 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Geometrical interpretation of c^2
Hello this is Conrad Countess. I first published this idea of c^2 as a frequency at the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum where energy turns to matter back in May of 2005 on sci physics and got some interesting responses. I explained it as the speed of light in linear direction times the speed of light in frequency or right angular direction, resulting in the speed of light in circular motion due to a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces as one of the explanations . A lot of the responses were negative and some people even seemed offended. Although this can be discouraging and make one not want to put themselves in such a line of critical fire, if you really believe that you are correct and that what you are offering is important, this is what you must go through. Having confidence in what you are saying and knowing that you will eventually be vindicated makes it easier to take the criticism. Beside this puts it on record that you were the first to suggest or discover this and contrast those who claim to be on the cutting edge of physics but still think that what you say is absurd. I am convinced now more than ever that I was correct with the exception of some grammar, spelling and minor mathematical errors then and even more so now. And so now I like to throw this idea out there one more time to see what it stirs up. With the confidence that I have now, I don't mind if they attack the grammar, spelling, minor mathematical, and the style errors, because I know that the main concept is correct, I know that there are theory assassins out there who really attack when you threaten their theory of economic interest by being correct but opposite their view, and I know that eventually the right people will see the value in what I am saying. Here is a short simple version Some say that c^2 in the most famous equation in the world "E=mc^2" is just a mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter with no physical geometry. But I intent to show that c^2 is actually a conversion frequency at the high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to matter because it takes on a geometrical form of energy in circular or spherical motion such as a standing spherical wave because of the angular momentum of the wave being strong enough to now create circular motion. The simplest way to see the direct equivalent relationship between energy and matter is to view c^2 geometrically in this way. Just as v^2 in formula a=v^2/r represents acceleration of circular motion in classical physics so can c^2 represent circular motion for one quantum particle if viewed in this way. The speed of light squared or c^2" might be said to be ( the vector product of two perpendicular vectors of motion), namely the speed of light along the linear light path, for instance horizontally along the x-axis - and the speed of light in the right angular frequency direction, or vertically along the y-axis; resulting in a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces to yield circular motion and rest mass. In 3D this would be a standing spherical wave. And this wave may have rest mass due to a helicopter like hovering effect and stability in motion because of a more equal distribution of energy, mass, and momentum around a center of rotation instead of energy being radiated outward in a relatively straight line as with normal electromagnetic radiation. Please see attached file for geometrical graphic [ m (or rest mass) = E (or energy) c^2(at the speed of light in circular rotation) for one quantum particle.] seegraphic Conrad J Countess 5/9/2008 Conrad again; Sorry graphic link did not work. Might have to cut and paste the url below http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck > Conrad again; > Sorry graphic link did not work. Might have to cut and paste the url > belowhttp://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck Conrad Yes, it's a rotation which then also precesses. And if the rotation is at a frequency of 1 and you set the frequency of precession to 2, you get: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/standingwave.GIF And if you take eight of these pathways- one every 45 degrees around the equator- you complete this pattern: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/galaxy%20pattern%201.html Each pathway accommodates two opposite members, like this: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/He.GIF so your original rotating ring can accommodate 16 equally-spaced members to follow this pattern. If we compare completing 16-member rings to the periodic table we get this: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF John Galaxy Model > Hello this is Conrad Countess. Bullshit meters are aquiver. > I first published this idea of c^2 as a > frequency at the high end of the electromagnetic spectrum where energy > turns to matter back in May of 2005 on sci physics and got some > interesting responses. Here are a couple more, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg < I explained it as the speed of light in linear > direction times the speed of light in frequency or right angular > direction, resulting in the speed of light in circular motion due to a > balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces as one of the > explanations . [snip rest of crap] http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge 1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill. 2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others. 3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy. http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html Idiot.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 | Hello this is Conrad Countess. I first published this idea of c^2 as a | frequency *plonk* Hello this is Conrad Thank you John that was very interesting, and the relation to the periodic table really set it off. I am going to study your ideas more as I am sure I can learn something from them and I have some more of my own that you might be interested in also including one concerning periodic table. Hello Uncle Al and Androcles. Didn't take either of you long to descend. I remember Uncle Al asking me, “How does Lorentz contraction look like space time curvature?” Did not think of it then but I have since. The answer is that as frequency increases and wavelength contracts such as in Doppler effect, this is analogous to or literally Lorentz contraction of EM waves. And as the wave reaches c in the right angular direction where it has enough momentum to create a rotation and rest mass, that is space time curvature. Thus Lorentz contraction of EM waves leads to space time curvature of EM waves turning them to matter since EM waves as well as matter are a manifestation of space time. This is because the ground state dark energy from which EM waves and matter particles arise is inseparable from space time itself. And Androcles “The Energy Squared” web site, including