently make here is that the cosmological constant, dark energy,
and Planck's constant are related in the way I mentioned. This site
equates cosmological constant and dark energy also.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html#cosmology
See question-6 Is the Universe really full of dark energy? it states:
The simplest model is a cosmological constant, meaning that so-called
"empty" space actually has a negative pressure and positive energy
density, with the pressure exactly equal to minus the energy density in
units where the speed of light is 1.
P.S. I know that Kepler's law of planetary motion is outdated
concerning accurate measurement of orbiting electrons but does it not
still form the foundation upon which the newer theories are built?
According to principle of correspondences this can be used with the
addition of the probability, uncertainty principle to make it more up
to date.
Also when I mentioned that my idea had no room for the ultra violet
catastrophe I did not mean to suggest that it had not been addressed
successfully already, only that it never even would have come up. And
interestingly I found this on the web concerning the ultraviolet
catastrophe
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.html
It says that frequency diverges to v2 at high frequencies and I
understand that this was interpreted to mean that it would become
infinite. But could it mean that frequency would round out as
centripetal force is balanced by centrifugal force and the energy
diverges into uniform circular motion or something analogous and
corresponding to that? Findings like this are an example of the
coincidences that keep turning up. I will address more questions later,
after I consider them very carefully.
The quantification of gravity can be stated in the same terms as the
quantification of energy sense they are interchangeable. E=hf as G=hf
or E=mc2 and M=E/c2 as G=E/c2 or G=m/c2, but in order for this to be
made clear I think that the foundation must be laid that gravity is
inverted electromagnetism and begins as soon as the speed of light
surpasses c, if we include frequency as part of the speed. Therefore
gravity begins with frequency and frequency begins when energy is added
to c, thereby causing energy to contract because when the expansive
centrifugal speed limit of electromagnetism reaches its limit of c all
added energy causes contractive centripetal motion in the form of
frequency, just as when energy is added to electromagnetic waves moving
at c this energy results in an increase frequency and inertia mass but
no increase of speed along the light path. Gravity is inverted
electromagnetism.
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Let me address some of your questions in this section concerning the
> relationship of dark energy, the cosmological constant, and the Planck
> constant as well as what I have called the right angle frequency motion
> contributing to speed as well as increase in mass.
> To begin with let's start with dark energy, Planck's constant,
> which might also be considered the Planck energy,
No, Planck's constant might *not* be considered the Planck energy.
Where on Earth did you get this idea from?
As usual: wrong units, wrong numerical values etc.
> and the cosmological
> constant, which I think are related in this way.
> Assuming that energy is more basic than matter
And what exactly is "more basic" supposed to mean?
> and that the expansion
> of the population of material bodies in the Universe can be traced back
> to energy,
And what is this supposed to mean?
> if we begin with a field of energy in its ground state,
Do you know what "energy" means in physics?
Do you know what "field" means in physics?
Do you know what "ground state" means in physics?
I bet you don't - otherwise you would know that your sentence above
makes no sense.
> in principal it should be moving at c because energy moves at c.
No, energy does not always move at c. Where on Earth did you get that
idea from???
Additionally, fields don't move *ever*.
> Furthermore if the Universe including space itself is expanding
It is.
> and or rotating
It isn't.
> like a universal wave
What on Earth has rotating to do with a wave?
> or just because everything seems to be
> orbiting something on ever larger scales
Wrong. E.g. galaxy clusters don't orbit each other (AFAIK).
> suggesting that this rotation is universal,
Make up your mind. Are you talking about orbiting or about rotation?
> we can say that this field moves.
No, we can't, since that would make no sense. Fields *never* move.
*Please* learn what the physical terms you keep using *actually* *mean*!
> I am referring to the dark energy in its most basic ground state,
This sentence again makes no sense. Energy has no ground state!
> not all dark energy. Any energy that is below detectable frequency
Energy has in general no frequency.
> might be considered dark energy but I am referring to the most basic energy.
And what do you mean with "most basic energy"?
> If we trace the electromagnetic spectrum back in energy intensity
Make up your mind. Do you mean energy or intensity? You don't know
what the difference between those two terms is, right?
> to the lowest possible energy
As far as we know, there *is* no lowest possible energy in the
electromagnetic spectrum.
> it should be h without frequency or c without frequency
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> in principal. In other words if one could measure the
> energy of a photon that did not have frequency
Not possible. If there is no frequency, there is no wave, and
therefore there are no photons.
> but still moved at c, it should have an energy of only h
h is not an energy. Wrong units.
> because it is the extra momentum,
h is also not a momentum. Wrong units.
> relative mass,
h is also not a mass. Wrong units.
> and energy that is generated by frequency
Energy is not "generated" by frequency.
> that increases the energy to h x f.
You make no sense at all.
> I also say that the energy of c and h without frequency
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean? c and h are constants of
nature. They have neither a frequency not an energy!
> are the same because if all energy quanta have a constant
> energy level of h x the frequency
Not "energy level". Simply energy.
> and a constant speed of c regardless
> of frequency then if there is no frequency this basic constant
> foundation energy
What do you mean with "basic constant foundation energy"?
> upon which all other energy and rest mass particles are built
Huh???
> must be just h
Huh??? Again, h is not an energy!
> and move at the velocity of c without frequency.
How on Earth does that follow, in your opinion??????
> Furthermore it must also be the background basic dark energy
Do you have *any* clue what "dark energy" *actually* *means* in physics?
> upon which all other energy waves
What is an "energy wave"?
> and rest mass particles emerge from and are formed from.
> Thus they inherit this basic foundation energy
> that they are composed of,
What exactly is "inherit" supposed to mean here?
> and is the common denominator of them all as
> indeed all of them are composed of and measured as (h the common
> denominator) x (f the variable)
What on Earth is this supposed to mean?
> and furthermore all of them inherit the
> speed of light as a part of their makeup as in E=mc2
What has E=mc^2 to do with "the speed of light as a part of their makeup"?
> or m =E/c2.
Congratulations, you got that finally right.
> I consider an increase in frequency to be an increase in speed because
> as the photon or wave moves up and down or round and round,
Neither the photon nor the wave move up and down or round and round.
> which I
> have been referring to as the right angle frequency motion,
Why? What has that to do with frequency?
> or whatever
> form of oscillation it takes to move it more cycles per second, it is
> only logical to conclude that something is moving faster if it is
> making more cycles per second
Yes, there is something "moving" faster: in the case of
electromagnetic waves, the electric and magnetic fields are changing
faster. But that has *precisely* *nil* to do with the speed of the
wave!!!!! This is a "speed" in the direction *perpendicular* to the
direction in which the wave travels and hence has *nothing* to do with
the speed of the wave!!!!!
