The true nature of motion

[greysky]

Well, it's been around 6 months since my last post on my discoveries on the
nature of motion. Has anyone come up with any other ideas? We've discussed
how Zeno's paradox basically proves continuous motion is impossible. OK, so
something else must be up with that because obviously motion of some type
does occur. My studies in superluminal communications has shed some light
on the way objects in this universe move from point to point, and it has
yielded up some surprises to say the least. The best way to show what is
happening is to limit this discussion to a single particle moving at a
constant rate in a space devoid of other forces and fields that can perturb
its motion. So lets say there is a single electron moving past your
detecting apparatus at a leisurely slow pace of 1 meter per hour - the
actual number isn't really important, just that there is some motion that
you can detect. Now, in front of this slow particle we place the opening of
a wormhole we manage to create, and place enough sensors around this opening
so we can measure the total energy of space - by total energy I mean the
kinetic energy, potential energy, and vacuum energy. The electron moves into
position and as soon as it interacts with the opening - the event horizon of
the wormhole, it disappears, and instantly reappears at the exit point of
the wormhole some relativistic distance away from where it began its
journey, apparently moving faster than light speed in the process. Though
you can see all this and at first glance it seems pretty straightforward,
only upon examining your readouts of the energy levels of the space
immediately in front of the event horizon, you begin to get puzzled because
you don't get what you think you ought to be getting. Indeed, the energy
levels never even shifted from straight-line. There was no deviation,
meaning that the energy level of the area containing the wormhole and
electron was always constant, no matter what was happening. Vacuum
energy+kinetic energy+potential energy never deviated from unity. In other
words, before the electron entered the area under test, E(v)+E(k)+E(p)=1.
When the electron entered the area under test, E(v)+E(k)+E(p)=1 also, and
even after the electron teleported. Even more simply, Total Energy *always*
equaled to unity. The same thing for the exit point to the wormhole, Total
energy never shifted, even though an electron *seemed* to exit the event
horizon and continue on its merry way.

So, any ideas as to what's going on? And before anyone says this is just a
gedanken, I guess I've just revealed one more small secret concerning the
nature of the quantum communications device I developed 12 years ago and
have been experimenting with ever since - I found a way to generate a type
of wormhole that I can send low energy particles, mostly electrons, but also
a few high(er) energy hydrogen nuclei (in the form of 238U decay products) ,
through, at apparently superluminal speeds. I have to admit, wormholes are
fun to play with ! One final hint: The results begin to make a kind of sense
if you take into account energy conservation. The universe will not allow
energy to move faster than the speed of light - but then what does that say
about motion? How can something, namely our afore-mentioned electron move
FTL but not the energy that makes it up? How can motion be more
'fundamental' than energy??

Greysky

www.ftlsite.com
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

[Inertial]

"greysky" wrote in message news:4eae...@news.x-privat.org...

>
>Well, it's been around 6 months since my last post on my discoveries on the
>nature of motion. Has anyone come up with any other ideas? We've discussed
>how Zeno's paradox basically proves continuous motion is impossible.

Utter crap

[snip rest of utter crap]

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/30/11 10:57 PM, greysky wrote:
> Well, it's been around 6 months since my last post on my discoveries on
> the nature of motion. Has anyone come up with any other ideas? We've
> discussed how Zeno's paradox basically proves continuous motion is
> impossible.

That's really sad you don't understand Zeno's paradox and realize
that *continuous motion is observed* in nature.

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

I was "always" told the resolution of Zeno was a matter of having to
prove even an infinite series can converge. His problem involved a simple
geometric series that now every child knows converges to unity.
(I.e. is 0.111111... in binary a finite number or not?).

--
[Tautology 101:]
As noted, the USA is big, and not monolithic in its behavior.
-- John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>, 27 Feb 2011 15:13 -0800

[greysky]

It would be more accurate to say that *motion is observed in nature*,
Sam. Otherwise, what proofs can you offer to show motion is truly
continuous? What apparatus has that kind of resolution?

G-

[Sam Wormley]

Similarly, what apparatus (or even theory) shows that motion is
in steps?

[jon car]

Kinetic means time energy.
There is nonkinetic and kinetic mass or point energy.
Total energy can be conserved with more kinetic energy in fall.

Mitchell Raemsch

[greysky]

Every journey begins with the first step. When I began this strange
journey, all I wanted to do was make a better alternative to Ham
(amateur) radio. I never dreamed my researches would give me insights
into how objects and information, propagated in this universe. From
where I am now, I find it amazing we have accomplished as much as we
have with what amounts to incomplete theories - but the incompleteness
gives rise to apparent paradoxes and unanswered questions. For example,
a bridge between quantum theory and relativity is the law of energy
conservation. Relativity says energy can't move FTL for large scale
measurements, and quantum theory is saying the same thing for small
scale measurements. At this level , they are both equivalent.

Wormholes, I have found by direct measurement, do not work the way
theoreticians think they do - Sci -fi wormholes, or Michio Kaku
wormholes do not exist. Energy does not pass through them. In fact, if
any energy tries to cross the event horizon of a wormhole, it becomes
unstable and collapses. So, wormholes turn out to be easy to make in
great quantities, but they do not last long at all. The random energy in
the environment collapses them and doesn't allow material objects to to
through them. But that doesn't mean they are totally useless. I
recognize them for what strengths and weaknesses they have, and have
found a way to increase the length of time they exist to the point where
I can incorporate them in various experiments. One result: FTL motion is
possible without violating conservation laws, because the only thing
that can pass through the event horizon of a wormhole is imaginary
(read: quantum) information. In my previous post showing the electron
encountering the event horizon of the wormhole, the quantum information
representing the electron passed through the wormhole, while the real
energy the electron was made form caused it (the wormhole) to collapse.
This happens all the time in nature, which only results in the
instantaneous propagation of random information. By lengthening the time
wormholes can exist in a carefully prepared quantum domain, I can use
them to send non-random information. One of the results I have found is
that motion is not continuous if you just logically extend the example
in my first post you will see where I am leading to. If you can't, wait
till I post the second part of the experiment. So, one clue I can offer
now is this: all motion in this universe is superluminal and
non-continuous - this leads directly from the law of conservation of
energy. Continuous motion would violate this law. But, while motion may
be faster than light, the *results* of motion are always slower than light.

So, to answer your question, I guess I am creating the theory right
now... as far as the device I am using, I call my little FTL propagation
machine QTEC. It's an acronym and it stands for Quantum Transition Event
Communications, and no, it really isn't a radio...

[Androcles]

"greysky" <ftl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4eae...@news.x-privat.org...

| Well, it's been around 6 months since my last post on my discoveries on
the
| nature of motion.

Bwahahahaha!
As nobody has the slightest interest in your crackpottery, build your own
moving ftl radio.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

greysky <ftl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

4eae...@news.x-privat.org

> Well, it's been around 6 months since my last post on my
> discoveries on the nature of motion. Has anyone come up with any
> other ideas?

Other ideas than Zeno's and Aristotle's?
Yes.

Dirk Vdm

[cjcountess]

Motion has been described as the simplest form of “Energy”. It is also
described as a change in position in space or displacement.

In its simplest form, motion can be decsribed as composed and
dependent on at least 3 components, upon which if any "one" were
removed, motion would cease to exist, and all its components, simply
because things come into existence through motion, as matter is a
contraction of the expanded field of energy we call the vacuum.

These three components are

1) Something to move in relation to

2) Something that moves


3) Space within which to move

And not in any particular order for it is a package deal.
The forms in which this motion takes place is expansion and / or
contraction.
One thing can move toward the other, which is contraction of the space
between them, away from the other, which is expansion of the space
between them, or one around the other, which is a combination of
expansion / contraction as circular motion is considered a balance of
centripital / centrifugal forces, and are themselves forms of
expansion / contraction.
And of course one thing can expand or contract in size, in relation to
the other.

The four forces of nature,

1)Gravity, which puches things togather, expressing itself in
contraction

2)Electromagntism, expresses itself in both expansion / and
contraction, as 2 opposite charges attract, while 2 like charges
repell. And also as we will show, Electromagnetism expresses itself in
expansion as a photon radiating from a source expands the distence
beteween source and detination, the longest wavelength being the
weakest energy wave , and expresses itself in contraction as the
higher the energy of the wave, the shorter the wavelength and more
particl like the wave becomes, until at a critical frequency and
energy of c^2, the wave becomes a standing spherical wave with “Rest
Mass”

3)The Strong Force expresses itself in attraction as it binds
particles together.

4)And The Weak Force expresses itself as expansion as it breaks this
bonds of the strong force enabling the particles and energy to expand
from this bond and radiate, chamging matter to energy.

In the theory of the “Zero Point Field”, the ground state weakest
state is said to consist of Balls of energy = ½ h/2pi(w), connested by
a spring just as a simple system of charged particles, for instence an
electron and protron can be connected by a electromagnetic wave shared
by the pair, the freqency dictated by the oscilation of the charges.
Two poles and a field of energy.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect


But I propose a simpler system of motion, the photon itself.

Consider a photon of energy = “h”, oscillated about by another mass of
frequency “f”, as in E=hf, which is devided by c^2, as in E/M=hf/c^2.
This is analogous to and directly corresponds to a force of F= a
central mass “M”, being orbited by another mass”m”, which is also
devided by r^2 as in F=Mm/r^2, Newton’s equation without the big “G”,
which is very easily explained by equating “G” to 1 as well as “hf”
and “c^2”, in which case E/M=hf/c^2 would equal F=GMm/r^2.

In that case all forces “Gravity, Electromagneticsm, Strong, and Weak,
can be simply explained as motion of varying strength.


Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/31/11 12:45 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Motion has been described as the simplest form of �Energy�.

Motion is defined as a change in displacement. Velocity is
defined as the derivative of position with respect to time,
v = dx/dt.

Conrad, energy is not required for motion as Aristotle once
thought!

[cjcountess]

Sam

You go out of your way to disagree with everything I say, no matter
how stupid it sounds. It's like the republicans disagreeing with
everything that "Obama" says or does, simply because, well you know
what I think.

Does not every moving thing have kinetic energy?

Does not every form of energy involve motion?

Give examples to the contrary.

How "ABSURD", your statement is.

Conrad J Countess

[jon car]

Change of position; is motion; flowing "energy" from point to point.

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/31/11 5:58 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Sam
>
> You go out of your way to disagree with everything I say, no matter
> how stupid it sounds. It's like the republicans disagreeing with
> everything that "Obama" says or does, simply because, well you know
> what I think.
>
> Does not every moving thing have kinetic energy?

Every moving thing has kinetic energy and whether the thing is
moving or not, and how much, depends on who's looking. Motion,
momentum and kinetic energy are all observer dependent. One
person can measure motion, momentum and KE, while another person
may measure none.

>
> Does not every form of energy involve motion?

Potential gravitational energy does not necessarily involve
motion. The energy in a AA battery doesn't require motion
although charges will move when the energy is being used.

>
> Give examples to the contrary.

Yes, sir!

[cjcountess]

Sam

No, sir!

Things are always in motion, comming into and moving out of exestence,
through expansion and contration motion, wheather it is perceptable to
YOU or not.

Furthermore, even so called things at rest, such as "Rest Mass"
particles, are rotating waves with internal kinetic energy and angular
momentum.

Besides, was not the statement that you made.

Conrad, energy is not required for motion as Aristotle once
thought!

Well "Materiel Physical Things" are always involved in motion, and
"Material Physical Things" are made of energy, as per E=mc^2


Stop it man, your making me laugth and not take you seriously.

Conrad J Countess

[PD]

On 10/31/2011 5:58 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Sam
>
> You go out of your way to disagree with everything I say, no matter
> how stupid it sounds. It's like the republicans disagreeing with
> everything that "Obama" says or does, simply because, well you know
> what I think.
>
> Does not every moving thing have kinetic energy?
>
> Does not every form of energy involve motion?
>
> Give examples to the contrary.