the square that suppose to represent c^2 along with his E = ½ mv^2. Did not think of it then but but I have since and I am ready for both of you. E=1/2mv^2, F=mv or F=mv^2 all have been used to describe force or energy. I won't argue in favor of either at this time. As for the square representing the amount of energy in matter it may work very well at that. But I am relating c^2 to a frequency at high end of EM spectrum where the speed of light in the linear direction equals and balances the speed of light in the 90 degree angular direction causing the speed of light squared to become the speed of light circled and Lorentz contraction to become space time curvature. Wow! Uncle Al and Androcles, you guys are all over criticizing people, are you the theory assassins? Well this one won't die, it just gets stronger and stronger. I love this Conrad > Hello this is Conrad [snip crap] > I love this > Conrad Have some more, http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge 1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill. 2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others. 3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy. http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > Hello this is Conrad > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hello Uncle Al and Androcles. Didn't take either of you long to > descend. If Al and Androcles are dissin' you, you're somebody. Every separate thing is moving energy, and the energy, far from being random, must move in a constant way when unperturbed by other bits of moving energy. Light is a frequency moving at c with a certain attitude wrt that direction. Now we transpose that movement at c to an orthogonal frequency. We now have a wave travelling in a circle. A standing wave. In mine I find that second frequency to be twice the first. John Galaxy Model Thank you Andre. These guys act as if I committed blaspheme against their religion or something. What disturbs me is not that I think they will prove me wrong, on the contrary they are looking more like fools to me and soon they will be to every one else as this is on the record. What disturbs me most is their viciousness and hatefulness. But they will be revealed for what they are by their own words and attitudes. Because the more you claim to know the more you reveal what you don't know. It is sometimes hard to find a suitable explanation to present to rigid minds. But do not disregard a work simply because it is not written in the correct style or coming from an established academic. If I were handed a treasure map and disregard it simply because the spelling and or grammar were incorrect, I would lose out. But someone else might not and he or she would prove the wiser. Besides physics is more important than minor spelling, grammar, and style errors in this case. And we all know that mavericks have made great discoveries in the past. Getting back to the subject at hand If frequency converges to c^2 instead of diverges to v^2 interpreted as infinity, and leading to “ultraviolet catastrophe idea” in electromagnetic theory as well as in quantum theory as the “infinite degrees of freedom idea” that lead to renormalization and running coupling constants problems, than this high frequency cut off c^2 that I am speaking on behalf of should naturally lead to coupling constants that don't run such as the true mass and charge of electron in natural units of c. Mass is M=E=c^2 and charge is -1=E=c^2 meaning energy at exactly c^2. Although M=E/c^2 and m=Ec^2 both can be used because (1/1)=(1x1)=(1) since E/C^2 can pertain to relative mass of photons and Ec^2 can pertain to compound mass with multiple c^2 particles, the only equation that pertains to a single rest mass partial that is not a devision of or multiple of, but exactly c^2 is m=E=c^2 or m =E@c^2 meaning exactly at c^2. Since positrons have same mass but opposite charge a notation must distinguish the two. An electron is said to get its -1 charge from its spin being counter to its trajectory, and the square root of -1 is said to be 1 unite vector in the 90 degree angular direction which causes a 90 degree counter clockwise rotation. With that said “c” might be said to be the natural unites square root of -1 if “cxc” or “c^2” produces a backward spinning -1 charged particle such as an electron as indeed the evidence will bare out. The ultra violet catastrophe idea was remedied by Planck introducing the constant but was not applied to minimum or maximum frequency. That might also be done Minimum energy would be Ground state energy at h and maximum would be c^2 It may be more palatable for some if I said that c^2 is associated with a frequency where the angular momentum of the wave equals and balances the linear momentum. for a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces that create circular or spherical motion and rest mass. After all if E=hf/c^2 measures energy of EM waves than at some point at high end of EM spectrum, E must = hf = c^2 exactly where a waves attains rest mass. Did not deBroglie associate h/mc^2 with frequency of electron and associate it with a critical angular momentum? Hello John You are correct and that brings me to the more advanced 3D explanation. Although yours was excellent let me see if I can collaborate it. If we start with a circular polarized wave moving horizontally to the right along the x axis and give it an all around 3D 90 degree angular momentum, enough to create spherical motion, and we makes it spin backward, it will be spinning along the y and z axis as well as backward along the x axis like a gyroscope making two rotations along the y and z axis for every one along the x axis. In other words it makes two rotations for every wavelength just as an electron. I have plenty of collaborating evidence that I will post. You are correct again this is very encouraging as it collaborates the evidence that I have. A 3D, backward spinning, standing spherical wave logically follows from this. I have the evidence on disk and will post it latter. Will get back to you John this is very encouraging. Conrad [snip whining crap] > Getting back to the subject at hand > If frequency converges to c^2 instead of diverges to v^2 interpreted > as infinity, and leading to ultraviolet catastrophe idea in > electromagnetic theory as well as in quantum theory as the infinite > degrees of freedom idea [snip rest of crap] Hey f.cking stooopid: c^2 has dimensions (L^2)[T^(-2)]. Frequency is T^(-1). http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge 1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill. 2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others. 