> and acquiring more energy as a result of it.
Wrong. That the electric and magnetic fields change faster in a wave
with higher frequency has precisely nil to do with the fact that the
photons associated with that wave have a higher energy.
> And this is true regardless if energy increase 2x or 4x each time
> frequency doubles.
No, this is false.
> I think that the most basic dark energy is the cosmological constant
Do you know what "cosmological constant" actually means in physics?
> because it is the background energy
What exactly do you mean with "background energy"?
> and the foundation of waves and
> rest mass particles, and because this background energy field is always
> there providing a constant expansive energy
What is "expansive energy"?
> as well as the foundation
> for the contracting energy of waves and rest mass particles
What is "contracting energy"?
> that are
> built on it. It is the source of these waves and rest mass particles
> and should not be out weighed or have less expansive energy than all
> the waves and rest mass particles have contracting energy. They should
> balance out as c in the centrifugal expansive direction
What is the "centrifugal expansive direction"?
> by c in the right angle frequency centripetal direction as c2.
What on Earth is this supposed to mean?
> The energy or centrifugal force
Make up your mind. Energy or centrifugal force?
> should equal and balance out the mass or centripetal
> force as in E = mc2
Why?
> and although they go back and forth, neither one
> should ultimately win the tug of war between them. And so the ultimate
> cosmological constant may be a universal pattern of
> expansion/contraction itself instead of an expansive or contractive
> force alone.
What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> Or maybe the expansive force should out weight the
> contracting force sense energy is more fundamental then matter.
So what??? What has that to do with the first half of the sentence?
> I do
> not know, but I think it is very interesting. The only point that I can
> confidently make here is that the cosmological constant, dark energy,
> and Planck's constant are related in the way I mentioned.
Your confidence is misplaced.
> This site
> equates cosmological constant and dark energy also.
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html#cosmology
This site does not "equate" them. It only points out that they are
related. In fact, it says that the cosmological constant is the
*density* of dark energy.
Do you know what "energy density" means in physics?
> See question-6 Is the Universe really full of dark energy? it states:
> The simplest model is a cosmological constant, meaning that so-called
> "empty" space actually has a negative pressure and positive energy
> density, with the pressure exactly equal to minus the energy density in
> units where the speed of light is 1.
Notice the term *density* in what you quoted.
> P.S. I know that Kepler's law of planetary motion is outdated
> concerning accurate measurement of orbiting electrons
Electrons do not orbit!
> but does it not
> still form the foundation upon which the newer theories are built?
No.
> According to principle of correspondences this can be used with the
> addition of the probability, uncertainty principle to make it more up
> to date.
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
> Also when I mentioned that my idea had no room for the ultra violet
> catastrophe I did not mean to suggest that it had not been addressed
> successfully already, only that it never even would have come up. And
> interestingly I found this on the web concerning the ultraviolet
> catastrophe
> http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.html
> It says that frequency diverges to v2 at high frequencies
No, it does *not* say that. Could you please try to improve your
reading comprehension skills?
It says that the *intensity of blackbody radiation* diverges *as*
nu^2; *not* that the *frequency* diverges *to* *v2*!
> and I
> understand that this was interpreted to mean that it would become
> infinite.
It would follow mathematically from this that the *total* energy
radiated away is infinite.
> But could it mean that frequency would round out as
> centripetal force is balanced by centrifugal force and the energy
> diverges into uniform circular motion or something analogous and
> corresponding to that?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS PLAIN UTTER NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!
You could as well say that "the sky is blue" means "the grass is
green"; the two statements have about as much to do with each other as
what the page says with your idea!
Could you *please*
1) try to learn a bit about equations, how to use them in physics, etc.?
2) improve your reading comprehension skills?
> Findings like this are an example of the
> coincidences that keep turning up.
What coincidences?????????
> I will address more questions later,
> after I consider them very carefully.
> The quantification of gravity can be stated in the same terms as the
> quantification of energy sense they are interchangeable.
No, energy and gravity are *not* interchangeable! Gravity is a
*force*! A force is not an energy!!!
> E=hf as G=hf or E=mc2 and M=E/c2 as G=E/c2 or G=m/c2,
These equations contradict each other.
Could you *please* learn how to deal with equations?
> but in order for this to be
> made clear I think that the foundation must be laid that gravity is
> inverted electromagnetism
And what on Earth does "inverted" mean here?
> and begins as soon as the speed of light surpasses c,
Plain utter nonsense. Gravity occurs for all speeds.
> if we include frequency as part of the speed.
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> Therefore gravity begins with frequency
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> and frequency begins when energy is added to c,
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> thereby causing energy to contract
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> because when the expansive centrifugal speed limit
What's that?
> of electromagnetism reaches its limit of c
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> all added energy causes contractive centripetal motion in the form of
> frequency,
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> just as when energy is added to electromagnetic waves moving
> at c this energy results in an increase frequency and inertia mass but
> no increase of speed along the light path.
Your "just as" makes absolutely no sense.
> Gravity is inverted electromagnetism.
And what on Earth is that supposed to mean?
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
frequency doubles. Could not find collaborating evidence and it did
begin to make sense if I considered that mass tends toward infinity as
it approached light speed for objects with rest mass but not for
photons, and so maybe that is the difference. I think that I confused
inverse proportion with inverse square. This is a learning experience
for me. I still think that photons can be considered to increase in
speed with increase in frequency but I will not argue that now. I did
though in my attempt to be precise and mathematical put together a
geometrical description of what I am trying to say.
http://emcsquare.net/c_as_a_vector_represented_by_one.htm
cjcountess
Nick
they are popping up along the wave this would
shift there mass around.
These jumps of mass would ultimately effect
gravity. I think this is quantum gravity.
cjcountess
cjcountess
MobyDikc
> My name is Conrad Countess
>
> I am an independent researcher who is convinced that he has unified
> quantum and general relativity theories. As it turns out matter is
> curved space-time even on the quantum level.
>
> Quantum Gravity in 3 steps
>
> 1. Assuming that energy is more basic than matter
Open question to anyone:
In your view of the universe, what does it mean to be more fundamental
and which is more fundamental, energy or matter?
daaldaroo Aum
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116877095.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Fundamental = a. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the
fundamental laws of the universe.
Energy is equivalent to matter, just a different form, E = M C^2 (a scalar
quantity)
energy can be described by Maxwell's equations, rather simply, matter
cannot.
Y.Porat
yet energy has mass!!
only idiots do not get it !!