Gravitational potential energy.
Electrostatic potential energy.
Chemical potential energy.
Binding energy in a lattice.

>
> How "ABSURD", your statement is.

Everything that is new seems absurd to closed-brained people. This is
what makes them incapable of learning.

>
> Conrad J Countess

[PD]

On 11/1/2011 3:49 AM, cjcountess wrote:

>
> Well "Materiel Physical Things" are always involved in motion, and
> "Material Physical Things" are made of energy, as per E=mc^2

No sir. E=mc^2 is a relationship between two different quantities. This
equation does not say mass and energy are the same thing. They are not.
If you convert one into the other, this equation tells you how much you
will get out for what you put in, but it does not mean they are the same
thing.

[cjcountess]

PD

That’s right, try to come to Sams rescue, but then, who will recue
you?

Your statement is equaly "ABSURD".

All the energies you mentioned are too the result of kinetic energy of
motion, including “Rest Mass”.

“Rest Mass” is just kinetic energy at a frequency / wavelength of
“c^2”, which is a balance of two 90 degree angular force vectors, or
centripital and centrifugal forces of “c” in the linear direction x
“c” in the 90 degree angular direction = c in circular motion, with
angular momentum (h/2pi) for circle and or a circle making two
rotations at 90 degree angle to complete one wave cycle, as a
“standing spherical wave” of (spin ½) and angular momentum of (h/2pi/
2), and of course , if it spins counter to the trejectory, it has (-1)
charge.

This Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 clearly shows not only that
Einstein’s E=mc^2 which reveals that energy and matter “Rest Mass” are
equal and interconvertable through conversion factor “c^2” but
actually shows how, giving this abstract equation physical geometrical
form and reveals much more information that the equation alone.

What an exultation and clearification of this most famous equation
E=mc^2.
Energy and matter “Rest Mass”, are indeed different forms of the same
thing. Energy in the form of waves, travel at “c” in the linear
direction with varying speed in the 90 degree angular rotary
direction, as it makes more cycles as frequency increases, attaining
more relative mass, kinetic energy, and momentum, and becoming more
particle like as frequency increases, according to E=hf. And when the
variable angular frequency speed reaches “c”, just as is the linear
speed, this is “c^2”, and a balance of centipital / centrifugal forces
that enable circular and or spherical motion is attained. This is
where (E=hf=mc^2), as deBroglie pointed out, along with the fact that
“Electron is a wave and exist along the same EM spectrum as photon,
revealing that “EM spectrum”, is not only the “electromagnetic”, but
the “Energy / Matter spectrum”, as well.


This is Poetic Physics.


Furthermore:

Gravitational potential energy.
Electrostatic potential energy.
Chemical potential energy.
Binding energy in a lattice.

Are all the result of motion as I pointed out earlier.

This statement:

Everything that is new seems absurd to closed-brained people. This is
what makes them incapable of learning.

Indeed reffers to YOU!!

I am taking YOU back to school.

Conrad J Countess

[cjcountess]

PD and Sam

It is amazing and sad, the lengths you will go through to distort the
truth just to save face, knowing that you have been defeated.

In your own selfish interest, you distort the truth instead of
clearifying it, adding complexity, complication, and deception, to
such a noble subject.

You both are doing a tremensouse disservice to this forum and subject.

In the name of truth, please tell the truth, or shut up if you don't
know it, and let those who do, tell it.

Conrad J Countess

[PD]

On 11/1/2011 9:34 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> PD
>
> That’s right, try to come to Sams rescue, but then, who will recue
> you?
>
> Your statement is equaly "ABSURD".
>
> All the energies you mentioned are too the result of kinetic energy of
> motion, including “Rest Mass”.

Conrad, I was expecting you to back up this statement in the below.

Conrad, you will notice that in the above you demonstrated no
understanding whatsoever of even what these terms MEAN: gravitational
potential energy, electrostatic potential energy, chemical potential
energy, binding energy in a lattice. In fact, notice that you did not
even MENTION those terms.
What you talked about is your own poetry about your own ideas, but those
don't have any bearing on the things I mentioned.

>
>
> This is Poetic Physics.

And, Conrad, you must understand that poetry about physical things is
poetry, not physics.

>
>
> Furthermore:
>
> Gravitational potential energy.
> Electrostatic potential energy.
> Chemical potential energy.
> Binding energy in a lattice.
>
> Are all the result of motion as I pointed out earlier.
>
> This statement:
>
> Everything that is new seems absurd to closed-brained people. This is
> what makes them incapable of learning.
> Indeed reffers to YOU!!
>
> I am taking YOU back to school.

Well, so you proclaim. But John NoEinstein Armistead also declares
himself to be the King of the Science Hill, and that he is the greatest
mind that has contributed to science in the history of the planet. As
you can see, those proclamations accomplish nothing.

As I told you earlier, Conrad, you do not win contests by declaring
victory. You will not garner fame by declaring yourself famous. Whoever
suggested that mental strategy to you was a con man, and he cheated you.

>
> Conrad J Countess
>

[PD]

On 11/1/2011 9:43 AM, cjcountess wrote:

>
> PD and Sam
>
> It is amazing and sad, the lengths you will go through to distort the
> truth just to save face, knowing that you have been defeated.
>
> In your own selfish interest, you distort the truth instead of
> clearifying it, adding complexity, complication, and deception, to
> such a noble subject.
>
> You both are doing a tremensouse disservice to this forum and subject.
>
> In the name of truth, please tell the truth, or shut up if you don't
> know it, and let those who do, tell it.

Conrad, what Sam and I have been talking about is really very simple,
and literally tens of thousands of students have absolutely no problem
comprehending it every year.

It is clear that YOU find it complex and confusing, and so you think it
must be impossible for others to understand it when you cannot.

But it really isn't complicated. You just need to sit down and focus
your mind a little bit. Don't let your mind get all caught up in fame
and glory and victory for just ONE HOUR and just learn how to learn
something without your ego getting in the way.

[jon car]

Real motion starts with weightedness and the appearence of opposite or
backward motion around it.

Mitchell Raemsch

[YBM]

Le 01.11.2011 17:18, jon car a écrit :
> Real motion starts with weightedness and the appearence of opposite or
> backward motion around it.

No Mitch:

Opposite motion starts with backwardness and the appearence of real or
weighted motion around it.

[jon car]

If you look into the distance relative motion shrinks.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/1/11 9:43 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> PD and Sam
>
> It is amazing and sad, the lengths you will go through to distort the
> truth just to save face, knowing that you have been defeated.
>
> In your own selfish interest, you distort the truth instead of
> clearifying it, adding complexity, complication, and deception, to
> such a noble subject.
>
> You both are doing a tremensouse disservice to this forum and subject.
>
> In the name of truth, please tell the truth, or shut up if you don't
> know it, and let those who do, tell it.
>
> Conrad J Countess

Conrad, as PD points out, tens of thousands of students have
absolutely no problem comprehending fundamental physics every
year.

I try to show you contradictions to some of the things you post
in hopes that you will say, "Oh a contradiction--gee maybe I should
examine what I think I know to see if I have a misconception". That
is a normal thought process for almost all scientists.

I know you don't believe this, but PD a few others are actually
trying to help you see problems that you need to address. If you
are really interested in learning physics, please heed our advice.

Here are a few of Feynman's Lectures on Physics printed and audio.
If you find you cannot understand them, well...

http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~justin.garofoli/files/list2.txt

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Opca%20Fizika/Feynman%20Lectures%20on%20Physics/

[YBM]

Le 01.11.2011 18:26, jon car a �crit :

> On Nov 1, 9:28 am, YBM<ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:

>> Le 01.11.2011 17:18, jon car a �crit :

>>
>>> Real motion starts with weightedness and the appearence of opposite or
>>> backward motion around it.
>>
>> No Mitch:
>>
>> Opposite motion starts with backwardness and the appearence of real or
>> weighted motion around it.
>
> If you look into the distance relative motion shrinks.

No Mitch:

If you move into the look absolute distance grows.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/1/11 1:34 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/1/11 9:43 AM, cjcountess wrote:
>> PD and Sam
>>
>> It is amazing and sad, the lengths you will go through to distort the
>> truth just to save face, knowing that you have been defeated.
>>
>> In your own selfish interest, you distort the truth instead of
>> clearifying it, adding complexity, complication, and deception, to
>> such a noble subject.
>>
>> You both are doing a tremensouse disservice to this forum and subject.
>>
>> In the name of truth, please tell the truth, or shut up if you don't
>> know it, and let those who do, tell it.
>>
>> Conrad J Countess
>
> Conrad, as PD points out, tens of thousands of students have
> absolutely no problem comprehending fundamental physics every
> year.
>
> I try to show you contradictions to some of the things you post
> in hopes that you will say, "Oh a contradiction--gee maybe I should
> examine what I think I know to see if I have a misconception". That
> is a normal thought process for almost all scientists.
>
> I know you don't believe this, but PD a few others are actually
> trying to help you see problems that you need to address. If you
> are really interested in learning physics, please heed our advice.
>
> Here are a few of Feynman's Lectures on Physics printed and audio.
> If you find you cannot understand them, well...
>

This is the link I should have posted, Conrad:
http://www.holmepage.co.uk/feynman/physics/lectures/index.html

[cjcountess]

PD

On the contrary, it is you who do not understand the terms.

But I do give you credit for putting these in a close to correct order
of complexity


Gravitational "rest energy" comes from the rotation of the wave being
in balence of centripital and centrifugal forces at c^2.

Electrostatic energy or charge, comes from the direction of the spin
(- ! charge), being counter to the trejectory of the wave
.
Chemical energy comes from "standing waves" being combined with other
"standing waves" by other waves that bind them withing their own
rotations, as waves bound and surrounded by other energy waves.

And binding energy in a lattice comes also from energy waves binding
standing waves and combinations of compounded standing waves also by
surounding them withing their rotation.

And their potential energy comes from the push and pull of these wave
in the fields they participate in generating, and the potential for
further "MOTION" if alowed to make and break bonds, in the case of
"Binding Potential Energy" and "Chemecal Potential Energy", and
attracting motion in the case of "Gravity Potential Energy", and
attracting and or repelling motion in the case of "Electrical
Potential Energy".

But it all starts with motion of waves, moving from linear to circular
and / or spherical, and vice versa.

This is the gist of it.

Potential energy comes from moving waves with the potential for
further motion.

Conrad J Countess


See:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=potential+energy&oq=potential&aq=0&aqi=g5g-s1g4&aql=1&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=1844l5687l0l10516l9l9l0l1l1l0l360l1799l0.1.1.4l6l0

which includes,

Potential energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In physics, potential energy is the energy stored in a body or in a
system due to
its position in a force field or due to its configuration.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy - Cached - Similar


This is the GEOMETRY OF IT that you don't get.

IT"S ALL MOTION, and potentilly further MOTION

[cjcountess]

PD and Sam

You both stated that energy does not always depend on motion, and PD
listed examples where this is supposed to be the case, such as

Gravitational potential energy.
Electrostatic potential energy.
Chemical potential energy.
Binding energy in a lattice.

But these ALL involve motion at their very heart, and depend on
further "MOTION", as the very imputus of their POTENTIAL ENERGY.

It is so simple that I wonder what the real motivation is for the
dispute.
It seems to me to be self evident that all these depend on motion for
their very existence, and further motion for further potential energy.

Sam also states that:

Conrad, as PD points out, tens of thousands of students have
absolutely no problem comprehending fundamental physics every
year.

I try to show you contradictions to some of the things you post
in hopes that you will say, "Oh a contradiction--gee maybe I
should
examine what I think I know to see if I have a misconception".
That
is a normal thought process for almost all scientists.