3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy. http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > 1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of > skill. > 2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in > others. > 3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their > inadequacy. Look in the mirror > But do not disregard a work simply because it is not written in > the correct style or coming from an established academic. If I were > handed a treasure map and disregard it simply because the spelling and > or grammar were incorrect, I would lose out. But someone else might > not and he or she would prove the wiser. Besides physics is more > important than minor spelling, grammar, and style errors in this case. Surely the physics content is more important than minor spelling, grammar, or style errors. Just read some published peer-reviewed physics papers and enjoy the wonderful grammar and style! (Copy-editors take care of the spelling errors, at least in the journals that copy-edit, but you need to be careful, because often the copy editors don't know how to write English, and follow a checklist of house style rules rigidly, and butcher the grammar in the process.) It isn't about spelling, grammar, or style; it's about conveying meaning. The criticism of your post that I saw was that c^2 can't be a frequency, as basic dimensional analysis will tell you. This may well not be one of the replies that you characterise as "hateful". In any case, the point is well-made - how can statements like "frequency converges to c^2 instead of diverges to v^2" be meaningful if the dimensions of quantities are not meaningful. The advantages of standardised technical terms and mathematics is that things have standard meanings. Exploit the standardised language, don't abuse it! For example, "c^2 is associated with a frequency" doesn't say anything useful unless you explain what "associated" means. Better still, what is the frequency in hertz? If there's more than one frequency, so that you can't give a single quantitative answer, how can you say "associated with a frequency"? Saying "the angular momentum of the wave equals and balances the linear momentum" doesn't convey very much, because angular and linear momentum are different things, and can't be equal. Perhaps you mean that the moment of the linear momentum is equal to (or opposite to, since you write "balances") the angular momentum? I can't tell. You might have an interesting idea there, but if I can't understand what you write, how can I know? It isn't about spelling, grammar, or style; it's about clarity and understandability. > And we all know that mavericks have made great discoveries in the > past. When? Who? In physics, when and who? I suppose it depends on the definition of "maverick". While this isn't the subject at hand, I think the topic of outsider-contributions to physics and science is interesting. What mavericks do you think have made great discoveries in physics, and why do you consider them to be mavericks? > It may be more palatable for some if I said that c^2 is associated > with a frequency where the angular momentum of the wave equals and > balances the linear momentum. for a balance of centrifugal and > centripetal forces that create circular or spherical motion and rest > mass. I've wondered just what might happen if you produce a rotational frequency shift (a beam of light or other electromagnetic radiation that exerts a torque on a rotating object, such as a birefringent waveplate, comes out with a changed frequency) so as to get a frequency of zero, or a negative frequency. SignatureTimo ... > I've wondered just what might happen if you produce a rotational frequency > shift (a beam of light or other electromagnetic radiation that exerts a > torque on a rotating object, such as a birefringent waveplate, comes out > with a changed frequency) so as to get a frequency of zero, or a negative > frequency. > Timo Perhaps an A/C induction motor, Hertz (like 60) in, 1800 RPM out, fascinating subject, I'm sure you know much more than almost anyone, would be a start. Ken Hello Ken Nice to hear from you again. TImo, I understand what you are saying and appreciate your civility. I can only explain something the best that I can giving the tools that I have at the time. Not being a trained physicist I don't know all the lingo or math of a trained physicist but I know fairly well how to communicate an idea and definitely know when I understand an idea, even if I cannot yet convey it seamlessly. I will try to covey it more clearly in its simplest most complete form and language that hopefully most can understand. I think that one of the things that throws allot of people off is the simplicity of this idea. It really doesn't require allot of complex math and language unless that is all one can think in. Will think about what you said more. Eric Gisse I know that in equation like “F=mv^2” it does not mean that the velocity is multiplied by itself. It means that the force is not simply the (mass times the velocity) but that each time the velocity doubles the force quadruples. The same is true for a=v^2/r, the force required to maintain acceleration of circular motion at same speed quadruples each time radius or speed doubles. But velocity squared can also mean two perpendicular vectors of motion giving rise to circular motion. In the old days you could speak of a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces at right angles to each other giving rise to circular motion. That in another sense would be velocity squared.. Now some people don't want to use the idea of centrifugal force saying that it is fictitious and that the tendency to move in a straight line once set in motion is not a force at all. No wonder people are confused. Stand in the way of something that has been set in motion along a straight line such as a bullet and tell me again that it does not have a force. I can understand why some people are confused about my description of c^2 or v^2 as circular motion. Although v^2 may not always refer to circular motion it sometimes can if viewed as a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces at 90 degrees to each other analogous to a line in horizontal direction times a line of equal measure in 90 degree angle to it which creates a square and the foundation of a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle. And as I said, in this context velocity and or c squared is velocity or c circled. I am sure every one has heard of circular frequency. I won't attempt to explain myself to much more as we are already divided into at least two camps on this issue. There are those who understand what I am trying to say even if not perfect, and those who will not try to understand or perhaps do but feel threatened by ideas if they do not agree with theirs which they invested a lot of pride, money, and time in. I think we are making some people nervous if we are creating a revolution in physics, all turning on the idea of c^2 as circular frequency or rotating energy with rest mass. One that may turn physics upside down. This disturbs people. Especially if I added that the speed of light is not the fastest speed in the universe but actually the slowest. And that what is called rest mass is actually faster because c^2 is faster than c. But I won't do that just yet. John look at website and agree: atoms as well as galaxies