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> This makes sense because gravity is accelerated motion
No, it isn't. It *causes* accelerated motion, and in some sense is
*equivalent* to it.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> I am conceding to your claim that energy only increases 2x each time
> frequency doubles. Could not find collaborating evidence
Thanks.
> and it did
> begin to make sense if I considered that mass tends toward infinity as
> it approached light speed for objects with rest mass but not for
> photons, and so maybe that is the difference.
Apparently you still have not understood the difference between rest
mass and relativistic mass.
> I think that I confused inverse proportion with inverse square.
I don't see any "inverse" in these problems. Only proportionalities
and squares.
> This is a learning experience
> for me. I still think that photons can be considered to increase in
> speed with increase in frequency but I will not argue that now.
Then you still think wrong. You have no clue what photons actually *are*.
> I did
> though in my attempt to be precise and mathematical put together a
> geometrical description of what I am trying to say.
> http://emcsquare.net/c_as_a_vector_represented_by_one.htm
c is a number, a scalar. You can't represent it as a vector, that makes
no sense! You could equally well say that a temperature of 10 degrees
Celsius is a vector, or that a mass of 1 kg is a vector!
What is "expansive centrifugal force"?
What center are you talking about?
"added energy to this basic centrifugal force": what does it mean to
add energy to a force? Apparently you have still not bothered to learn
what "energy" actually means in physics.
"energy ... goes into frequency": what is that supposed to mean?
"as waves that extend at a right angle": that statement makes no
sense. Apparently you still have not bothered to learn what "wave"
actually means in physics.
"contractive centripetal force": what is that supposed to mean?
I won't bother to go on; you simply make the same errors again and
again and again, and don't bother to take my advice: learning what the
terms you use actually mean, and how equations are actually used in
physics.
As long as you stubbornly refuse to get a *minimal* level of knowledge
about the things you talk about, I see no point in continuing this
discussion.
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
that where inaccurate and sometimes incorrect. But the main idea I
think is correct. I will adjust all of this because it is my mission to
present an acount of this idea in its most clear form.
Thank you
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> In my zeal to prove my point I admitt that I used words and definitions
> that where inaccurate and sometimes incorrect.
Thanks. Please learn what they actually mean, and then try again.
> But the main idea I think is correct.
You are not in the position to judge that. You are lacking the most
basic education in physics, math and logic.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
I stated that the speed of light moving away from a center in a
straight line with frequency of 1 is a vector because it has both
magnetude(the speed of light with frequency of 1), and direction (away
from a center as an expansive centrifugal force). I wanted to define it
as an expansive force directed away from a center and with a magnetude
of E=h*1 because I want to equate it with the cosmological constant,
Planck's constant,and the most basic dark energy at its lowest
frequency.
When I said that energy goes into frequency I meant that frequency
increases as energy increases.
Contractive centripital force simply means that the force pulls inward
toward a center. Sometimes gravity is referred to as a contractive or
cetripital force.
When I refered to waves extending at a right angle, I meant that in the
case of a wave stream traveling horrizontaly on a graph so to speak,
the frequency can be represented as extentions at a right angle or in
the vertical direction. I did not want to make it overly complex.
cjcountess
cjcountess
below, and if E=hf then E=h*1 must be that most basic dark energy and
also where energy, Planck's constant, and frequency are equivalent, and
if c=Lambda*f then if c= Lambda*1 then c= or is equivalent to, Lambda,
(which is sometimes reffered to as the cosmological constant), and
frequency at that point.
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> If there is a most basic energy, it must be at a frequency of 1
1 what? 1 Hertz? 1/min? 1/year?
****************************************
*********** U N I T S ! ! ! ************
****************************************
> or below,
Make up your mind. At 1 whatever, or below?
> and if E=hf then E=h*1 must be that most basic dark energy
h*1 gives simply h, not E. That's an action, not an energy.
****************************************
*********** U N I T S ! ! ! ************
****************************************
> and also where energy, Planck's constant, and frequency are equivalent,
What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> and if c=Lambda*f then if c= Lambda*1
Lambda*1 gives simply Lambda, not c. That's a wavelength, not a speed.
> then c= or is equivalent to, Lambda,
Non sequitur.
> (which is sometimes reffered to as the cosmological constant),
OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you *really* mean this sincerely?????
Just because the letter "lambda" is used in physics both for the
wavelength and for the cosmological constant does by no means imply
that the two are the same or equivalent!!!
BTW: didn't you notice that for the wavelength, one usually uses a
small Greek letter lambda, whereas for the cosmological constant, one
uses the capital Greek letter Lambda?
> and frequency at that point.
What means "frequency at a point"?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> A vector has both magnitude and direction.
Right. c has not direction, hence c is not a vector. It's that simple.
> I stated that the speed of light moving away from a center in a
> straight line with frequency of 1
1 what? 1 Hertz? 1/min? 1/year?
Don't you even know that physical quantities almost always have a
*unit* and aren't simply a dimensionsless number?
> is a vector because it has both
> magnetude(the speed of light with frequency of 1), and direction
But "the speed of light moving away from a center" makes no sense at all.
You could talk about the *velocitiy* of the light. Don't you know the
difference between "velocity" and "speed"?
> (away from a center as an expansive centrifugal force).
What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> I wanted to define it
> as an expansive force directed away from a center
You wanted to define *what* in this way? The speed of light??? A speed
is not a force!!!
> and with a magnetude of E=h*1
1) h*1 does not give E (an energy). It gives an action. For the 20th
time: ****** UNITS ****** !!!
2) An energy is not a force.
3) An energy is not a speed.
> because I want to equate it with the cosmological constant,
> Planck's constant,and the most basic dark energy
Bad idea. Why would one want to do something that nonsensical?
You *still* haven't learned what all these terms actually *mean*, right?
> at its lowest frequency.
What makes you think there *is* a lowest frequency?
> When I said that energy goes into frequency I meant that frequency
> increases as energy increases.
That's a very strange way to express that.
> Contractive centripital force simply means that the force pulls inward
> toward a center.
And which force are you talking about?
> Sometimes gravity is referred to as a contractive or cetripital force.
As a centripetal force, yes, very often. But I've *never* seen it
referred to as a "contractive" force.
> When I refered to waves extending at a right angle, I meant that in the
> case of a wave stream
What's a "wave stream"?
> traveling horrizontaly on a graph so to speak,
> the frequency can be represented as extentions at a right angle
No, it can't. What on Earth makes you think so? The extension at an
right angle represents the *amplitude*, not the frequency!
> or in
> the vertical direction. I did not want to make it overly complex.