I am not talking about fundamental physics as you see and teach it, I
am talking about a whole new paradigm, which these thousands of
students and their teachers do not seem to get, but which is so
simple, and is based on (The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2).

It clearly shows that "Rest Mass" comes from rotation of kinetic
energy, that charge comes fro direction of rotation, and logically
implys that binding energy also comes from rotating waves, surrounding
and incasing other rotating waves.
And that if the rotations are broken, the kinetic enrgy will be
directed more linearly like a disk thrower or sling shotter spinning a
mass and letting it go from a centripitally expressed form, to a
centrifugally expressed form of energy, and that this rotating energy
is at the heart of the potentially released energys mentioned.

Conrad J Countess

I have no dought that this geometrical interpretation is correct and
that it will make clear allot of previouslly misunderstood aspects of
physics.

Thousand of physics students learn and have no problem understanding
you physics, and that is fine, but (The Geometrical Interpretation of
E=mc^2), is taking physics to a higher level, and I'll bet they have
no problem understanding that either.

Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/1/11 2:51 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> I am not talking about fundamental physics as you see and teach it, I
> am talking about a whole new paradigm, which these thousands of
> students and their teachers do not seem to get, but which is so
> simple, and is based on (The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2).

Anything new *has to encompass the old* Conrad. If you new
physics can get the right answer to all old physics problems,
the it *fails*. The new must get the same answers as the old.

Can your new physics accurately predict the outcome of billiard
balls in collision, or calculate the Kinetic Energy of an electron
with velocity v?

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/1/11 2:51 PM, cjcountess wrote:

>

> I am not talking about fundamental physics as you see and teach it, I
> am talking about a whole new paradigm, which these thousands of
> students and their teachers do not seem to get, but which is so
> simple, and is based on (The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2).
>

Anything new *has to encompass the old* Conrad. If your new
physics cannot get the right answer to all old physics problems,

[jon car]

That would be universal expansion or primary aether expanding
inbetween.

[jon car]

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=potential+energy&oq=po...

>
> which includes,
>
> Potential energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> In physics, potential energy is the energy stored in a body or in a
> system due to
> its position in a force field or due to its configuration.
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy - Cached - Similar
>
> This is the GEOMETRY OF IT that you don't get.
>
> IT"S ALL MOTION, and potentilly further MOTION

Einstein's space curve creates a geodesic curve of orbit or flyby
parabolic geodesic. Motion geometry is ellipse and parabola caused by
space curve.

There is no perfect round orbit but in theory. All elliptical orbits
swivel a little or alot. There are inbetween gravity pushes.


Mitchell Raemsch

[cjcountess]

Sam

Any new physics does not have to take into account everything believed
in the physics field before, as that would be impossible even to read
in a lifetime.


How ridiculous a statement .

Here I am focusing on one fundamental assumption which is that even
potential energy depends on motion, that's it right now. And it does
not have to do your billiard homework for you so stop trying to con me
into solving that problem which is somehow bothering you.

Even "Rest Mass" as I stated , is relative mass. kinetic energy in
rotation, and the direction of spin is what determines charge. This
gravity force and charge continues to be generated even if the
particles are confined in a way as not to let them move as a system
they still move internal as their angular momentum of h/2pi/2
continues to generate gravity force and charge.

Furthermore, the binding energies of lattices and chemical compounds
are also the result of internal; energies in rotation, upon when
released will break from this rotation momentum into a more linear
mometum.

Now keep dancing around it but you cannot get by it.

Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/1/11 5:43 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Here I am focusing on one fundamental assumption which is that even
> potential energy depends on motion, that's it right now. And it does
> not have to do your billiard homework for you so stop trying to con me
> into solving that problem which is somehow bothering you.

No, potential energy doesn't require any motion, Conrad.

So you are walking along some cliff overlooking the ocean several
hundred feet below. There are all kinds of stones and rocks around
you with no motion with respect to the ground. The all have
gravitational potential energy, Conrad, but they ain't got no
motion.

If you knock one of those stones over the cliff, all that potential
energy will be converted to kinetic energy. The total energy will
not change and is conserved. There is no motion in that potential
energy, but if you interfere, the potential energy will be converted
to the kinetic energy moving stone.

[HVAC]

On 10/31/2011 12:22 AM, greysky wrote:
>
>>
>> That's really sad you don't understand Zeno's paradox and realize
>> that *continuous motion is observed* in nature.
>>
> It would be more accurate to say that *motion is observed in nature*,
> Sam. Otherwise, what proofs can you offer to show motion is truly
> continuous? What apparatus has that kind of resolution?


Apparatus: Hammer

1) Throw hammer into air

2) Stand under it

3) Log the results

Repeat as necessary until message is delivered.







--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[cjcountess]

Wow!!

Sam

Did you read what I wrote earlier?

Things are made from enrgy which is in motion.

Gravity as well as charge is generated by internal motion of energy
that makes up the objects in question.

The gravity potential energy is generated by the internal motion of
the energy that makes up these objects and the potential energy that
would be released if objects were to fall also comes from motion.

What is the purpous of your contiual disagreement? You've lost, except
it

Conrad J Countess

[PD]

Quoth the Voice in the Head:
"This relativity stuff makes no sense. Surely if I cannot understand it,
then anyone who claims to understand it must just be fooling themselves
or perhaps just pretending to understand it.... Science has gone astray
and gotten lost. What is needed is to step back a little to things we
know and make sense and to have a fresh look at it. It's better, in
fact, that I have not been contaminated by all the clutter that comes
from schooling.... Aha! I have an idea that makes perfect beautiful
sense, and its beauty is reflected by the fact that I can completely
capture it with a simple doodle on a cocktail napkin, along with one
paragraph of explanation! Simplicity is proof of truth!.... But they say
this violates conservation of momentum .... So because it must be true
anyway, then clearly conservation of momentum has to be overturned! How
wonderful! This new idea is even more important than before, because it
puts on its head so much of modern physics!.... But they say
conservation of momentum follows directly from Newton's laws. So hard as
it may be to swallow, there is no recourse but to say that Newton's laws
have been shown to be false as well! And here is the very simple math
that shows this to be the truth!.... But they say this arithmetic is
done wrong. So it must be true that this new theory, this new Grand
Upheaval of Science is also a Grand Upheaval of Science AND Mathematics,
and this new elegant explanation of everything overturns EVERYTHING we
thought we knew!.... Good grief! This is the discovery of the
millennium! I will be on the covers of books everywhere! It's very
likely that this will revolutionize every aspect of human understanding
of .... MY GOD!!! IT'S FULL OF STARS!!"

[PD]

On 11/1/2011 2:51 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> PD and Sam
>
> You both stated that energy does not always depend on motion, and PD
> listed examples where this is supposed to be the case, such as
>
>
> Gravitational potential energy.
> Electrostatic potential energy.
> Chemical potential energy.
> Binding energy in a lattice.
>
> But these ALL involve motion at their very heart, and depend on
> further "MOTION", as the very imputus of their POTENTIAL ENERGY.

But Conrad, this is simply not true. If you don't have any understanding
of what the terms even MEAN, this doesn't give you the green light to
make up anything you want about them.

>
> It is so simple that I wonder what the real motivation is for the
> dispute.
> It seems to me to be self evident that all these depend on motion for
> their very existence, and further motion for further potential energy.

Not at ALL evident. Before you try to explain the basis for this wild
claim, you would do well to show that you know what the terms even MEAN.
Let's try "electrostatic potential energy". What do you think that term
MEANS?

>
> Sam also states that:
>
> Conrad, as PD points out, tens of thousands of students have
> absolutely no problem comprehending fundamental physics every
> year.
>
> I try to show you contradictions to some of the things you post
> in hopes that you will say, "Oh a contradiction--gee maybe I
> should
> examine what I think I know to see if I have a misconception".
> That
> is a normal thought process for almost all scientists.
>
> I am not talking about fundamental physics as you see and teach it, I
> am talking about a whole new paradigm, which these thousands of
> students and their teachers do not seem to get, but which is so
> simple, and is based on (The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2).

Conrad, you WERE talking about the fundamental physics as we see and
teach it when you said that it was complicated and incomprehensible.
Please keep on track here. You're drifting.

>
> It clearly shows that "Rest Mass" comes from rotation of kinetic
> energy, that charge comes fro direction of rotation, and logically
> implys that binding energy also comes from rotating waves, surrounding
> and incasing other rotating waves.
> And that if the rotations are broken, the kinetic enrgy will be
> directed more linearly like a disk thrower or sling shotter spinning a
> mass and letting it go from a centripitally expressed form, to a
> centrifugally expressed form of energy, and that this rotating energy
> is at the heart of the potentially released energys mentioned.
>
> Conrad J Countess
>
> I have no dought that this geometrical interpretation is correct and
> that it will make clear allot of previouslly misunderstood aspects of
> physics.

What misunderstood aspects are you talking about? Physics is able to
make good, accurate predictions of whole swaths of nature -- and this is
the measure of success in physics. Where are the places you're aware of
where there is no success like this?

>
> Thousand of physics students learn and have no problem understanding
> you physics,

Good, then you agree it is not complicated and incomprehensible.
Although it appears to be that way for you. If tens of thousands of
young students can do it, so can you!

[cjcountess]

PD

You are misrepresenting what I said.

I did not say that physics is incomprehensible to me, that is why I
know that gravity and electrical energy comes from internal rotation
within apparently still matter, while you are fooled by the apprent
stillness.

It is you who don't understand and want to keep physics back in the
days of contiual ignorance of the new discoveries that make simple the
behind the seen generation of "gravity rest mass" and "electric
charge", which is the internal motion of the energy at c^2 = c in
circular and or spherical rotation, and direction of spin of this
very rotation, which is counter to trajectory for -1 charge.

This is indeed understanding the source of potential gravity and
electrostatic energy.

It's the INTERNAL ROTATION at the QUANTUM level.

Stop impeading progress with your confusion and misrepresentation of
my words.

You lost, admit it and go.

Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/2/11 5:56 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> On Nov 2, 1:38 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/1/11 5:43 PM, cjcountess wrote:
>>
>>> Here I am focusing on one fundamental assumption which is that even
>>> potential energy depends on motion, that's it right now. And it does
>>> not have to do your billiard homework for you so stop trying to con me
>>> into solving that problem which is somehow bothering you.
>>
>> No, potential energy doesn't require any motion, Conrad.
>>
>> So you are walking along some cliff overlooking the ocean several
>> hundred feet below. There are all kinds of stones and rocks around
>> you with no motion with respect to the ground. The all have
>> gravitational potential energy, Conrad, but they ain't got no
>> motion.
>>
>> If you knock one of those stones over the cliff, all that potential
>> energy will be converted to kinetic energy. The total energy will
>> not change and is conserved. There is no motion in that potential
>> energy, but if you interfere, the potential energy will be converted
>> to the kinetic energy moving stone.
>
> Wow!!
>
> Sam
>
> Did you read what I wrote earlier?
>
> Things are made from enrgy which is in motion.

Conrad, you are confused. Stones are made of baryonic matter
and whether in motion or not depends strictly on the point of
view of the observer. There is "motion" of internals of the
atoms making up the stone, but that *in no way* creates the
mass of the stone.

This is another example of you not understanding the most
fundamental of physics--what mass is.

[cjcountess]

>    fundamental of physics--what mass is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wrong answer, Sam

Electron's, considered the most basic rest mass particle, is a
standing sperical wave of rotating energy, with angular momentum of h/
2pi/2.
.
It is logical to conclude that all composite matter such as neutrons
and protrons, are too mades of a varient of the more basic electron,
and that quarks and electrons are interchangable.

PD, who works on quarks and gluons, will tell you, if he is honest,
that most of the mass of nuceus, which is made up of quarks and
gluons, comes from the kinetic energy of these quarks and gluons.