may precess or rotate on planes which themselves rotate at right angles to that rotation eventually forming a spheres an so on. Will get back to you with something interesting > Thank you Andre. > These guys act as if I committed blaspheme against their religion or > something. They simply snivel at a blatant error. A very bad habit but hey, everyone is free to act like this on this unmoderated group. In such an environment, you have to chose with whom you want to discuss. > What disturbs me is not that I think they will prove me > wrong, on the contrary they are looking more like fools to me and soon > they will be to every one else as this is on the record. What disturbs > me most is their viciousness and hatefulness. But they will be > revealed for what they are by their own words and attitudes. Because > the more you claim to know the more you reveal what you don't know. Trust me, viciousness apart, they do understand dimensional analysis. > It is sometimes hard to find a suitable explanation to present to rigid > minds. But do not disregard a work simply because it is not written in > the correct style or coming from an established academic. That's the name of the game here. And even if your work was perfect they would still disregard it. But you do have a blatant error from the getgo by naming c^2 a frequency. It simply makes no sense. I really suggest you dig more deeply into physics until you clearly distinguish between frequency, wavelength, energy, velocities and how they are related. The best you can expect as it stands is that they will jump on the first mistake they see and stick a ten foot pole right into it. It is up to you then to analyze and determine if it really is an error (that you must then correct, even if it means starting again from scratch) or if it is not an error from the premises you establish. > If I were handed a treasure map and disregard it simply because > the spelling and or grammar were incorrect, I would lose out. Looking forward to see what map you eventually come up with. IF you invest the very difficult efforts involved into digging into physics sufficiently to iron out all blatant errors, you may get there. > But someone else might not and he or she would prove the wiser. > Besides physics is more important than minor spelling, grammar, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Did not deBroglie associate h/mc^2 with frequency of electron and > associate it with a critical angular momentum? No. He associated the momentum (p=mv) of the Bohr hydrogen atom ground state electron with Planck's constant which defined what he named the matter wave. lambda = h/mv Lambda = the de Broglie wavelength (the matter wave) dimension = meter h= Planck's constant 6.62606876E-34 (joules seconds) m= mass of the electron 9.10938188E-31 kg the dimensions of kg are (joules seconds^2) / meter^2 v = classical velocity of the Bohr ground state electron 2187691.253 m/ s If you do the calculation you will se that lamba = 3.32491846E-10 m which is the length of the Bohr ground state orbit. If you divide it by 2 pi, you end up with the radius of that orbit, which is 5.291o772083E-11 meter To calculate the frequency, which is the number of cycles per second, you need the energy you are considering. For the ground state energy of the electron you use the Coulomb equation to get the force between the electron and proton at the distance determined by the radius and you multiply that force by the radius to obtain the energy. You then divide that energy by h (Planck's constant) and you finally get the frequency, which is the inverse of the time it takes for one cycle of the energy. Explanation available in any suitable intro ref on physics. I also suggest that you become familiar with the standard MKS unit system very commonly used in physics. This will take care of your apparent mixup with dimensions. André Michaud > Hello John > You are correct and that brings me to the more advanced 3D [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it latter. Will get back to you John this is very encouraging. > Conrad On 10 mai, 17:31, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] > > It may be more palatable for some if I said that c^2 is associated > > with a frequency where the angular momentum of the wave equals and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > point at high end of EM spectrum, E must = hf = c^2 exactly where a > > waves attains rest mass. You are not far from the truth here even if your formulation is incomplete, and this is why I said you have potential, but your equation should write E=hf=mc^2 I have explored this in the past and found that this direct equality can be true only for the energy making up the rest mass of the electron (or positron), which is 8.18710414E-14 Joules (or .511 MeV) André Michaud On 11 mai, 10:10, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > On 10 mai, 17:31, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > electron (or positron), which is 8.18710414E-14 Joules > (or .511 MeV) If you are interested into digging further, I prepared for you this extract from my book that explains the derivation of the process that you intuitively grasped: http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/decoupling_orbit.jpg André Michaud Andre, thank you for that paper and collaborating evidence. I know it is not your job to bail me out and I don't think that I need bailing out, but if it is both of our jobs to search for truth than we should call it as we see it. That is all I ask. I have seen( E=hf) = (E=mc^2) before. The reason I just said that E=hf = c^2 instead of E=hf=mc^2 is because the original equation was E=hf/ c^2 not E=hf/mc^2. I thought that I could use just c^2 instead of mc^2 or Ec^2 in my equations because it mirrored original. Still even E=hf = mc^2 is equating (mc^2) with (hf) which is a frequency measurement. I don't think the difference should invalidate the equation I used and at the same time I should not be stuck on using just c^2 instead of mc^2 either if that makes for better understanding. Andre you also stated that I was wrong from the start to say c^2 is a frequency. But when Eric said, “Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 is frequency, which has units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no excuse for saying such things.” you said “Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some sort of fundamental unit lenght ?” You were right. The way I see it is that the fundamental length scale is c^2 and represents the length it takes a free electron to complete one wave cycle at a frequency of one fundamental time unite. And so his c^2 as [length/time]^2 = frequency as [sqrt[1 unite of fundamental length /time]^2 and is the same but he doesn't know it. I say the square root of 1 fundamental length over time because a fundamental length does not appear as one dimensional length in nature and all though it is length over time squared it is not just a square area either but a 3D or 4D phenomenon counting time. I know