You could at least try to make it *right*!
Bye,
Bjoern
Nick
they then are moving faster through some areas than
in others. So the probablity to find a particle is
linked to how much time the particle spends in any
particular place. Which is linked to how fast
the particle is moving.
This is my guess. But what I know for sure is
that particles spend more time in certain places
than in others.
I know where particles spend their time!
cjcountess
By frequency of one I mean longest possible wavelength on a cosmic
scale.
As far as using velocity of light instead of speed of light I will use
that if that is more correct.
I refered to gravity as a contractive force because it is said to be
attractive and when things attract the space between them contractes.
Also it is said that gravity contracts or pulls energy and matter into
smaller spaces: example black holes are said to be contracting matter.
When I speak of force, if f=ma, than whatever the energy of E=h*1
equals in mass can be multiplied by acceleration to get the force as I
am sure they have been translated into each other in events like the
photo electric effect.
As for the verticle lines representing frequency in the case of a
wavestream traveling horrizontaly, I admitt that they would also
represent amplitude by its verticle length but their very existence
would indicate the presence of waves orherwise there will only be a
straight line.
You say that E=h*1 is just h and represents an action and not a wave
with energy of h*1 as I see it. You also ask what makes me thimk that
there is a lowest possible energy. It just seems logical and
mathmaticle that if E=h*f at some point E=h*1. Also if one can imagine
the tracing of the expanding universe back in time to a point that
might indicate a Big Bang or other major event, why can't one imagine
tracing energy levels concerning wavelength and Plamck energy backward
to a point. Do you think that frequency and therfore wavelength are
infinite on both ends as some do? I can understand that but I do not
because as you know I think that c^2 represents a frequency where a
wave attains rest mass. And also if electromagnetic waves are created
by ocsillating massive particles while these particles cannot ocsillate
at ifinite speeds, that limits their size on the small end unless we
are talking about frequencies inside the atom and don't they also
correspond to motion of osillating massive particles. Shorter waves may
be related to the nucleus, but would you still call them
electromagnetic? And if they have a limit on the small end they may
also have one on the large end, that of E=h*1.
To prove that the cosmological constant, Planck's constant, and lowest
frequency wave are equivalent will not be easy but I think it can be
done in time .
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
[snip]
> By frequency of one I mean longest possible wavelength on a cosmic
> scale.
1) Why do you think there *is* a "longest possible wavelength"?
2) Why on earth do you use "frequency one" to denote that?
> As far as using velocity of light instead of speed of light I will use
> that if that is more correct.
Do you *really* not know what the difference between "speed" and
"velocity" is?
> I refered to gravity as a contractive force because it is said to be
> attractive
Right.
> and when things attract the space between them contractes.
Huh???
> Also it is said that gravity contracts or pulls energy and matter into
> smaller spaces:
Pulls, yes. Contracts?
> example black holes are said to be contracting matter.
No. Where did you get that from?
> When I speak of force, if f=ma, than whatever the energy of E=h*1
Could you *please* write this as something like E=h*f_0, where f_0 is
the (hypothetical!!!) frequency corresponding to this "longest
possible wavelength"? E=h*1 makes no sense, as I already explained.
> equals in mass
m = h*f_0/c^2.
That would be the *relativistic* mass of a photon of a wave with the
hypothetical "longest possible wavelength".
> can be multiplied by acceleration
By which acceleration?
> to get the force
Which force?
> as I am sure they have been translated into each other in events like the
> photo electric effect.
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
> As for the verticle lines representing frequency in the case of a
> wavestream traveling horrizontaly, I admitt that they would also
> represent amplitude
Not "also". *Only*.
> by its verticle length but their very existence
> would indicate the presence of waves orherwise there will only be a
> straight line.
Right. So what??? "they indicate the presence of waves" does in no way
imply "they represent frequency"!
> You say that E=h*1 is just h
Indeed. h multiplied by 1 *obviously* is just h.
> and represents an action and not a wave
> with energy of h*1 as I see it.
Indeed.
> You also ask what makes me thimk that
> there is a lowest possible energy. It just seems logical
> and mathmaticle that if E=h*f at some point E=h*1.
For the 5th time, at least: E=h*1 makes no sense. 1 what? 1 Hz?
1 /min? 1/year?
************************************
********** U N I T S ! ! ! *********
************************************
> Also if one can imagine
> the tracing of the expanding universe back in time to a point that
> might indicate a Big Bang or other major event, why can't one imagine
> tracing energy levels concerning wavelength and Plamck energy backward
> to a point.
Err, because energy levels are not something spatial???
Because energy levels and the Planck energy have precisely nothing to
do with the expansion of the universe???
> Do you think that frequency and therfore wavelength are
> infinite on both ends as some do?
There is nothing known so far that would indicate otherwise, so that
looks like a sensible assumption.
> I can understand that but I do not
> because as you know I think that c^2 represents a frequency
*sigh*
************************************
********** U N I T S ! ! ! *********
************************************
> where a wave attains rest mass.
Frequencies are measured in Hertz. Please express c^2 in Hertz. Give
a number.
> And also if electromagnetic waves are created
> by ocsillating massive particles while these particles cannot ocsillate
> at ifinite speeds, that limits their size on the small end unless we
> are talking about frequencies inside the atom and don't they also
> correspond to motion of osillating massive particles.
But electromagnetic waves are not created only by oscillating massive
particles. They are created by any accelerated charge. The energy of
the created photons can be up to the energy of the moving charge. Read
up on "bremsstrahlung".
> Shorter waves may
> be related to the nucleus, but would you still call them
> electromagnetic?
Yes! Gamma rays are still electromagnetic radiation!
> And if they have a limit on the small end they may
> also have one on the large end, that of E=h*1.
*sigh*
> To prove that the cosmological constant, Planck's constant, and lowest
> frequency wave are equivalent will not be easy but I think it can be
> done in time.
You can't prove something that makes no sense.
What you are attempting to do is equivalent to trying to prove 2=3.
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
Are you saying that E=h*f_1 is better to use than E=h*1? I have no
problem using that if it will make things more clear. You ask: "one
cycle per what unite?" and I say whatever will still allow it to
maintain an energy of E=h*f_1 or 1 Planck unite. I still say that E=hf
= E=cf because h and c are both constants that give waves energy.
Planck's constant and the speed of light in its forward direction--->
are both multiplied by the frequency to give it energy strength. They
are equivalent. So are c and the lowest frequency before it is
multiplied by anything above 1 as long as it has a Planct energy of 1.
And on a graph with 1 horizontal line representing the speed and
direction of light, that line could also represent Planck's constant.