ALL MASS IS KINETIC ENERGY OF MOTION, Rest mass is kinetic energy of
rotating energy from which standing spherical waves and the binding
energys that hold them together are made.

Just wait a while Sam. The mainstream will be pubkishing this soon and
you will cut and paste an article about it as if you are on the
cutting edge. And you will never admitt that "I told you so!!"

Conrad J Countess

[shuba]

Crackpot J Clueless wrote:

> It is logical to conclude that all composite matter such as neutrons
> and protrons, are too mades of a varient of the more basic electron,
> and that quarks and electrons are interchangable.

I have adjusted the thread title to better conform with statements
like the above stupidity.

Any luck with the billiard ball problem yet?


---Tim Shuba---

[cjcountess]

Shuba

Why the disrespect?

If I am right, I am right.

Only a child and imature person resorts to name calling when they
cannot win an arguement logically.

Stop disrespecting me. If you can argue your case, argue it, if not,
get out of the way and let someone who can. do.

Conrad J Countess

[shuba]

Crackpot J Clueless wrote:

> Why the disrespect?

You don't deserve any respect. You are a seriously deranged little
man with zero respect for physicists and zero chance of producing
anything useful yourself. Unlike Sam, I don't have any desire to
help you, because you are a total asshole without any redeeming
qualities and you have zero ability to understand principles of
physics or learn anything at all.

[cjcountess]

Well than respect yourself you imbecile.

I have the most beautiful theory, you have non, and you are upset.

Grow up, you babbling idiot.

But in order to think clearly, you must first get rid of your anger.

And oh yea, admit that I defeated you, without letting it eat you up
and everyone knows this.

Conrad J Countess



Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/2/11 12:54 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> ALL MASS IS KINETIC ENERGY OF MOTION

No it's not. Conrad, learn what mass is. And while you
are at it learn the difference between gravitational
mass and inertial mass.

[jon car]

On Nov 2, 2:53 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/11 12:54 PM, cjcountess wrote:
>
> > ALL MASS IS KINETIC ENERGY OF MOTION

Close. Fundamental mass comes first then energy of motion by gamma
math. C squared energy goes above by gamma. E=mc^2 is for fundamental
and above that energy is from motion by programing its gamma.

[shuba]

Crackpot J Clueless wrote:

> you are upset.

Not in the slightest.

> But in order to think clearly, you must first get rid of your anger.

Why would anyone be angry that a clueless asshole named Conrad is
pretending to have physical insight and behaving like a moron on
usenet? That makes no sense at all. Neither does the idea of caring
about "winning" an argument with the aforementioned moronic asshole
named Conrad, who is unable to provide a coherent physical analysis
of any scenario.


---Tim Shuba---

[Y.Porat]

On Oct 31, 5:57 am, "greysky" <ftls...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it's been around 6 months since my last post on my discoveries on the
> nature of motion. Has anyone come up with any other ideas? We've discussed
> how Zeno's paradox basically proves continuous motion is impossible. OK, so
> something else must be up with that because obviously motion of some type
> does occur.  My studies in superluminal communications has shed some light
> on the way objects in this universe move from point to point, and it has
> yielded up some surprises to say the least. The best way to show what is
> happening is to limit this discussion to a single particle moving at a
> constant rate in a space devoid of other forces and fields that can perturb
> its motion. So lets say there is a single electron moving past your
> detecting apparatus at a leisurely slow pace of 1 meter per hour - the
> actual number isn't really important, just that there is some motion that
> you can detect. Now, in front of this slow particle we place the opening of
> a wormhole we manage to create, and place enough sensors around this opening
> so we can measure the total energy of space - by total energy I mean the
> kinetic energy, potential energy, and vacuum energy. The electron moves into
> position and as soon as it interacts with the opening - the event horizon of
> the wormhole, it disappears, and instantly reappears at the exit point of
> the wormhole some relativistic distance away from where it began its
> journey, apparently moving faster than light speed in the process. Though
> you can see all this and at first glance it seems pretty straightforward,
> only upon examining your readouts of the energy levels of the space
> immediately in front of the event horizon, you begin to get puzzled because
> you don't get what you think you ought to be getting. Indeed, the energy
> levels never even shifted from straight-line. There was no deviation,
> meaning that the energy level of the area containing the wormhole  and
> electron was always constant, no matter what was happening. Vacuum
> energy+kinetic energy+potential energy never deviated from unity. In other
> words, before the electron entered the area under test, E(v)+E(k)+E(p)=1.
> When the electron entered the area under test, E(v)+E(k)+E(p)=1 also, and
> even after the electron teleported.  Even more simply, Total Energy *always*
> equaled to unity.  The same thing for the exit point to the wormhole, Total
> energy never shifted, even though an electron *seemed*  to exit the event
> horizon and continue on its merry way.
>
> So,  any ideas as to what's going on?  And before anyone says this is just a
> gedanken, I guess I've just revealed one more small secret concerning the
> nature of the quantum communications device I developed 12 years ago and
> have been experimenting with ever since - I found a way to generate a type
> of wormhole that I can send low energy particles, mostly electrons, but also
> a few high(er) energy hydrogen nuclei (in the form of 238U decay products) ,
> through, at apparently superluminal speeds. I have to admit, wormholes are
> fun to play with ! One final hint: The results begin to make a kind of sense
> if you take into account energy conservation. The universe will not allow
> energy to move faster than the speed of light - but then what does that say
> about motion? How can something, namely our afore-mentioned electron move
> FTL but not the energy that makes it up? How can motion be more
> 'fundamental' than energy??
>
> Greysky
>
> www.ftlsite.com
> Learn how to build a FTL radio.
----------------------------------------------------


Gosh !!!
what is difficult to understand that

ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION !!

just as in macrocosm !!!

-i am amazed how people are so scarred
of SIMPLICITY !!!
and are so edict ed to long ball boggling
!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------

[cjcountess]

> ------------------------------------ Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Porat

And vice versa, mass is energy in motion, and rest mass is energy at
c^2 as a balence of centripital / centrifugal forces giving rise to
standing spherical waves such as electrons and also binding
energy.alowing for the build up of compound matter.

shuba

its just too much fun frustrating you like a tied up junk yard dog who
just doest get any, including a true understanding of physics.

Sam

My job is to make things simpler, including the relationship between
inertia mass and grivity mass, as they are indeed equal, and your job
seems to be, to keep the separation, complexity and lack of
understanding of this simplest unity so that your group can maintain
the illusion of superiority.

But in doing so, your horns are showing.

You seem like a nice guy who wants to do good. Strive for simplicity
and clarity, not confusion and complication of what is inherently
simple and clear.

That is dishonest.


And jon car

I saw and acknowledge your post and contribution also, thank you.

Conrad J Countess

[Y.Porat]

------------------------------
mass is energy in motion!!
that is th e more basic simpler concept

and from that all the concept of energy historically developed
(because it was the simpler to understand
and 'touch '
and

mass is as well
following the E=mc^2

E/c^2
that is for pure energy

yet there are other cases of
combed (energy plus particles in movement )
then you have to add the momentum of particles
translated to energy

the simper the better !!

now do you agree with me
that there is
just one kind of mass
ie no relativistic mass ??

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------

[Y.Porat]

--------------------
i can only pity those PDs students !!

Conrad is right !!

EVEN **POTENTIAL ENERGY** IS
MASS IN MOVEMENT - INNER MOVEMENT
or movent of something you cant 'see'
with your eyes

the fucker retarded PD
is unable to learn anything new !!

YET WANT S TO BE A TEACHER OF PHYSICS !!!
there is no limit to impertinence and demagogy !!!

Y.Porat
-------------------------

[cjcountess]

> -------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Porat

I do agree that to start with mass is more fundamental if you take the
ground state energy with speed of "c" and mass/energy of "h" as the
foundation upon which further mass is bulid.

Although I still see this ground state as being in motion relative to
all that is build upon it, it as a constant upon which all waves and
rest mass particles are built, and can be assumed to be at relative
rest also as these constants of "c" and "h" are a stbility in motion.

Therefore as the constant speed of "c" is constant reguardless of
frequency and also has a constant mass/energy of "h" reguardless of
frequency, I see the constant mass/energy of "h" as being generated
from the constant speed of "c" in the linear direction, and "f" or the
frequency as additional mass/energy displaced from the ground state
mass/energy, which oscillates about it analogous to orbiting, and E=hf/
c^2 being analogous to F=Mm/r^2. The frequency of displaced mass/
energy "f" oscillates about the constant mass/energy "c=h", just as
the secondary mass "m", orbits about the primary mass "M", and the
energy or force is proportional to M x m or h x f and the square of
the distance between them.
And just as F=mv^2/r=Gmm/r^2 so to does E=mc^2 equal F=mv^2/r, on this
quantum level as energy equals and is interconvertable with mass
through conversion factor "c^2", from this Geometrical Interpretation
of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or sphered because when energy frequency
reaches "c^2", a balence of centripital / centrifugal forces is
attained enabling circular and or spherical rotation as is exactly
what give energy "Rest Mass" as c^2 is c in the linear direction x c
in the 90 degree angular direction.

PLAIN and SIMPLE.

Conrad J Countess

[jon car]

> Conrad J Countess- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Motion is the flow of energy or its Changing Position from point to
point in space-time continuum or the Unified Field.

Mitchell Raemsch

[cjcountess]

There has been a true paradigm shift in physics.

Please examine it for yourself and do not let anyone do your thinking
for you, as there are many as you will see, will attempt to distort
and confuse the truth of these findings for their own selfish
purpouses.

The once vague “Statistical, Probabilistic” approach to quantum
physics, has been replaced by a “Certain Clear Geometrical” approach,
that removes such mysteries as “Uncertainty Principle”, “Point
Particle”, “Probability wave”, description, and replaced it with a
clear and certain geometrical picture, that unifies all the known
attribute of “Electron”, as a “Standing Spherical Wave”, with “energy
of mc^2”, “Angular Momentum of h/2pi/2”, “Spin of ½”, and “Charge of
-1”.

And now the main obstacle that has raised its ugly head is, the
selfishness of more concern of who discovers the truth and gets
credit for it, than that the truth be discovered at all.

You will see demonstrated in these post, the blatant attempt to
distort and confuse the truth of this, through lying and verbal abuse,
such as that which a child would use when he or she, runs out of
logical means to dispute the idea.
Analogous to 3 blind men using their canes, to probe and interpret an
object such as an Elephant, and discerning one part to be a liken to a
rope , one part a water hose, one a tree trunk, one, a curved sabre,
physicist have used the linear mathematical approach to probe and
interpret the Electron as having an angular momentum of “h/2pi/2” for
position and or momentum, but not at the same time, its spin to be
“½”, its charge to be “-1”, and its energy to be “mc^2”, but the whole
picture remains a mystery, and interpreted as a “Point Particle,
Probability Wave”, with a particle to be found within the wave, at a
certain point, at a certain time, using equation psi[x,t]^2, sometimes
with so called imaginary unit sqrt-1, or i.

The Geometrical Interpretation, clearly shows that both angular
momentum, and position, is indeed “h/2pi/2”, that the probability of
finding the particle within the wave is “100 percent”, because the
wave becomes particle, such as a standing spherical wave, with angular
momentum and position of “h/2pi/2”, with certainty, with a “½ spin”,
that if particle spins counter to trajectory it has “-1 charge”,
bringing together all these known attribute of electron, like points
that are connected seamlessly through a line of unbroken logic, or
pieces of a puzzle that fit so seamlessly together to form such a
clear picture, that it is statistically very improbable that it is not
correct.

Presenting this clear geometrical picture of the electron, which
answers so many questions, removes the sqrt -1 out of real of
imaginary numbers, into the realm of natural units (c=sqrt-1) and
give angular momentum and position as “h/2pi/2” with certainty
removing “Uncertainty Principle”, it would seem that this discovery
would be welcomed by the physics community.
Instead, the opposite effect has been provoked, and a ranting and
raving few have conspired to distort and confuse this truth.