he will argue that [1/time]^2 is not same as sqrt[1/time}^2 but I can explain. Again the fundamental length it takes a free electron to complete one wave cycle in one fundamental unite of time. I could change c^2 to mc^2 or Ec^2 and call that a frequency instead but to me it is the same. And the main point that frequency converges to c^2 as a high frequency cut off where energy turns to matter with rest mass still holds true for me. I don't see what all the confusion is about because it is so clear to me. c^2, mc^2 or Ec^2 if you prefer, is still a circular or spherical frequency. Timo this is for you too. And thank you for that constructive criticism as opposed to the destructive impolite criticisms of some even though it doesn't discourage me from believing I am right. It still surprises me that grown people studying such a noble subject act that way. http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.html according to this site frequency was said to diverge to v^2 and I understand that this was interpreted as infinity. When I say that frequency converges to (c^2) I mean that if frequency were to combine it would not lead to infinity but to c^2 or mc^2 which to me is a frequency/ wavelength of rest mass. John, have not forgotten you. Had trouble uploading files on Google docs but should have my own website back up soon where I can upload the files without trouble. vps137 Saw your site but could not interpret it do you have something in English? Conrad > Andre, thank you for that paper and collaborating evidence. I know it > is not your job to bail me out and I don't think that I need bailing > out, but if it is both of our jobs to search for truth than we should > call it as we see it. That is all I ask. Well, I was not really trying to bail you out. Just to give you confirmation that you are thinking in the right direction. > I have seen( E=hf) = (E=mc^2) before. The reason I just said that E=hf > = c^2 instead of E=hf=mc^2 is because the original equation was E=hf/ > c^2 not E=hf/mc^2. Let's see how the dimensions pan out. E = Joules (J) h = joules second (J s) c = meter / second (m / s) f = (1 / s) kg (which is the unit of m [the mass] = (J s^2) / m^2 Let's now see how it goes with your first equation. Note that resolving the dimensions on the right side of the equation must end up with Joules, since the left side is measured in Joules E=hf J = (J s) * (1 / s) = J (this part is fine) Now E = c^2 J = (m / s)^2 = m^2 /s^2 (this one makes no sense, because you should end up with joules also but end up with m^2 /s^2. Now let's look at E = mc^2 J = ((J s^2) / m^2) * (m^2 / s^2) If you simplify, you end up with J = J (which makes it ok) This is why you cannot equate E with c^2 without involving the mass. > I thought that I could use just c^2 instead of mc^2 > or Ec^2 in my equations because it mirrored original. Still even E=hf > = mc^2 is equating (mc^2) with (hf) which is a frequency measurement. No. It is an energy measurement (the units are Joules) > I don't think the difference should invalidate the equation I used and > at the same time I should not be stuck on using just c^2 instead of > mc^2 either if that makes for better understanding. > > Andre you also stated that I was wrong from the start to say c^2 is a > frequency. Yes. > But when Eric said, “Saying c^2 which has units of [length/time]^2 > is frequency, which has units of [1/time^2], is stupid. There is no > excuse for saying such things.” > you said > “Is there? What it the associated length was postulated to be some > sort of fundamental unit lenght ?” You were right. Well no. I was just contradicting him for the sake of contradiction as he often does himself. He was right. In other words, I was just playing around. > The way I see it is that the fundamental length scale is c^2 and > represents the length it takes a free electron to complete one wave > cycle at a frequency of one fundamental time unite. Well, c^2 is a velocity squared, not a length unit. > And so his c^2 as [length/time]^2 = frequency as [sqrt[1 unite of > fundamental length /time]^2 and is the same but he doesn't know it. As he noted, doing this doesn't remove the m^2 unit from equation. Units have to be dealt with exactly like numerical values. If you want to simplify m^2 out of the equation, it has to be simplified with a similar unit dividing it that comes from some other component of a logical equation. > I say the square root of 1 fundamental length over time because a > fundamental length does not appear as one dimensional length in nature [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Again the fundamental length it takes a free electron to complete one > wave cycle in one fundamental unite of time. The fundamental unit of time is the second. if the electron completed one wave cycle in one second, you would have a 1 Herz frequency. > I could change c^2 to mc^2 or Ec^2 and call that a frequency instead > but to me it is the same. And the main point that frequency converges [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node3.htmlaccording > to this site frequency was said to diverge to v^2 I had a look. What you took for v^2 is actually nu^2 (the greek letter nu) nu is a usual alternate symbol for frequency, just like f. It says that Rayleigh-Jeans law diverges as a function of nu^2 for low frequencies, (not as a function of v^2). > and I understand that this was interpreted as infinity. When I say that > frequency converges to (c^2) I mean that if frequency were to combine > it would not lead to infinity but to c^2 or mc^2 which to me is a frequency/ > wavelength of rest mass. I hope you will look again at what I explained for dimensional analysis. Understanding how to deal with dimensions is so important that the slightest error invalidates completely any attempt at explaining. André Michaud > John, have not forgotten you. Had trouble uploading files on Google > docs but should have my own website back up soon where I can upload [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Conrad Hell this is Conrad Andre that was very enlightening I learned a lot from your response. Still, what some may call mistakes or what I would call alternative manipulation of variables aside, we both arrived from different direction at moving from energy to rest mass smoothly along the same EM spectrum. This validates to me that the matter wave emerges from the EM wave at critical frequency of, ok I will use (mc^2) instead of c^2. This can't be just a coincidence. Especially if you consider the fact that the geometrical interpretation of c^2 or (mc^2), as the conversion frequency at which energy turns to matter because it becomes circular or spherical frequency and it matches precisely the revelation of E=mc^2 that c^2 is conversion factor of energy to matter. I am tempted to rest my case but I am willing to discuss it further if anyone still has doughts but I do not. I looked up dimension analysis and got this from "wikipedia" "Only like-dimensioned quantities may be added, subtracted, compared, or