And verticle lines could represent the number of waves and or
frequency. And their intersection could represent divisions of c^2. And
so to bring things back into perspective of quantum gravity in 3 steps:
The horizontal and verticle lines representing steps 1 and 2, and when
the vertical energy equals the horizontal energy that is c^2, Planck's
constant x Planck's constant or c x c, and can be represented by a
circle or something analogous to the speed of light in uniform circular
motion and is step 3.
c-|--|--|--|--|->c^2 Rest mass=0=c^2
cjcountess
cjcountess
Cjcountess
cjcountess
equivelent to Planck's constant. That all mass is realy relativistic
mass. And that rest mass is also relativistic mass that is balenced
around a center of rotation. And its inner accelerated motion of
rotation resist outer attempts to accelerate its outer motion. Like
hitting a high velocity rotating object will cause it to resist you all
around and just like a helicopter aquires a relative stillness or hover
effect by this same principle, particles may obtain rest mass and
resistence from high velocity rotary motion.
cjcountess
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> If there is a most basic energy, it must be at a frequency of 1 or
Others have already made this point, but perhaps it will help
to hear it explained slightly differently.
Suppose I told you, "The shortest distance in the universe must be 1."
You would ask -- quite rightly -- "One what? One mile? One inch?
One nanometer?"
If I were to reply, say, "One nanometer," you could ask -- again
quite rightly -- "Why should the fundamental physics of the
universe care about a French survey of the size of the Earth
or the fact that humans have ten fingers?" (The meter was based
on a late 18th century survey to determine the length of one
degree of latitude. The fact that we use powers of ten -- a
nanometer is 1/1000000000 meters -- comes from the fact that we
have ten fingers.)
The same is true of frequency. Frequency has units -- cycles per
second, or per day, or per femtosecond, or ... So when you say
"a frequency of 1 or below," it's my turn to ask, "One what?"
And if you say, for instance, "One femtosecond," it's my turn to
ask, "Why should the fundamental physics of the universe care
about the fact that the Babylonians used a number system based
on 60 [that's why sixty seconds to a minute, etc.], or about the
rotation of the Earth, or about, again, the fact that humans have
ten fingers?"
Steve Carlip
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Suppose that the only true invarient or constant mass is that
> equivelent to Planck's constant.
What is "mass equivalent to Planck's constant" supposed to mean?
> That all mass is realy relativistic mass.
Such an assumption makes no sense, since relativistic mass is
*defined* as mass due to motion. So if something does not move, it has
only rest mass. It's that simple.
> And that rest mass is also relativistic mass that is balenced
> around a center of rotation.
"balanced"?????
> And its inner accelerated motion of
> rotation resist outer attempts to accelerate its outer motion.
How?
> Like
> hitting a high velocity rotating object will cause it to resist you all
> around and just like a helicopter aquires a relative stillness or hover
> effect by this same principle,
I have not the faintest clue what you are talking about.
> particles may obtain rest mass and
> resistence from high velocity rotary motion.
By chance, you got this *very* vaguely right. Actually, a lot of the
mass of hadrons is due to internal motions.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
[snip]
> Are you saying that E=h*f_1 is better to use than E=h*1?
Yes!!!
UNITS!!!
How often do I have to repeat that???
> I have no
> problem using that if it will make things more clear. You ask: "one
> cycle per what unite?" and I say whatever will still allow it to
> maintain an energy of E=h*f_1 or 1 Planck unite.
What on earth is "1 Planck unit"?
> I still say that E=hf
> = E=cf because h and c are both constants that give waves energy.
Plain nonsense. Neither h nor c "give waves energy". They are merely
used in *formulas* for *calculating* energies. Don't you see the
difference???
Additionally, E=hf and E=cf taken together imply h=c.
Do you *really* want to say that
6.626 * 10^(-35) J s = 3 * 10^8 m/s?
If yes, do you also say that 2=3?
Additionally, E=cf does not work due to the
***************************************************************
***********U***U*****NN**N*****I*****TTTTT******SSSS***********
***********U***U*****NN**N*****I*******T*******S***************
***********U***U*****N*N*N*****I*******T********SSS************
***********U***U*****N**NN*****I*******T***********S***********
************UUU******N**NN*****I*******T*******SSSS************
***************************************************************
Say, how often do I need to repeat that?
> Planck's constant and the speed of light in its forward direction--->
*sigh* A speed does not have a direction.
> are both multiplied by the frequency to give it energy strength.
What on earth is "energy strength", and when is Planck's constant ever
multiplied by the speed of light?
> They are equivalent.
In no way.
> So are c and the lowest frequency
What makes you think there is one?
> before it is
> multiplied by anything above 1 as long as it has a Planct energy of 1.
Incomprehensible word salad.
> And on a graph with 1 horizontal line representing the speed and
> direction of light, that line could also represent Planck's constant.
WHY????????
> And verticle lines could represent the number of waves and or
> frequency.
NO!!!!!!!!!!
The vertical lines represent the *amplitude*!!! They have *nothing*
to do with the *frequency*!!!
> And their intersection could represent divisions of c^2.
WHY????????
> And so to bring things back into perspective of quantum gravity in 3 steps:
You have not the *faintest* clue what "quantum gravity" actually means.
> The horizontal and verticle lines representing steps 1 and 2, and when
> the vertical energy equals the horizontal energy that is c^2, Planck's
> constant x Planck's constant or c x c, and can be represented by a
> circle or something analogous to the speed of light in uniform circular
> motion and is step 3.
Word salad. Gibberish.
> c-|--|--|--|--|->c^2 Rest mass=0=c^2
0=c^2 is plain utter nonsense. Even you should be able to see that.
Or do you also say 0=1?
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
verticle lines.
--------------------------->
Horrizontal line represent centrifugal force or energy moving away
from a souce in direction of arrow at c
-------------|-------|----|--|-|->
Vertical lines represent centripital force or energy moving in tighter
and tighter cycles per sec depending on energy, mass.
Verticle lines represent frequency and waves because they represent the
horrizontal line devided, or c / wavelength = frequency.
Sense photons have momentum in the direction of their motion with
energy depending on Planck's constant x frequency, the horrizontal line
which represents c or the constant speed of light, can also represent
Planck's constant, both which might be considered the constant
direction of force? Sense both Planck's constant and c or the constant
speed of light along the horizontal line, give photons momentum in that
direction and are constants , they are equivalent and the common
denominator in both equations E=hf and E=cf. Both contribute to the
momentum in the direction of motion by a constant amount that is
intensified by the frequency.