It has become quite clear to me that the main obstacle to progress in
physics is the opposing personalities that are more concerned about
who discovers and gets credit for discoveries than that they are made
at all and are content to keep the world in the dark concerning these
things.

Therefore, along with the discovery of certain truths we will also
discover some of those who would rather these truths not be discovered
at least unless it is themselves that are doing the discovery.

Conrad J Countess

PS
In other words, we will be exposing truths, and some people who would,
through lies and distortion, that is clear and evident, block those
truths from being available to the public.
See http://wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf

[PD]

On 11/1/2011 5:43 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> On Nov 1, 4:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/1/11 2:51 PM, cjcountess wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am not talking about fundamental physics as you see and teach it, I
>>> am talking about a whole new paradigm, which these thousands of
>>> students and their teachers do not seem to get, but which is so
>>> simple, and is based on (The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2).
>>
>> Anything new *has to encompass the old* Conrad. If your new
>> physics cannot get the right answer to all old physics problems,
>> the it *fails*. The new must get the same answers as the old.
>>
>> Can your new physics accurately predict the outcome of billiard
>> balls in collision, or calculate the Kinetic Energy of an electron
>> with velocity v?
>
> Sam
>
> Any new physics does not have to take into account everything believed
> in the physics field before, as that would be impossible even to read
> in a lifetime.
>
>
> How ridiculous a statement .
>

Conrad, you did not accurately read what he said. The new must get the
same answers as the old. The old here is the present state, which
includes understanding
*classical mechanics
*classical electrodynamics
*statistical mechanics and thermodynamics
*condensed matter physics
*quantum mechanics
*relativity, special and general
*quantum fields and particle physics
*experimental and statistical methods

You say this would be impossible to read in a lifetime. That's simply
not true. Physics students complete coverage of 3/4 of that agenda in
four years time, and graduate students generally go over each of them
again in more detail and get the remaining quarter in 2-3 additional
years. That is 6-7 years of dedicated work. Not at all impossible and
literally thousands of them do this every year.

Now, it may be that you don't want to spend 6-7 years of dedicated work
to become versed in the present state. But that is a matter of choice
based on laziness.

[PD]

On 11/2/2011 12:54 PM, cjcountess wrote:

>
> PD, who works on quarks and gluons, will tell you, if he is honest,
> that most of the mass of nuceus, which is made up of quarks and
> gluons, comes from the kinetic energy of these quarks and gluons.

Conrad, I don't know where you read such crap.
The mass of the nucleon comes from the QCD interactions between the
quarks and the broken chiral symmetry due to having massive quarks at all.

[PD]

On 11/1/2011 3:58 PM, jon car wrote:
> On Nov 1, 12:00 pm, YBM<ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> No Mitch:
>>
>> If you move into the look
>
>> absolute distance grows.
>
> That would be universal expansion or primary aether expanding
> inbetween.
>

Proof positive, YBM, that Mitch is a completely incoherent loon.
Notice that Mitch has protracted conversations with other nonsense
generators like Mike Cavedon. Notice too that Mike Cavedon takes his
conversations seriously with Mitch the Incoherent Loon.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/3/11 2:45 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Presenting this clear geometrical picture of the electron, which
> answers so many questions, removes the sqrt -1 out of real of
> imaginary numbers, into the realm of natural units

Conrad, can you please explain what the √-1 has to do with electrons.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
j8urhm$kel$9...@speranza.aioe.org

... and/or capacity.

Dirk Vdm

[eric gisse]

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in news:j8ut1n$pf4$3
@speranza.aioe.org:

That's adorable. Its' like when Ralph and the androcles get into a slap
fight.

[jon car]

On Nov 3, 6:56 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:j8ut1n$pf4$3

> fight.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Your the butt that eats people eric.
That makes you my enemy.

Mitch Raemsch

[G=EMC^2]

Spin was the first direction of motion Best to go with my "SPIN IS
IN THEORY" TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

On Oct 31, 11:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/11 5:58 PM, cjcountess wrote:
>
> > Sam
>
> > You go out of your way to disagree with everything I say, no matter
> > how stupid it sounds. It's like the republicans disagreeing with
> > everything that "Obama" says or does, simply because, well you know
> > what I think.
>
> > Does not every moving thing have kinetic energy?
>
>    Every moving thing has kinetic energy and whether the thing is
>    moving or not, and how much, depends on who's looking. Motion,
>    momentum and kinetic energy are all observer dependent. One
>    person can measure motion, momentum and KE, while another person
>    may measure none.
>
>
>
> > Does not every form of energy involve motion?
>
>    Potential gravitational energy does not necessarily involve
>    motion. The energy in a AA battery doesn't require motion
>    although charges will move when the energy is being used.
>
>
>
> > Give examples to the contrary.
>
>    Yes, sir!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > How "ABSURD", your statement is.
>
> > Conrad J Countess

It has spin it has kinetic energy period. Spin gives matter its
gravity force. Think tornado ride TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

The vortex spin of the electrons cloud spinning at c is both the
heart of my SPIN IS IN THEORY,and the heart beat of the universe
TreBert

[HVAC]

On 11/4/2011 2:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> It has spin it has kinetic energy period. Spin gives matter its
> gravity force. Think tornado ride TreBert

Gravity isn't a 'force' per se.

It's an effect that we perceive as a force.


PS- No need to thank me, Bert.
Astrophysical geniuses like me have no need
for titles nor gratitude.


















--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[cjcountess]

> based on laziness.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

PD
Did you copy that idea from this paper, and do you even know what it
means?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0603001
I got the idea that most of mass in nucleus comes from motion, first
from my (Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
sphered), but it was collaborated with articles such as this one
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/11/21/confirmed-scientists-understand-where-mass-comes-from/

PD
If you think that you literally have to read and understand all that
in order to make a contribution to physics than you are a fool.
But you are not a fool, and you know that you do not have to
understand or even be aware of all that in order to make a
contribution to physics.
Those are hurdles that teachers and researchers want students to jump
through to keep them held up and not able to compete with and surpass
themselves.
They want you to think that in order to understand physics and or make
a contribution, you must clear all these hurdles and even agree with
them.
But the truth is, a person can get a physical insight into a physics
problem just after only hearing it once, drop out of school, so as to
not be cluttered with distracting, mostly false theories, and devote
his attention to doing research on that insight that interest him.
Just as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out of college and made
major contributions to computer technology after they got ideas that
interested them more than the boring unnecessary curriculum, the same
can happen in ANY field.
Now I am not advocating dropping out of school in order to peruse as
insight that you may think you have, but some times that is just the
truth of the matter.
Sometimes insights into nature come from nature itself, and not any
textbook previously believed theories.
You mean to tell me that you did not know that?
To screen out any discoveries just because they did not come from
mainstream methods is just absurd

I am going to see if I can get a science journalist to follow these
conversations, and interview the participants, because this story has
to be told.

Sam
(sqrt-1), is use a lot in electronics and (The Geometrical
Interpretation of E=mc^2=E=mc^circled and or sphered), not only shows
that (c =sqrt-1) because the geometry of c^2 produced a standing
spherical wave of -1 charge, “the Electron itself”, but also because
it overlays seamlessly with electrical and electronics engineers idea
that (sqrt-1) is (1unit vector pointing straight up in vertical
direction giving rise to 90 degree angular counterclockwise rotation),
as this is exactly how my geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 starts
as two 90 degree angular trajectories, which gives rise to 90 degree
angular counterclockwise rotation which if constant creates a 360
degree angular rotation and if amplitude is constant will create a
circle making two rotations to complete one wave cycle making a
standing spherical wave of spin ½ and if spin is counter to trajectory
will have -1 charge, giving rise to the geometry of the Electron
itself which is a -1 charged particle.

Conrad J Countess

[PD]

Conrad, I presume that you're talking about the mass of protons here,
though it is not in reply to anything in the quoted passage above.
No, I did not get it from the paper, although the paper does describe a
lattice gauge calculation that does an estimate of what this chiral
symmetry breaking does to the mass.

>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0603001
> I got the idea that most of mass in nucleus comes from motion, first
> from my (Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
> sphered), but it was collaborated with articles such as this one
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/

Two comments. First of all, notice that a Discover Magazine article is
not generally regarded as being accurate but instead colloquial. You
have no quality filter on the material you consume. Hence your misplaced
faith in a completely crappy TV show.

Secondly, notice that the Discover Magazine article actually gets this
one RIGHT and correctly says that the mass comes from the QCD
interaction and NOT from kinetic energy or energy of motion. Apparently,
Conrad, you cannot read.

>
> PD
> If you think that you literally have to read and understand all that
> in order to make a contribution to physics than you are a fool.

Conrad, thousands of physics students do it every year.
If you think you can make a physics contribution without any
understanding of any of those things, then YOU are the fool.
This is WHY physics students are charged with learning all those things,
so that they can make a contribution to physics.

You can lie to yourself all you want, Conrad, that it isn't necessary,
but you're literally lying to yourself to excuse your own laziness.

> But you are not a fool, and you know that you do not have to
> understand or even be aware of all that in order to make a
> contribution to physics.
> Those are hurdles that teachers and researchers want students to jump
> through to keep them held up and not able to compete with and surpass
> themselves.

That's simply not true. Teachers and researchers WANT their students to
become better than they are. They WANT their students to earn prizes and
make a difference.

Stop lying to yourself, Conrad. You are telling yourself lies to justify
why you should not study.

> They want you to think that in order to understand physics and or make
> a contribution, you must clear all these hurdles and even agree with
> them.

Don't be silly, Conrad. The people who have made a difference in physics
are the ones who are well educated AND challenge conventional wisdom.
BOTH are required.

> But the truth is, a person can get a physical insight into a physics
> problem just after only hearing it once, drop out of school, so as to
> not be cluttered with distracting, mostly false theories, and devote
> his attention to doing research on that insight that interest him.

No, Conrad, you are lying to yourself. You CANNOT make a contribution to
physics by dropping out of school and tackling problems from an
uneducated stance. This does not happen in science. But thanks for
giving us a snapshot into your history.

> Just as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out of college and made
> major contributions to computer technology after they got ideas that
> interested them more than the boring unnecessary curriculum, the same
> can happen in ANY field.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were BUSINESSMEN, they were not physicists.
What it takes to succeed as an entrepeneur is NOT the same as what it
takes to succeed in science.

> Now I am not advocating dropping out of school in order to peruse as
> insight that you may think you have, but some times that is just the
> truth of the matter.
> Sometimes insights into nature come from nature itself, and not any
> textbook previously believed theories.

I'd be curious whether you can cite anyone who has done that IN PHYSICS.

> You mean to tell me that you did not know that?
> To screen out any discoveries just because they did not come from
> mainstream methods is just absurd

What you call a "discovery" is poetry or metaphysics or cocktail napkin
diagrams, but it isn't physics. A physical theory has certain essential
and indispensable elements for it to even be called science. You simply
cannot slap together some loose prose about light and atoms and call it
a discovery in science. It ISN'T science and it won't be recognized as
science, until it meets certain minimum criteria.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/4/11 3:42 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Sam
> (sqrt-1), is use a lot in electronics and (The Geometrical
> Interpretation of E=mc^2=E=mc^circled and or sphered), not only shows
> that (c =sqrt-1) because the geometry of c^2 produced a standing
> spherical wave of -1 charge, “the Electron itself”, but also because
> it overlays seamlessly with electrical and electronics engineers idea
> that (sqrt-1) is (1unit vector pointing straight up in vertical
> direction giving rise to 90 degree angular counterclockwise rotation),
> as this is exactly how my geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 starts
> as two 90 degree angular trajectories, which gives rise to 90 degree
> angular counterclockwise rotation which if constant creates a 360
> degree angular rotation and if amplitude is constant will create a
> circle making two rotations to complete one wave cycle making a
> standing spherical wave of spin ½ and if spin is counter to trajectory
> will have -1 charge, giving rise to the geometry of the Electron
> itself which is a -1 charged particle.
>
> Conrad J Countess
>

Conrad, I asked what the √-1 has to do with electrons, not
geometry or electronics. Jeez, Conrad, you don't have any
idea how √-1 relates to electrons.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/4/11 1:10 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> It has spin it has kinetic energy period. Spin gives matter its
> gravity force. Think tornado ride TreBert

Bzzzt! Wrong again, Herb!