equated. When unlike dimensioned quantities appear opposite of the "+" or "-" or "=" sign, that physical equation is not plausible, which might prompt one to correct errors before proceeding to use it." If one adheres strictly to this you are all correct about my methods although my outcome was the same as yours and the end may justify the means in this case. But let me attempt here to justify my means. When one considers the unity of the constants and again use those constants as fundamental unites, one can transcend this dimensional analysis rule. Because one can equate different diminsions such as the mass and charge of electron as well as c =h = g and so on. I can understand why a lot of physicist do not see this because some have not understood this unity and even if they had they might be reluctant to change just as we in the US were reluctant to change from units of (inches, feet, and yards) which do not seamlessly fit with each other, to the metric system, which does and is easier. c = h = g (g) is quantum gravitational constant not Newton's big G and is base on (e=hf) = (M=hf) or energy/matter equivalence, with (h) as constant, and inertial/gravitational mass equivalence; which also makes (h), the quantum gravity constant. First I equate the constants ,and than use them as a natural unites system. I understand that most equate c = (h/2pi) = (G) but I equate (c^2) = (h/2pi) = (G) because all seem to refer to rest mass. I also equate c=h=g as I stated above for other reasons which I will post. But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and proof of my work is in the results. And if one considers using the natural systems of c = h = g as well as (c^2 ) = (G) = (h/2pi), I am sure the rule of dimensional analysis although useful on macro level may not be as much on quantum level. As a matter of fact I have often heard it said that at the highest energies the forces are unified. I believe that the forces and the constants are all unified around the velocity of light. I want to correct myself on one issue. I stated that "one dimensional length unites do not occur in nature"in last post. Let me restate that and say that this seems to be the case on the high energy small length scale, but something resembling a 1 dimensional line may represent the (long end/low energy wave) of the EM spectrum ,where a wave is so long it just may resemble a one dimensional line as in string theory. I just wanted to say that. And one more thing I want to put out there. I wrote, Sylvester James Gates, after seeing him on Nova's "Einstein's Big Idea" and following his online chat afterwards back in Dec of 2006 and got an interesting response Re: New interpretation of E=mc^2 Monday, December 11, 2006 1:55 PM From: "Sylvester James Gates Jr." <gatess@wam.umd.edu> To: "Conrad Countess" <cjcountess@yahoo.com> Dear Conrad, > Dear Sylester James Gates Jr., Ph.D. Please call me `Jim' as I don't stand on formalities. > My name is Conrad J. Countess and I am an independent > amateur scientist or at least I like to think so. It is nice to meet you here in cyberspace. > I saw the Nova program, ``Einstein's Big Idea'' and > found it very interesting. I am very happy to hear this as I know from working with the producer, Gary Johnstone, quite an effort went to create an accessible and entertaining video presentation. > I even tried to get on line the next day to chat with > you but could not get through. I am sorry to hear that. The entire transcript of the chatroom is available if you wish to see it. Unfortu- nately, it is filled with my spelling and grammatical errors which occur whenever I type fast in the attempt to answer the most inquiries I could. > I've written one book in which relativity plays a big > part and which also mentions Einstein and a lecture [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Go to www.cjc123.net and hit browse book if you like > to see it. Congratulations. > But let me get to the point at hand now. I think that > I have enough evidence to confirm that c^2 in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a geometrical circular or spherical structure such as > a standing spherical wave. When my scientific career began about thirty years ago, I could not imagine it would place me in a role of directly informing the public about developments in mathematical and theoretical physics that have been my chosen fields of effort. Most recently, I have completed my first solo effort in the realm of presenting frontier science to the public. It is described at http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281 you can see there an annoucement for a collection entitled, `Superstring Theory: The DNA of Real- ity.' This was released by The Teaching Company (TTC) in October and has been their `fastest sell- ing offering' with `extraordinary sales' ac- cording to what I have been told. One person who reviewed it said, ``At times, you will feel like a tourist in a dark magnificent cavern, whose guide shines a light at one spectacular sight and then another before you can catch your breath again,'' and they are talking about the MATHEMATICS which anchors the presentation but in a way I have never seen done before. One lesson I have learned from all of this is that a tremendous number of people are interested but have not understood how theoretical physics is done. I spoke a bit about this in the chatroom. One would literally have to be smarter than Einstein to be successful at what you purport...without formal train- ing to present advances in physics. Even he first got a Ph.D. in physics before he was able to present his amazing discoveries. No one without the mathematical training similar to what he undertook has ever made any substantial contribution to theoretical physics. > The simplest explanation is that the angular momentum > of the frequency equals and balances the speed and mo- [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > CJCountess > e-mail-cjcountess@yahoo.com I must decline. Due to some previous experiences and on advice of counsel, I now operate under policies that require contractual arrangements before I dis- cuss scientific issues with someone who does not hold a recognized scientific affiliation. The rate for the consultation is $500/hr. or any fraction thereof. There are also forms requiring waiver of rights, copyright agreements, a state- ment of indemnification, an agreement regarding billable hours, etc. and a security deposit of a minimum of $1,500.00 non-refundable made prior to any such consultation to be paid via a secured fi- nancial instrument. If you wish for my attorney to send you a complete detailed set of such docu- ments, please indicate to what address a C.O.D. package may be sent. I do wish you are able to find what it is that you are seeking. Sincerely, Jim +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ S.J.Gates, Jr. John S. Toll Professor of Physics and Center for String and Particle Theory Director University of Maryland Tel: 301-405-6025 Physics Department Fax: 301-314-9525 Rm. 4125 E-mail: gatess@wam.