Also sense the lowest frequency, longest wave must still have those
same constants with a minimum frequency and predominant constant
centrfugal force of c or h, this background dark energy which has also
been identified with the cosmological constant expansive force may also
be equivalent to c or h at lowest possible frequency whatever that is.
Tracing energy back in frequency seems to lead to a pure centrifugal
energy without frequency which seems to provide the basis for the
buildup of frequency and centripital force. Thus the metaphor of waves
emerging as disturbances of a field and the lake analogy.
The 0 in 0 = rest mass was meant to be a symbol of a circle not zero
and there is evidence that rest mass is relitivistic mass, will get
back to you with it.
cjcountess
cjcountess
cjcountess
cjcountess
See this:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
Does mass change with velocity?
At the end of the paper there is an addendum which contains:
"Looking at this relativistic version of F = ma, we might say that when
the (invariant) mass m appears, it's accompanied by a factor of ?, so
that really it is the relativistic mass that's appearing. Isn't this
then, a good reason why we might want to give the notion of
relativistic mass more credence? Perhaps. But notice that now the
acceleration is not necessarily parallel to the force that produced it.
It's not hard to see from the above equations that it's easier to
accelerate a mass sideways to its motion, than it is to accelerate it
in the direction of its motion. So now, if we still want to maintain
some meaning for relativistic mass, then we'll have to realise that it
has a directional dependence--as if the object somehow has more mass in
the direction of its motion, than it has sideways. Evidently the idea
of relativistic mass is becoming a little more complicated than at
first we might have hoped! And this is another reason why, in the end,
it's so much easier to just take the mass to be the invariant quantity
m, and to put any directional information into a separate, matrix,
factor."
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Breaking waves down into two components represented by horrizontal and
> verticle lines.
> --------------------------->
> Horrizontal line represent centrifugal force or energy moving away
> from a souce in direction of arrow at c
The first part is plain utter nonsense. The horizontal line has
*nothing* to do with a force, centrifugal or otherwise. It simply
represents the direction in which the wave is travelling. Thereby, it
also represent the direction in which the energy is moving; you got
that part right.
You *do* know what "force" actually means in physics, don't you?
You *do* know what "energy" actually means in physics, don't you?
You *do* know how the two are related, don't you?
> -------------|-------|----|--|-|->
> Vertical lines represent centripital force or energy moving in tighter
> and tighter cycles per sec depending on energy, mass.
Plain utter nonsense. The vertical lines represent the amplitude of
the wave.
They have nothing at all to do with any forces, nor with any energy
movement.
> Verticle lines represent frequency
No, they don't. They represent *amplitude*.
Could you *please* try to get at least the *most* *basic* things
right? Come on, this is high school physics, at best!
> and waves because they represent the horrizontal line devided,
Huh?
> or c / wavelength = frequency.
Indeed. But what has that to do with what you said above???
> Sense photons have momentum in the direction of their motion with
> energy depending on Planck's constant x frequency,
Right.
> the horrizontal line which represents c or the constant speed of light,
It doesn't. It represents the *direction* of motion, nothing more.
> can also represent
> Planck's constant,
That's a complete *non sequitur*.
> both which might be considered the constant direction of force?
No. There is no force involved here.
> Sense both Planck's constant and c or the constant
> speed of light along the horizontal line, give photons momentum in that
> direction
They don't.
> and are constants, they are equivalent
That's a complete *non sequitur*.
> and the common
> denominator in both equations E=hf and E=cf.
The second equation is utter nonsense and makes not the slightest bit
of sense, as I explained now about 10 times. Don't you listen at all?
> Both contribute to the
> momentum in the direction of motion by a constant amount that is
> intensified by the frequency.
Plain nonsense.
> Also sense the lowest frequency
You still have not explained why you think that this exists.
> longest wave must still have those
> same constants with a minimum frequency and predominant constant
> centrfugal force of c or h,
Neither c nor h have anything to do with a force, centrifugal or not.
> this background dark energy which has also
> been identified with the cosmological constant expansive force may also
> be equivalent to c or h at lowest possible frequency whatever that is.
Gibberish. Word salad. Plain utter nonsense. One of the greatest non
sequiturs I've ever seen.
You *still* have not the *faintest* clue how physics actually works,
how one derives equations, how one arrives at logical conclusions,
etc. You only have some gut feelings "that resembles that, that is
related to that, that has to do with that" and from that jump to the
totally unwarranted conclusion "that is identical to that", without
bothering to actually learn something about logic, math and physics first.
> Tracing energy back in frequency seems to lead to a pure centrifugal
> energy
"centrifugal energy" makes no sense at all.
> without frequency
Without frequency, there is no energy left in the wave. There is not
even a wave left.
> which seems to provide the basis for the
> buildup of frequency and centripital force.
Non sequiturs.
> Thus the metaphor of waves
> emerging as disturbances of a field and the lake analogy.
That's not a metaphor, that's actually true. But you manage to garble
this picture totally.
> The 0 in 0 = rest mass was meant to be a symbol of a circle not zero
Well, a circle also is not equal to c^2. Even you should be able to
see that.
You apparently fail to understand what "=" actually means in
equations. You seem to think it means something like "has to do with"
or "is related to". It doesn't. It means *is equal*. "equal" as in
1=1. Not as in 0=1.
> and there is evidence that rest mass is relitivistic mass,
In some very special cased, yes. Not the ones you mentioned. And you
wouldn't recognize evidence if it bit your nose.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Evidence that rest mass is relitivistic mass?
>
> See this:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
>
> Does mass change with velocity?
I know that page quite well, thanks. Don't you remember that it was me
who gave you this link?
> At the end of the paper there is an addendum which contains:
>
> "Looking at this relativistic version of F = ma, we might say that when
> the (invariant) mass m appears, it's accompanied by a factor of ?, so
> that really it is the relativistic mass that's appearing. Isn't this
> then, a good reason why we might want to give the notion of
> relativistic mass more credence? Perhaps. But notice that now the
> acceleration is not necessarily parallel to the force that produced it.
> It's not hard to see from the above equations that it's easier to
> accelerate a mass sideways to its motion, than it is to accelerate it
> in the direction of its motion. So now, if we still want to maintain
> some meaning for relativistic mass, then we'll have to realise that it
> has a directional dependence--as if the object somehow has more mass in
> the direction of its motion, than it has sideways. Evidently the idea
> of relativistic mass is becoming a little more complicated than at
> first we might have hoped! And this is another reason why, in the end,
> it's so much easier to just take the mass to be the invariant quantity
> m, and to put any directional information into a separate, matrix,
> factor."