The electron's gravitation comes from its mass.

Kinetic Energy (which is observer dependent) comes from relative
motion with respect to an observer.

The kinetic energy K_e of an electron moving with velocity v is

K_e = (γ - 1) m_e c^2

where m_e is the mass of the electron and γ = 1/√(1 - v^2/c^2). The
mathematics is concise and agrees with observation exquisitely.

[PD]

Conrad's "contribution" is a napkin sketch, in which two perpendicular
vectors arranged head to tail are connected by a 90 degree arc. He takes
this to be a fundamental statement about anything "square" and anything
"circle". His chief contribution, then is to take anything that is
"squared" (as in, to the 2nd power) and instead transform it into
something "circled".

Thus, if he were to open up chapter 2 of a freshman physics text and see
an equation d = (1/2)a*t^2, he would instantly see this as an expression
of rotation.

He considers this profound. Or at least, he *declares* it profound. It
is profound in exactly the same sense as worrying whether zebras are
white with black stripes, black with white stripes, or transparent with
black and white stripes.

He is doing nothing but babbling and calling the babble important.

[cjcountess]

PD

Your response to my statements are clearly twisted as to make it
appear that I said entirely something different.

There can be no honest conversation with you as you are intent to
distort and confuse everything I say because I am indeed a threat to
you, exposing you for what you are, a lyer.

Sam once said he would take me to court for calling him a lyer and I
would welcome that and counter sue him for even distorting and
sabotaging my post.

I will see if I can get an honest objective science journalist to
follow these conversations, as this type of activity has got to be
exposed.

Established physicist truing to block new and revolutionary ideas that
threaten to expose the limitations to their own.

Truth is, my Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 is so simple and
revolutionary, it cannot be stopped.

It is so simple that it did not take years of study to come up with it
because it was the result of a physical incite, not indoctrination of
previously established physics ideas.

As a matter of fact, it could not have been discovered following those
previously established ideas because those ideas were incomplete,
which is the reason they did not reconcile "Quantum Gravity" as a
marriage of "Quantum Mechanics" and "General Relativity", while The
Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 does.

This is because it clearly shows that E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
sphered, and as such generates a standing spherical wave geometry with
angular momentum of "h/2pi/2", with certainty bypassing the once
mysterious "Uncertainty Principle" and showing that E=mc^2 = F=mv^2/r
= "G" as "c^2" is indeed the highest "v^2".

Thus the mathematics of Special Relativity's E=mc^2, General
Relativity's "G'" and Newton's F=mv^2/r, and Quantum Mechanic's h/2pi/
2, all converge and are interconversion through conversion "c^2" just
as are E and m.

And I did this by myself, and it was so simple, simple, simple, do you
here me, it was SIMPLE.

You and all your teems could not do it because you were counting on
the complexity of your education to figure it out but, it fooled you
as it was hidden right under your noses in the very simplicity.

This is news, and I am going to get someone to investigate it so that
you all do not succeed in distorting it any further, as well as
distorting these web post, as I know you are involved in distorting
post also, and cheating the public from this knowledge, as well as
cheating them out of grant money by lying to them about the cost of
"Quantum Gravity", "Origin of Rest Mass" search.

We are going to put the spot light on this discovery and its
opposition.

Conrad J Countess

[cjcountess]

The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
sphered, is such as poetic, simple, and portable idea, which makes it
so easy to understand and to teach. This is precisely because it is
not based on a whole series of physics courses that may be heard to
understand and memorize, some of which clearly defy common sense, and
as such requires a lot of time to internalize.

Thus the long disciplined, persistence, and indoctrination that it
takes to learn some of the mainstream physics ideas, which are turning
out not even to be correct. Is no match for the catchy insightful
(E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled an or sphered) and all the spin off ideas.

The speed of light squared as

1)c in the linear direction
2)x c in the 90 degree angular direction
3)= c^2 = c in circular motion as a balance of centripetal /
centrifugal forces

This is exactly why “E=mc^2” or E “energy” = m “rest mass/matter”,
through conversion factor “c^2”, because “c^2” is a frequency where
energy turns to matter via circular and or spherical motion.

WOW!!

What an incite.

Do you really think that people are going to have a harder time
understanding that than what you are propagating?

Again, c in the linear direction as __ times c in 90 degree angular
direction as | taken together as __x| as two 90 degree angular
trajectory vectors of motion creates a 90 degree angular
counterclockwise rotation which if constant creates a circle of energy
with angular momentum of h/2pi, and if amplitude is constant, has
angular momentum of h/2pi/2, because wave makes two rotations at 90
degree angle in order to make one wave cycle, making it a Standing
Spherical Wave of spin ½ , with angular momentum of h/2pi/2 and -1
charge if it spins counter to trajectory.

Instead of a point particle, probability wave psi[x,t]^2 with
probability of finding particle “x”, at certain time “t”, withing the
wave to be a certain percentage, and or the angular momentum or
position of wave is h/2pi/2 but not both at same time, the probability
of finding the particle within the wave psi[x,t]^2 is 100 percent
because now the wave is the particle, and of the both angular momentum
and position of wave being h/2pi/2 is also 100 percent with certainty
because wavelength and momentum are inversely promotional to each
other and especially where 1x1=1/1=1 to know one is to know the other.

How can all these experimentally know attributes of Electron come so
seamlessly together to form a clear and complete picture logically
connecting E=mc^2. h/2pi/2, spin1/2, and -1charge, if it were not
true?

It would be statistically very improbable.

And oh yea.

Beating the “Uncertainty Principle”, bringing sqrt-1 out of realm of
imaginary numbers into the realm of real natural units and to
demonstrate that inverse square law concerning frequency does not
diverge to infinity but instead converges to “c^2”

This is the Greatest Discovery sense Relativity and Quantum Theory

Guys, you can not win, the beauty and simplicity itself beats your
ideas any day as they take years of indoctrination even to remember
and or belief that stuff if you ever do.

But my idea, first time it catches

E=mc^2=E=mc^circled and or sphered

And it unifies Quantum Theory and Gravity. You can't beat that


Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/5/11 1:47 PM, cjcountess wrote:
>
> And it unifies Quantum Theory and Gravity. You can't beat that
>
> Conrad J Countess

One problem with your insights and theory, Conrad, is that it is
*utterly useless*. It makes no new predictions and you cannot
demonstrate that it can calculate anything--not one thing!

Oh you can argue that I am jealous and trying to hide your posting,
but the simple face remains--your theory can not calculate or
predict anything.

You are in the same league as
Ralph Rabbidge, a.k.a. Henri Wilson
John Armistead, who admits he is NoEinstein
Ken Seto
Mike Cavedon

[Androcles]

"cjcountess" <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc8cbf4a-ccf8-4d76...@r7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
sphered, is such as poetic, simple, and portable idea,

========================================
The poetry newsgroup is alt.art.poetry, this is sci.physics. Fuck off.

[cjcountess]

Sam

It predicted

1) spherical structure of Electron
2) beating the "Uncertanty Principle"
3) that rest mass in nucleus is composed of kinetic enrgy in rotation

Sam you yourself posted the first two after someone in mainstream
published them, and it is on the records of these post that i mentiond
these in conversations with you log before that , yet you give me know
credit and lie and deny this.

You are on record as a blatent straight out lyer.

Predictions, it's full of predictions which you and your buddies are
trying to steal from me, but you cannot you are caught.

And Andro.

As someone once advised "Steve Jobs", although not exactly in these
words, but close. Stay at the crossroads of science and art, that is
the intersection of creativity.

You especially need this advice because you are so bitter and stuck in
a rut.


I am sure that when I track down Sam and PD's latest publications,
that they will contain some of my ideas.

They cannot get around them, niether can they admit to themselves or
others, that they learned from me, so instead, they stole from me.

Lyers and thieves!! and its all on "International Internet Record"

My theory makes no predictions? How about this one.

I predict that you are a lyer and a thief and that prety soon this
will be evident.

Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/6/11 4:30 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> Sam
>
> It predicted
>
> 1) spherical structure of Electron
> 2) beating the "Uncertanty Principle"
> 3) that rest mass in nucleus is composed of kinetic enrgy in rotation

The problem with your insights and theory, Conrad, is that it is

*utterly useless*. It makes no new predictions and you cannot
demonstrate that it can calculate anything--not one thing!

Your "theory" has *not* shown any of the three things you've stated.
Let's see the calculations, Conrad. Oh, I forgot, there aren't any!

[cjcountess]

You'er a blatent lyer

I am not playing games with you

Conrad J Countess

[cjcountess]

> Conrad J Countess- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The evidence below clearly shows that I presented evidence predicting
"Electron Structure" and beating "Uncertainty Principle" on may 23
which Sam also clearly refutes.

Then on May 26 he acknowleges Electron Structure and presents
corresponding evidence.

He also refute my claim of beating Uncertainty Principle, which I do
not have below, but his later claim of someone else doing so is in
last two post, dated June 2, comes after my own and proves that I
predicted that also before he even knew of it,

Anyway this is enough for now to expose "Sam Wormley" as a out and out
Blatent Lyer



Conrad J Countess

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/03579844a69770d3

cjcountess View profile
More options May 23, 5:08 pm
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics, alt.philosophy
From: cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, May 23 2011 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: What An Electron Looks Like.
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
It's a counterclockwise (-1 charge) standing spherical wave rotating
about two axis (spin 1/2) spining at speed of light or c, with
angular
momentum of (h/2pi/2), and (energy = mc^2)
I am so surprised that after all this time and all the supporting
evidence, that people still believe that an electron has no
geometrical structure that can be visualized, considering it just a
point particle and probability wave.
Technically it can be argued that an electron does not look like
anything in the strictest sense, because we visualize things by
reflecting electromagnetic waves that are smaller and much less
massive than the objects we wish to see, off of them, and that is
hard
to do with an electron, which is the smallest free standing EM wave,
and anything almost as small or just as small, would not only reflect
off of it, but would reflect the electron itself off of it, causing a
great uncertainty in its measurements of position and momentum
through
direct measurements.
This has lead to the "Uncertainty Principle' and all its confusion,
which will to be replaced with the "Certainty Principle" and a
clearing up of alot of that confusion because (h/2pi/2), is indeed a
measure of the particles "certainty," not its "uncertainty" when
viewed in this new way, which is geometrically.
Through analogy, logic, math, geometry, and statistics, I have mapped
its geometry, and it matches latest empirical evidence, that has
somehow seem to overcome the problem of viewing and filming the
geometry of the electron, thereby varifying and collaborating my
discovery.
See this for my interpretation of electron structure
http://gsjournal.net/science/countess.pdf
And this to collaborate it with the latest empirical evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related
Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time.
It resembles an elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two
axis, fitting description which I have geometrically demonstrated, as
opposed to a point particle or probability wave.
Conrad J Countess





http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/16676bd08a49b59f

Sam Wormley View profile
More options May 23, 8:08 pm
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics, alt.philosophy
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:08:51 -0500
Local: Mon, May 23 2011 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: What An Electron Looks Like.
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 5/23/11 5:08 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> I am so surprised that after all this time and all the supporting
> evidence, that people still believe that an electron has no
> geometrical structure that can be visualized, considering it just a
> point particle and probability wave.