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742-4111 http://www.physics.umd.edu/ep/gates/gates.html http://nsbp.org/cgi-bin/nsbp.cgi?page=jgates +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Re: New interpretation of E=mc^2 Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:55 PM From: "Sylvester James Gates Jr." <gatess@wam.umd.edu> To: "Conrad Countess" <cjcountess@yahoo.com> Dear Conrad, > Thank you for your quick response. Thought you would > be to busy to respond this quick or at all. It is a matter of simple respect for another human be- ing that I respond to all who write to me...unless I can perceive in their communications something to indi- cate otherwise. > I do have the transcript to the chat- spelling errors > and all. And believe me you are not the only one whose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tracted by that when the subject of physics is to im- > portant. Thank you for the generosity of your assessment of my failings as a chat-room host. From the remainder of your message, it is clear to me that you know precisely what you are doing. Under these circumstances, I have a simple request. Please do not send me further communications on this topic is they will, indeed, elicit no response. I can only wish you the best in whatever are your goals in pursuing this. SJG +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ S.J.Gates, Jr. John S. Toll Professor of Physics and Center for String and Particle Theory Director University of Maryland Tel: 301-405-6025 Physics Department Fax: 301-314-9525 Rm. 4125 E-mail: gatess@wam.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742-4111 http://www.physics.umd.edu/ep/gates/gates.html http://nsbp.org/cgi-bin/nsbp.cgi?page=jgates +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > Hell this is Conrad > Andre [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > direction at moving from energy to rest mass smoothly along the same > EM spectrum. Yes. You intuitively grasped the geometric implications. > This validates to me that the matter wave emerges from > the EM wave at critical frequency of, ok I will use (mc^2) instead of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "+" or "-" or "=" sign, that physical equation is not plausible, which > might prompt one to correct errors before proceeding to use it." That's exactly what I meant when I wrote: "Understanding how to deal with dimensions is so important that the slightest error invalidates completely any attempt at explaining." > If one adheres strictly to this you are all correct about my methods > although my outcome was the same as yours and the end may justify the > means in this case. Not really. Your geometry is fine, but your math description is not ok. > But let me attempt here to justify my means. > When one considers the unity of the constants and again use those > constants as fundamental unites, one can transcend this dimensional > analysis rule. I am afraid not. I have explored this possibility also. I found that there is no way to circumvent correctly dealing with dimensions. > Because one can equate different diminsions such as the > mass and charge of electron as well as c =h = g and so on. I can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (inches, feet, and yards) which do not seamlessly fit with each other, > to the metric system, In my opinion, the English system is perfectly fine for macro treatment and totally self consistent. Just a different convention. > which does and is easier. c = h = g (g) is > quantum gravitational constant not Newton's big G and is base on > (e=hf) = (M=hf) or energy/matter equivalence, with (h) as constant, > and inertial/gravitational mass equivalence; which also makes (h), the > quantum gravity constant. Well, I really suggest you try to master the basics of physics. If you can get hold of an old Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS and dig in until you understand all of it, you will see things quite differently on this issue. > First I equate the constants ,and than use them as a natural unites > system. I understand that most equate c = (h/2pi) = (G) Well, no. They don't. Too complex to explain until you master the real basics of physics. > but I equate > (c^2) = (h/2pi) = (G) because all seem to refer to rest mass. I also [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dimensional analysis although useful on macro level may not be as much > on quantum level. You are mistaken. even if you don't believe me. > As a matter of fact I have often heard it said that > at the highest energies the forces are unified. I believe that the > forces and the constants are all unified around the velocity of light. A good stable reference indeed. > I want to correct myself on one issue. I stated that "one dimensional > length unites do not occur in nature"in last post. Let me restate that [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > training similar to what he undertook has ever made any > substantial contribution to theoretical physics. Absolute agreement. You must master the proper math, including the dimensional aspect before you can even describe correctly what you geometrically understand. > > The simplest explanation is that the angular momentum > > of the frequency equals and balances the speed and mo- [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > plus de détails » You say at the top of this post that you learned a lot from my responses. I don't know if you can trust me further, but if you do, my one recommendation is to invest the energy and time required to master the real basics of physics. Then we may discuss further what you apparently understand geometrically if I am still around. André Michaud Hi Andre Will take everything you said into consideration. Gates said: One would literally have to be smarter than Einstein to be successful at what you purport...without formal train- ing to present advances in physics. Even he first got a Ph.D. in physics before he was able to present his amazing discoveries. No one without the mathematical training similar to what he undertook has ever made any substantial contribution to theoretical physics. You said: Absolute agreement. You must master the proper math, including the dimensional aspect before you can even describe correctly what you geometrically understand. I do not agree with this at all. Mastering proper math and dimensional analysis has not so far correctly described this in its entirety or the geometrical description would be obvious and included. The geometry goes with the math if there is to be a more complete description. And just as my geometric description is not complete without math ,the math is not complete without geometry. The math is already out there and I don't mind using it E=mc^2 and E=hf=mc^2.. I just want to give form to the math and show that it is not just a dimensionless mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter but an actual conversion frequency. Although flattering because I know that I