Right. Why on earth do you think this supports your assertion that
rest mass is relitivistic mass in any way??? It does do that in no way!
Could you please try improving your reading comprehension skills?
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
that you are thinking to rigidly. But that is ok. It just gives us more
exercise in communication
1.The constant velocity of light exerting a centrifugal force in the
direction of motion can also represent Cosmological constant, Dark
Energy, and Planck's constant and is
represented by horizontal line.
-----------------------------------------> c
2.Constant velocity of light times the frequency oscillation
represented by vertical line multiplies energy in direction of motion
as E=cf or E=hf until it reaches E=cc or E=c^2
| < represents vertical motion
3.cc or c^2 results in something analogous to" the velocity of light in
uniform circular motion" and "rest mass", and can be represented by a
circle O. This exerts energy, relative mass, and momentum in direction
of motion around a center of rotation and results in rest mass..
>From here the Universe is built up in multiples and divisions of c^2.
I think that the reason this was not seen before is that c^2 has never
been seen as the velocity of light in some sort of uniform circular
motion and rest mass is not seen as relativistic mass equally
distributed around a center of rotation on the quantum level.
The basic idea is correct with the details to be made more accurate and
the criticism will only help.
Eventually I want to be able to explain this idea with one horizontal
line, one vertical line, and a circle.
cjcountess
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> To me it is becoming clearer and clearer not only that I am right but
> that you are thinking to rigidly.
And to me it is very clear now that you are a total crackpot with no
clue of physics, math and logic, but with a totally inflated ego and
arrogance. Any discussion with you is pointless. You simply ignore the
arguments and repeat your nonsense again and again.
<http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html>
[snip nonsense]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> 1.The constant velocity of light exerting a centrifugal force in the
> direction of motion
Nonsensical statement.
1) A velocity does not exert a centrifugal force.
2) Centrifugal forces are not in the direction of motion, but
perpendicular to it, and occurs only for curved motions (and are only
pseudo-forces).
> can also represent Cosmological constant, Dark
> Energy, and Planck's constant
Plain utter nonsense, as I explained in detail several times now. You
keep ignoring the arguments.
> and is represented by horizontal line.
> -----------------------------------------> c
A horizontal arrow, you mean.
> 2.Constant velocity of light times the frequency oscillation
> represented by vertical line
The vertical lines do not represent frequency. How often do I need to
repeat that basic, obvious fact?
> multiplies energy in direction of motion
Meaningless statement. Saying that something "multiplies energy" makes
little sense, and energy has no direction, so saying "energy in
direction of motion" makes no sense.
> as E=cf
That equation
1) is wrong due to the units
2) contradicts observations
3) has nothing to do with what you said directly before ("constant
velocity of light time the frequency oscillation multiplies energy")
> or E=hf
E=hf is right. E=cf is wrong.
> until it reaches E=cc or E=c^2
That equation
1) is wrong due to units
2) contradicts observations
3) has nothing to do with what you said directly before (how on earth
could E=cf or E=hf "reach" E=cc ???)
> | < represents vertical motion
You conveniently ignore that in most waves (like e.g. electromagnetic
waves), there is not really something material moving perpendicular to
the direction of wave propagation.
> 3.cc or c^2 results in something analogous to" the velocity of light in
> uniform circular motion"
Plain utter bullshitting nonsense.
> and "rest mass",
Plain utter bullshitting nonsense.
> and can be represented by a circle O.
Plain utter bullshitting nonsense.
> This exerts energy, relative mass, and momentum in direction
> of motion around a center of rotation
c^2 is a constant of nature squared. This cannot "exert" anything.
And: "momentum in direction of motion around a center of rotation"
makes no sense at all.
>and results in rest mass..
Plain utter bullshitting nonsense.
> From here the Universe is built up in multiples and divisions of c^2.
Meaningsless, nonsensical statement. Most things in the universe
are *not* multiples or divisions of c^2.
> I think that the reason this was not seen before is that c^2 has never
> been seen as the velocity of light in some sort of uniform circular
> motion
Because that's plain utter bullshitting nonsense.
> and rest mass is not seen as relativistic mass equally
I already told you that in some special circumstances, *not* the ones
which you talked about, rest mass is partly due to relativistic mass.
> distributed around a center of rotation on the quantum level.
Meaningsless, nonsensical statement.
You have no clue what "quantum" actually means.
> The basic idea is correct
No, it is plain utter bullshitting nonsense.
> with the details to be made more accurate and the criticism will only help.
It would help even more if you would learn the most basic things about
physics.
> Eventually I want to be able to explain this idea with one horizontal
> line, one vertical line, and a circle.
Give up. You are only going deeper and deeper into crankdom.
Bye,
Bjoern
cjcountess
thinking outside the box. Centrifugal force as I am using it simply
means a force exerted away from a center. You made your point that you
don't agree with the main idea of c^2 being energy in uniform
circular motion with a rest mass, and that's fine with me Why are you
taking this so personally? The theory should stand or fall on its own
merit. Just what is your interest in this nitpicking unless you are
some sort of theory assassin that shoots down any theory that threatens
the economic funding of your theory of interest? Or do those types of
people even exist? I don't know how much simpler I can make it but
you are so stuck on the precise definitions of terms and you should be
a linquistic analysist.
The photoelectric effect showed that photons exert pressure in the
direction of their motion and that the higher the frequency the higher
the pressure. It was determined that the photon energy included a
constant, Planck's constant, and a variable, the frequency. Earlier
it was determined that the speed of light was constant regardless of
frequency. I am just saying that if frequency is what determines the
change in energy while something in the photon remains constant, if you
take away the frequency in both situations you are left with two
constants, the Planck's constant and the constant velocity of light.
The pressure exerted by the constant velocity of a photon minus the
frequency must be that of Planck's constant.. And thus they must
share equivalence. I chose to represent that constant with a horizontal
line, the frequency with vertical lines and c^2 and rest mass with a
circle. This makes things simple. Do you have anything against
simplicity?
My position is still the same, c^2 on the quantum level is the velocity
of light in uniform circular motion or something corresponding and
analogous to it and is also rest mass. It also bridges the gap between
relative and rest mass, electromagnetism and gravity, and energy and
matter in a new way And if the background energy field permeates all of
space or is indistinguishable from space itself, and if energy can be
quantified, than that space can be quantified. If all mass is relative
including rest mass and is generated by accelerated motion and if
gravity itself is generated by accelerated motion it too can be
quantified along the same lines as the energy and rest mass, in
multiples and divisions of c^2.
Cjcountess
cjcountess
to formulates the general theory first and work out the details later?