There appears not to be *supporting evidence* for electron
structure.
Hypothesize any structure you like. Maybe that structure is purely
to help you visualize like a Newtonian. What is important, is that
if a structure exists, it must be physically measurable...
otherwise
it is meaningless and serves no real purpose.





http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/6e9afd5359e8a8bd

Sam Wormley View profile
More options May 26, 7:14 pm
On 5/26/11 7:06 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed
> "So physicists have tried to build on this model. One framework to
> explain physics beyond the Standard Model is known as supersymmetry.
> However, this theory predicts that the electron has a more distorted
> shape than that suggested by the Standard Model. According to this idea,
> the particle could be egg-shaped.
> Experimental set-up used to measure electron The researchers used lasers
> to measure the shape of the electron
> Researchers stress that the new observation does not rule out
> super-symmetry. But it does not support the theory, according to Dr
> Hudson. "
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/electrons-are-near-perfect-...
A 10-year study has revealed that the electron is very spherical
indeed.
To be precise, the electron differs from being perfectly round by
less
than 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm. To put that in context; if an
electron was the size of the solar system, it would be out from being
perfectly round by less than the width of a human hair.


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/954839c397c4a2f8?hl=en&scoring=d&

Sam Wormley View profile
More options Jun 2, 5:29 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:29:50 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jun 2 2011 5:29 pm
Subject: Quantum Mechanics Gets Weirdly Less Weird
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
Quantum Mechanics Gets Weirdly Less Weird
New take on old experiment sidesteps limit on quantum uncertainty
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/quantum-mechanics-gets-...
"In the famous two-slit experiment, scientists shine light through
two
parallel vertical slits in a thin plate and onto a distant screen
(see
diagram). The waves merging from the two slits overlap and interfere
with each other to create a barcodelike pattern of bright stripes
where
the waves reinforce each other and dark stripes where they cancel
each
other. That "interference pattern" is a hallmark of wavelike
behavior.
However, light is a particle as well as a wave. So experimenters can
detect the individual particles of light, or photons, as they hit the
screen.
"Here's the bizarre part. If the light beam is dim enough, the
photons
will pass through the apparatus one by one. In that case, a
reasonable
person might expect the interference pattern to disappear, as it
would
seem that each photon would have to go through one slit or the other,
eliminating the possibility of interference. But no, after enough
photons pass through, the interference pattern once again emerges. So
each photon must literally go through both slits at once and
interfere
with itself. Moreover, if the experimenter tries to determine which
slit
each photon goes through—say, by alternately closing one slit and
then
the other—the interference pattern really does disappear".
Now on to the Weirdly Less Weird part:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/quantum-mechanics-gets-...


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/6d591b73f1863f9e?hl=en

Sam Wormley View profile
More options Jun 2, 11:32 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:32:50 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jun 2 2011 11:32 pm
Subject: New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
"Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at
some
distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that
change.
Average trajectory
"By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able
to
work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They
then
moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so
by
"connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories
of
the photons. They did this while still recording an interference
pattern
at each detector position".
See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...


Here’s your evidence LYER

Conrad J Countess

[Sam Wormley]

> Conrad J Countess

The problem with your insights and theory, Conrad, is that it is
*utterly useless*. It makes no new predictions and you cannot
demonstrate that it can calculate anything--not one thing!

Furthermore, the Uncertainly Principle states a fundamental limit
on the accuracy with which certain pairs of physical properties
of a particle, such as position and momentum, cannot be
simultaneously known. In other words, the more precisely one
property is measured, the less precisely the other can be
controlled, determined, or known.

That is still the case, Conrad, and you cannot show otherwise. Why
are you calling people names and using disparaging remarks against
other posters?

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/6/11 1:04 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> The evidence below clearly shows that I presented evidence predicting
> "Electron Structure" and beating "Uncertainty Principle" on may 23
> which Sam also clearly refutes.

There is *no experiment* showing the electron to have structure,
Conrad. You just make this shit up, right?

[cjcountess]

You are wrong as your own evidence sugest

You can also take a look at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related

As for the "Uncertainty Priciple", that is based on the limit of the
point particle probability waves theory, and mathematics whose answers
do not commute.

But with Geometrical modle, all that uncertamty disapears.

You are a very dishonest person, and there is not to many things
worse than an intellegent person injecting that intellegemce into
dishonesty, because it makes that dishonesty subtle.

But I can see right through you.

Conrad J Countess

[Unified_Perspective]

On Oct 31, 1:54 am, greysky <ftls...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/2011 9:52 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/30/11 11:22 PM, greysky wrote:
> >> On 10/30/2011 9:06 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> >>> On 10/30/11 10:57 PM, greysky wrote:
> >>>> Well, it's been around 6 months since my last post on my
> >>>> discoveries on
> >>>> the nature of motion. Has anyone come up with any other ideas? We've
> >>>> discussed how Zeno's paradox basically proves continuous motion is
> >>>> impossible.
>

> >>> That's really sad you don't understand Zeno's paradox and realize
> >>> that *continuous motion is observed* in nature.
>
> >> It would be more accurate to say that *motion is observed in nature*,
> >> Sam. Otherwise, what proofs can you offer to show motion is truly
> >> continuous? What apparatus has that kind of resolution?
>
> >> G-
>
> >   Similarly, what apparatus (or even theory) shows that motion is
> >   in steps?
>
> Every journey begins with the first step. When I began this strange
> journey, all I wanted to do was make a better alternative to Ham
> (amateur) radio.  I never dreamed my researches would give me insights
> into how objects and information, propagated in this universe. From
> where I am now, I find it amazing we have accomplished as much as we
> have with what amounts to incomplete theories - but the incompleteness
> gives rise to apparent paradoxes and unanswered questions. For example,
> a bridge between quantum theory and relativity is the law of energy
> conservation. Relativity says energy can't move FTL for large scale
> measurements, and quantum theory is saying the same thing for small
> scale measurements. At this level , they are both equivalent.
>
> Wormholes, I have found by direct measurement, do not work the way
> theoreticians think they do - Sci -fi wormholes, or Michio Kaku
> wormholes do not exist. Energy does not pass through them. In fact, if
> any energy tries to cross the event horizon of a wormhole, it becomes
> unstable and collapses. So, wormholes turn out to be easy to make in
> great quantities, but they do not last long at all. The random energy in
> the environment collapses them and doesn't allow material objects to to
> through them.  But that doesn't mean they are totally useless. I
> recognize them for what strengths and weaknesses they have, and have
> found a way to increase the length of time they exist to the point where
> I can incorporate them in various experiments. One result: FTL motion is
> possible without violating conservation laws, because the only thing
> that can pass through the event horizon of a wormhole  is imaginary
> (read: quantum) information. In my previous post showing the electron
> encountering the event horizon of the wormhole, the quantum information
> representing the electron passed through the wormhole, while the real
> energy the electron was made form caused it (the wormhole) to collapse.
> This happens all the time in nature, which only results in the
> instantaneous propagation of random information. By lengthening the time
> wormholes can exist in a carefully prepared quantum domain, I can use
> them to send non-random information. One of the results I have found is
> that motion is not continuous if you just logically extend the example
> in my first post you will see where I am leading to. If you can't, wait
> till I post the second part of the experiment. So, one clue I can offer
> now is this: all motion in this universe is superluminal and
> non-continuous - this leads directly from the law of conservation of
> energy. Continuous motion would violate this law. But, while motion may
> be faster than light, the *results* of motion are always slower than light.
>
> So, to answer your question, I guess I am creating the theory right
> now... as far as the device I am using, I call my little FTL propagation
> machine QTEC. It's an acronym and it stands for Quantum Transition Event
> Communications, and no, it really isn't a radio...

>
> Greysky
>
> www.ftlsite.com
> Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Well, I am not ready to climb aboard this train of thought, but I do
recall experiments examining the quantum nature of motion involving
plastic micro-spheres with varying unit charge in a electric field
with a controllable coloumb gradient also under the influence of
gravity wherein the spheres position and motion was determined by the
authors to be of persistently non-random distribution, which seemed to
them to imply a quantized motion paradigm.

AAG

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/7/11 3:52 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> On Nov 6, 6:40 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/11 1:04 PM, cjcountess wrote:
>>
>>> The evidence below clearly shows that I presented evidence predicting
>>> "Electron Structure" and beating "Uncertainty Principle" on may 23
>>> which Sam also clearly refutes.
>>
>> There is *no experiment* showing the electron to have structure,
>> Conrad. You just make this shit up, right?
>
> You are wrong as your own evidence sugest
>
> You can also take a look at this
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related

<laughing> Conrad, you don't even know what you are looking at!

There is *no experiment* showing the electron to have structure,
Conrad.

>

> As for the "Uncertainty Priciple", that is based on the limit of the
> point particle probability waves theory, and mathematics whose answers
> do not commute.
>

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states a

fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of
physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum,
cannot be simultaneously known.

Some Background for Conrad
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

[cjcountess]

Sam

I restu are concerned unless I get vored and want to play your game
which you already lost.

You are a beaten man, accept it gracefully and with honor, instead of
as a lying winning loser

Conrad J Countess

[Unified_Perspective]

On Oct 30, 11:57 pm, "greysky" <ftls...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it's been around 6 months since my last post on my discoveries on the
> nature of motion. Has anyone come up with any other ideas? We've discussed

> Greysky
>
> www.ftlsite.com
> Learn how to build a FTL radio.

I referenced your previous post and followed the link to the
presentation of the paradoxes of Zenos you mention therein.

Most of the paradoxes are trivial in that there is an implicit
assumption that the sum of an infinite series is infinite. This is not
true. The sum of sum infinite series are infinite, but most infinite
series simply approach a limit - the asymptote and that value is the
sum of the series.

Zenos paradox on motion, is however, not in this class of mistaken
assumptions. The error here is that of a transposition of frames of
reference. The original frame of reference is the observer in this
frame the arrow moves. The transposed frame of reference is that of
the arrow. In this frame of reference the arrow does not move, the
world does.

So, that is the mathematical resolution to these paradoxes. However,
the motion paradox was paradoxical then and still is today. It is
represented in the apparent conflict between quantum theory and
relativity and some of these conflicts are not fully resolved in
either system and motion is a prime example.

The experiments I mentioned on quantization of position and motion of
microspheres is one experiment that illustrates the persistance of
Zenos paradox of motion into the present day. The quantum tunneling of
electrons is another.

The quantum tunneling of electrons in particular seems relevant to the
issue you raise and these surprising experimental results do seem to
support the result you claim to observe in your own experiments.

The resolution of the paradox in modern terms would be;

Position is a quantized parameter of a "particle" (read particle wave)
in a quantum mechanical representation of the world. In this view
then, motion is a quantum statistical process in which the position of
the particles that make up the moving substance advance incrementally
as individual elements but cohesively as a bound set of standing waves
advancing over time.

The experimental results to date seem to support the quantization of
motion, so the discrete motion of the individual particles of which a
solid in motion is composed would be seen to be advancing
incrementally over time with the process of their motion being
mediated by an exchange of virtual photons.

The virtual photons are limited to propagating at the speed of light,
so the motion of a solid at FTL as seen by a "stationary" observer is
precluded.

However, light to a stationary observer can be red shifted to the
point it can not be seen. Similarly, if an light emitting object
having a rest were traveling at a speed great than c it would be
passing its own light and that light would never be seen by a
stationary observer. Relativity therefor proves that you will never
see, nor hear, the bullet that kills you, but relativity does not in
and of itself prove that FTL by solid objects is precluded.

Nor, does it, in my view "prove" that information can not travel FTL,
I would call this an open question at present with the preponderance
of the experimental evidence supporting your seemingly unbelievable
claims.

Thank you for your post.

I had been rather troubled in my own thinking ever since I read of the
evidence for the quantization of motion in micro-spheres. The result
reported was so deeply in conflict with my thinking at the time I
could not explain it. I had never heard of Zenos paradox at the time,
but I certainly felt it as a internal cognitive dissonance when I read
of these experiments. Today, I feel as though I can explain these
results. I do not know if you will find my explanation helpful or not,
but I personally feel my own dissonance is relieved and I am no longer
troubled by Zenos paradox of motion. It remains a paradox. But it
seems it has become a paradox that explains reality rather than
confounds it.

In terms of a unified field theory a object in motion has elements
that spin continuously. They have components that are imbedded in
space-time and to an outside observer only space or time are
observable at any given moment.

If at a given moment time is fully represented, then motion is
observable and position is not. If position (ie space) is fully
observable then motion is not. From the point of view of an observer
moving with the object in motion, then there object is solid and
stationary and the world is moving with blurring speed.

As far as I can tell, what I have said has no bearing on the
possibility or impossibility of information or even mass traveling at
FRL.

Chernov's radiation which certainly causes the light from the Aurora
Borealis and most probably accounts for most of the photon type solar
energy we receive from our sun and most other stars clearly indicates
that electrons are regularly accelerated to speeds greater than the
"local" speed of light which is well below the vacuum speed.

What makes you think that you have found a way of creating virtual
photon "worm holes" that are ? stationary ? and ? stable ? and
transmit information FTL????????!

Please understand, I am not necessarily questioning your sanity, nor
the validity of your results.
I have simply never heard of anything similar before, so I am inviting
you to comment further and to disclose to the extent you feel
comfortable your methodology and results. I suppose I am invited to
click on the link you provide and "Learn how to build a FTL radio".
Hmmm. Rather busy just at the moment.... Perhaps another day.

AAG

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/7/11 10:16 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> Sam
>
> I restu are concerned unless I get vored and want to play your game
> which you already lost.
>
> You are a beaten man, accept it gracefully and with honor, instead of
> as a lying winning loser
>
> Conrad J Countess

The problem with your insights and theory, Conrad, is that it is
*utterly useless*. It makes no new predictions and you cannot

demonstrate that it can calculate anything--*not one thing*!

[PD]

On 11/5/2011 12:50 PM, cjcountess wrote:

>
> This is news, and I am going to get someone to investigate it so that
> you all do not succeed in distorting it any further, as well as
> distorting these web post, as I know you are involved in distorting
> post also, and cheating the public from this knowledge, as well as
> cheating them out of grant money by lying to them about the cost of
> "Quantum Gravity", "Origin of Rest Mass" search.

Let me know when you succeed in getting someone to investigate it.

[cjcountess]

Sam

I rest my case as far as you are concerned, unless I get bored and
want to play your game, which you already lost.

You are a beaten man, accept it gracefully and with honor, instead of

as a lying, whining loser. "Is what I meant to say."

The absurdity of your persistent denial and lyes, has goten me so
frustrated, that I am making the simplest typos, out of frustration in
responce to this.

But I can not even imagine the frustration that you two must have,
knowing that all the main and important ideas you thought you ever
knew, and taught to your trusting students, may be wrong.

It must really be hard on you, and I do sympathise.

Stop, before you twist yur brain into a craze that is unhealthy.

It is not your fault. And the momentum of such powerful adeas that has
moved and served you so much in the past is hard to turn and or stop.

You are on a run away crashing train and I am just trying to warn you
and the rest of the world.

And believe me. I will get a sciense journalist to pay attention to
this, because it is just that important



Conrad J Countess

[shuba]

Crackpot J Clueless wrote:

> And believe me. I will get a sciense journalist to pay attention
> to this, because it is just that important

It will never happen. No serious journalist will have anything to
do with the nonsensical and obviously uninformed blather of Conrad,
who is too stupid to know how "science" is even spelled, much less
how it is practiced. The following moronic statement is but a small
example.

>> > As for the "Uncertainty Priciple", that is based on the limit
>> > of the point particle probability waves theory, and
>> > mathematics whose answers do not commute.

More garbage from Conrad, who clearly has never studied physics at
any level and has zero competence in the subject. Anyone with the
slightest understanding of quantum physics ought to at least get a
laugh out of the sorry buffoon named Conrad who thinks the quoted
sentence above is a meaningful and correct depiction of the
uncertainty principle.

Any luck with the billiard ball problem yet?


---Tim Shuba---

[cjcountess]

Shuba

You are a clown who has contributed nothing to physics, after years of
your so called studying, without the slightest understanding of it,
and I, a revolutionizer of the subject, without that so called
studying, because I am a natural, with revolutionary incite, who just
looked at the problem of "Quantum Gravity", and solved it in a
flash!!!

My natural ability and incites have produced far more than your so
called education ever could, and it;s all on "International Internet
Record"

You are reduced to a babbling, childish idiot, in the presence of my
work. Crybaby!!

Have you discovered anything besides how to create diversions through
childish rantings whinning and introducing ready made formulas of pool
ball collisions that you also show no ability to understand?

Why don't you present a paper that you wrote, and don't mind if you,
like PD, are just one of "400", or so of its contributers, who only
wrote one word.

I bet that your paper is even wrong and I can take it apart and you
too, any day, every day, crybaby, clown.

You are also a lyer and distorter of truth, and a thief of the
taxpayers money, if you are spouting that same nonsense as Sam and PD,
and getting grants or salery for it.

You are a probigator of lies, and a thief.

Conrad J Countess

Revealing the truth and those who are trying to hide it.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/7/11 6:22 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Sam
>
> I rest my case as far as you are concerned, unless I get bored and
> want to play your game, which you already lost.
>

You can run away if you like, Conrad, but the fact remains that
your "insights" and "theory" are *utterly useless*, as they make
no testable predictions. Furthermore, your "theory" can not calculate
anything--not one thing, Conrad!

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/7/11 9:32 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> My natural ability and incites have produced far more than your so
> called education ever could, and it;s all on "International Internet
> Record"

What a joke, Conrad! Your "theory" is *utterly useless*, as they make

no testable predictions. Furthermore, your "theory" can not calculate

anything--not one thing, Conrad! What a joke!

[PD]

On 11/7/2011 6:22 PM, cjcountess wrote:
> Sam
>
> I rest my case as far as you are concerned, unless I get bored and
> want to play your game, which you already lost.

Conrad is a broken man whose only verbal tactic of engagement is to
declare victory.

[cjcountess]

Three Blind Mice

See How They Run

They Put Their Ideas To Conrad's Test

And then All Flew Over The CooKoos Nest

When thy Found That Their Ideas Where Really a Mess

Shuba, Sam, and PD, Oh I Mean, Three Blind Mice

I am just having fun with you guys but it;s not fair.
It's like boxing three obviously blind men.

Oh well. it's three of you. so I don't fell that bad, besides you
turned this into a personal argument which really has nothing more to
do with physics.

Now it is about your bitterness of being beaten by a naturel.

Thought your education would carry the day, did you?

WELL SORRY, YOU CAN'T TEACH VISUALS VERY WELL TO BLIND PEOPLE.

Sam, in the description of "Uncertanty Principle" you linked me to,
according to its history. "Heisenberg" was very angry at "Schrodinger"
for having a "visual theory" that caught on quicker than his own,
because it was visual. just like you are angry at me, and even called
it, according to one translation, "bullshit", just as you seem to
characterize mine. But you Can see that this is just Jealousy,
"right"?

Grow up men. stop crying and get back to work.

And shuba, if I didn't get that order of ideas right between the point
particle probabilty theory and "Uncertainty Principle", maybe you can
hang your hat on that, because as far as my own theory, I haven' t got
that wrong at all.

Conrad J Countess

PS

Sam

It is on International Internet Record that I predicted

1) Electron Structure

2) Beating Uncertanty Principle

3) Rest Mass "Quantification of Rest Mass Gravity" is just Relative
Mass in rotation at frequency of c62 which is c in circular and or
spherical rotation.

4) Mechanism which imparts mass on waves "thought to be Higg;s",
resides in Backgroud Energy Field.

At least three of these ideas 1,2 and 4, you yourself, after blasting
me for proposing them, turned around and proposed them yourself, or at
least presented articles from mainstream that proposed the same.

You are on record as being a very dishonest person.

Conrad J Countess

[PD]

On 11/8/2011 6:30 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> On Nov 8, 3:45 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/7/2011 6:22 PM, cjcountess wrote:
>>
>>> Sam
>>
>>> I rest my case as far as you are concerned, unless I get bored and
>>> want to play your game, which you already lost.
>>
>> Conrad is a broken man whose only verbal tactic of engagement is to
>> declare victory.
>
> Three Blind Mice
>
> See How They Run
>
> They Put Their Ideas To Conrad's Test
>
> And then All Flew Over The CooKoos Nest
>
> When thy Found That Their Ideas Where Really a Mess

:) Oh, Conrad, earlier you were agreeing that there is nothing really
wrong with our ideas -- that they work fine, that they aren't
complicated, and that you understand them completely.
Now you say they are a mess, but you haven't given any rationale for
saying so.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/8/11 6:30 AM, cjcountess wrote:
> Sam
>
> It is on International Internet Record that I predicted
>
> 1) Electron Structure
>
> 2) Beating Uncertanty Principle
>
> 3) Rest Mass "Quantification of Rest Mass Gravity" is just Relative
> Mass in rotation at frequency of c62 which is c in circular and or
> spherical rotation.
>
> 4) Mechanism which imparts mass on waves "thought to be Higg;s",
> resides in Backgroud Energy Field.
>
> At least three of these ideas 1,2 and 4, you yourself, after blasting
> me for proposing them, turned around and proposed them yourself, or at
> least presented articles from mainstream that proposed the same.
>
> You are on record as being a very dishonest person.
>
> Conrad J Countess

I agree that you posting record resides on USENET servers for
sometimes more than 30 days. And that several entities archive
USENET posting, including Google.

However, the fact remains that your "insights" and "theory" are

*utterly useless*, as they make no testable predictions.

Furthermore, your "theory" can not calculate anything--not one

thing, Conrad! It's a total sham.

[cjcountess]

PD

I am playing with you.

You, shuba, and Sam, seem to act so childish that I am inclining
toward treating you in a childish manner because of this.

But you can shift through what is serious and what is not, just as I
can shift through what are blatent lies told by Sam, and what is just
his cut and paste, sinse he does not seem to really understand
anything and resorts to just cutting and pasting, and hoping that
these post are correct.

But Sam understands nothing, which is very obvious in his writings,
because he just cuts and paste, without intelligible commentary and
elaboration.

You, on the other hand, are very bright, which is also very obviously
demonstrated by your comentary, elaborating, and spontainious
conversations.

This is why I cannot understand, why you cannot understand, what I am
saying, unless you really can, and are just defending your position,
analogous to a lawer and or defendant, who's life and or livelyhood is
on the line and feels he can't afford to admit the truth, which would
make you guilty of taking a wrong stance and probably lying to the
people and the government in order to get grants. As such, you are
counting on the hope that it is not the truth that wins in the end,
but the better argument. because truth is definitly "NOT" on your side

On the other hand, maybe you are truely blind "incitefully" and just
as a visually blind peron cannot see geometry and colors, you cannot
see "Quantum Geometry", and therefore really and sincerly dought its
existence, on the quantum level.

I am giving you the benifit of the dought, and assuming the latter.

Sam

You too are obviouslly "incitefully" blind, and just as a man who is
visually blind may deny the existence of the shape and colors of cars,
whose approaching presence he can only hear, you too may deny the
geometry of the approaching "Quantum Revolution", but you "WILL" feel
the IMPACT!!


Somebody, grab that blind man by the hand, he's heading straight out
in the middle of traffic.

Conrad J Countess