We are in direct opposition. I am not going to address every little
thing that you disagree with because if I did I would always be on the
defensive and never get to say anything new. I do find value in your
criticism but not in your intense emotional opposition that I think is
blinding your vision. I will address the rest mass as relative mass
idea and the idea that the only invariant mass may be the same
invariant energy or Planck's constant translated to invariant mass,
E=hf/c^2 = m=hf/c^2 where hf/c^2 is the common element. I was already
familiar with the website, "Does mass change with velocity", and
would like to point out that even though the author advocates
separating rest mass from relative mass, he admits that looking at the
relativistic version of F=ma, invariant mass could be interpreted as
relative mass also but that it would requires extra calculations
because we would have to include the directional dependency of relative
mass and this is why it may be better not to. The reason he gave was to
reduce complexity as a sort of fudge factor, not because relative mass
and rest mass are not the same.
And look at the equation E=hf/c^2 at some point at the high end E must
equal Planck's constant times a frequency that is equal to c^2.
Therefore c^2 must correspond to a frequency. I say it is a frequency
resulting in rotating energy. And because relative mass has a
directional dependency, when it is channeled into a sort of uniform
circular motion, it acquires the properties attribute to rest mass.
cjcountess
cjcountess
Saying that energy increases 4x each time frequency doubles instead of
2 was perhaps my greatest blunder. Still I think that an increase in
frequency is equivalent to an increase in photon speed because it does
lead to an increase in energy and mass among other things. And I do
stand by, "Quantum Gravity in 3 steps", and think that it is important
to cultivate these in their simplest and clearest form.
1. Dark energy in ground state at lowest frequency should move in
straight line as pure centrifugal force with velocity of c and energy
of h before frequency. The velocity of light away from a center of
origin, as an expansive centrifugal force, exerting force in the
direction of motion can also represent; Cosmological Constant, Dark
Energy, and Planck's Constant.
Represented by a straight horrizontal unwavered line.
-----------------------------------------> c
2. As frequency builds, the mass-energy increase with waves of
centripital force along the straight unwaved line of the centrifugal
force, inversely proportional to the wavelength and with the strength
of E = hf / c^2 and m = hf / c^2. When it reaches the velocity of
light in the frequency oscillation direction this is c^2.
Waves are represented by vertical lines
|
3. At c^2 something analogous to" the speed of light in uniform
circular motion" and "rest mass",
is attained.
Represented by a circle or
O.
Therefore we can represent the whole idea this way
c------------------|------------------|--------|--|-|>c^2 = O
Straight horrizontal line represents velocity of light, dark energy,
cosmological constant, Planck's constant.
Vertical lines represent frequency as divisions of c^2
c^2=O=Rest mass
I would like to also clarify that sense gravity is built upon the
background dark energy field as a result of extra energy added to it,
gravity feeds on and depends on the background dark energy field and
the cosmological constant as a medium of resistence and should not have
more weight than its source. Therefore gravity should not cancel out
this cosmological constant, which if it exhausted, the gravity itself
would be exhausted. Gravity is inverted electromagnetism and sits on
top of the cosmological constant or background dark electromagnetic
energy. Also it is this background dark energy and common denominator
that provides the basic energy, mass and resistence equal to Planck's
constant, as an invariable constant energy and mass that is the common
denominator of all energy waves and rest mass particles.
After c^2 an increase in energy must lead to an even greater
contraction of energy and mass as a particle with energy rotation in a
circular motion might produce an expanding and contracting vortex of
energy, analogous to water being stired in a glass or other closed
container. This may lead to energy moving at speeds way beyond that of
light such as c^2 squared and the production of even more massive
particles.
The speed limit of light in all directions seems to shape the energy
into waves, rest mass and more massive particles. The speed limit of
light in the centrifugal direction forces energy into the frequency or
centripital direction, the speed limit of light in that centripetal
frequency direction forces energy into this circular motion and rest
mass direction, and furthermore the speed limit of light in this
circular rest mass direction forces energy into an inward vortex
direction.
Cjcountess
cjcountess
Simularity between my theory and Higgs theory in Scientific American:
Again I show my lack of mathematical sophistication by stating that the
background dark energy is the common denominator of all waves and rest
mass particles that arise from it. I would have been more accurate to
say that it is the common element instead of denominator although I am
sure that people reading this know what I meant. The fact is that it is
the common element and the foundation from which all waves and rest
mass particles emerge, move, and have their being as well as gain their
mass. This brings me to a comparison of my description of the
background dark energy field and the description of the Higgs field
that appeared in the Scientific American magazine for July 2005, page
41, "The Mysteries of Mass".
In it they give a description of the Higgs field, the search for the
Higgs boson as well as two diagrams that I think correspond very well
with my own. In it they draw two diagrams with a straight horizontal
line representing the basic field strength of an electromagnetic and
Higgs field, and a vertical line representing energy levels. I too use
such a diagram for the background energy field, which I think, can
represent both the electromagnetic and the Higgs field. (Refer to my
diagrams above and on my links and theirs on page 43 of the magazine to
see the similarities). In mine the horizontal line represents a ground
state energy level of Planck's constant and the constant speed of
light before frequency is factored in. It can also represent the
cosmological constant as a purely centrifugal force before centripetal
force of frequency is factored in. And the vertical line or lines
represents different levels of frequency between c and c^2. Theirs did
not however include a circle representing rest mass at c^2 like mine. I
used these to describe a much simpler explanation of how waves emerge
from this field and acquire mass and rest mass.
It is the speed limit of light itself in the centrifugal linier
direction of the background dark energy field that already moves at c
with a field strength of h that causes any extra energy to be channeled
into the frequency direction in quantum increments of E=hf/c^2 or
E=cf/c^2, and the same speed limit of light in the frequency direction
that channels energy into something analogous to uniform circular
motion at c^2. I once used the analogy of a bullet being fired into
water or sand and mushroomed by the drag against this background medium
that it is traveling through. Extra energy traveling through the
background energy field with its imposed speed limit of c in each of
the stated directions will cause that energy to be shaped into waves
when its energy is above c and rest mass particles when its energy is
c^2 as it is shaped against the speed barrier, according to energy
levels. When energy is added to electromagnetism it results in an
increase in frequency but no addition to the speed of light in the
centrifugal linier direction and this is what I mean by energy above c.
And likewise when the speed in the frequency direction reaches c just
like the speed in the linier direction I believe that the centrifugal
and cetripetal speeds will be balenced and the energy will attaine
something analogous to the velocity of light in uniform circular motion
and will attain rest mass.
The problem is how can this be verified by observation.
Cjcountess