have succeeded, it is not necessarily true that one has to be smart, one just has to have enough sense to know that one has found something new and valuable and confident enough to not let anyone tell you you haven't or take it from you. Furthermore if Gates remembers the very show that he participated in (and the transcripts are on line if anyone wants to view them) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html , Michael Faraday was not a formally educated person, yet he made revolutionary discoveries in physics. And that might be (because of) instead of (in spite of this). I had a mag. call “The 20th Century in Science” from Scientific American, in which Einstein in an article, “On The Generalized Theory of Relativity” stated: and I am paraphrasing this. “It muses me to wonder if Faraday could have come up with the idea of the field as primary if he had been encumbered by a normal education”. He was not saying, I am sure , that normal education does not have its place, all we have to do is look at the discipline it fosters and the discoveries and products it has produced. But natural ability has its place also and no one was better to recognize this than Einstein who was considered a maverick as I would define the term, working in a swiss patent office at the time when he came up with one of the greatest discoveries of all time, (Theory of Relativity) including the equation that we are discussing. This last part really surprised me Gates said: Due to some previous experiences and on advice > of counsel, I now operate under policies that > require contractual arrangements before I dis- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ments, please indicate to what address a C.O.D. > package may be sent. Whats up with that? I know that there is a lot of money involved in this field. A demand for discoveries that can stir up interest as well as produce practical applications, lectures, publications and so on. But that response from Gates really surprised me. Giving up my rights and paying him all that money for that privilege. Come on Oh thats right, it's worth nothing if it's not coming from established academical. So what is truth? What ever the establishment says it is, or does it have weight of its own. Well I believe the latter, and I am willing to partner with someone who believes the same and can see the value and potential in this. Only because I don't, they would have to have academic credentials ,and means to publish. If anyones interested E-mail me cjcountess@yahoo.com For now as far as this thread is concerned I REST MY CASE!!! I will however post more graphics as soon as my site is back up. Conrad Some exerts from transcript: MICHAEL FARADAY: Perhaps some sort of electrical force is emanating outwards from the wire. WILLIAM THOMAS BRANDE: Oh, my dear boy, let me tell you that at the University of Cambridge, electricity flows through a wire, not sideways to it. MICHAEL FARADAY: Well, that may be what they teach at Cambridge, but it doesn't explain what's happening before our eyes. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. JAMES GATES, JR.: Michael Faraday was someone who, like Einstein, thought in terms of pictures. DAVID BODANIS: Faraday was different from anybody else. He had a flair for understanding his experiments, for understanding what was really going on inside them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. JAMES GATES, JR.: This is the experiment of the century. It's the invention of the electric motor. Scale up the magnets and the wires; make them really big. Attach heavy weights to them and they'll be dragged along. But almost more importantly, he's inventing a new kind of physics here. NARRATOR: Although he didn't realize it at the time, Faraday had also just demonstrated an overarching principle. The chemicals in the battery had been transformed into electricity in the wire, which had combined with the magnet to produce motion. Behind all these various forces there was a common energy. DAVID BODANIS: A couple of months earlier, Davy had been elected President of the Royal Society, which was the elite body of English science. But then he saw this great discovery published in the Quarterly Journal of Science. I don't know if he was envious, but he certainly saw that this young man who had been his assistant, this mere blacksmith's son, had come up with one of the greatest discoveries of the Victorian era. [snip] > For now as far as this thread is concerned > > I REST MY CASE!!! [snip more crap] Die, dry up, blow away. http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > Hi Andre > Will take everything you said into consideration. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be successful at what you purport...without formal train- > ing to present advances in physics. I will add that even someone smarter than Einstein could not be successful at this without proper mastery of math. > Even he first got > a Ph.D. in physics before he was able to present his > amazing discoveries. Exactly. > No one without the mathematical > training similar to what he undertook has ever made any [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dimensional analysis has not so far correctly described this in its > entirety or the geometrical description would be obvious and included. Well, who know if some model somewhere has not succeeded. The future will tell. > The geometry goes with the math if there is to be a more complete > description. Not if there is to be a more complete description, if there is to be any description at all. No proper math = no possible description of the geometry. > And just as my geometric description is not complete > without math ,the math is not complete without geometry. The math is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > confident enough to not let anyone tell you you haven't or take it > from you. There is a difference between looking at diamond and owning one. > Furthermore if Gates remembers the very show that he participated in > (and the transcripts are on line if anyone wants to view them)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html, Michael > Faraday was not a formally educated person, yet he made revolutionary > discoveries in physics. Absolutely. But even if he was not a mathematician by training, he perfectly mastered the required math and the dimensional aspect. Besides, he was working in direct collaboration with his friend Maxwell, who was one of the best mathematicians around. > And that might be (because of) instead of (in > spite of this). I had a mag. call “The 20th Century in Science” from > Scientific American, in which Einstein in an article, “On The > Generalized Theory of Relativity” stated: and I am paraphrasing this. > “It muses me to wonder if Faraday could have come up with the idea of > the field as primary if he had been encumbered by a normal education”. I can tell you that he definitely could not. Too early harnessing the mind with mathematical rules tends to twarts the ability to freely explore geometries. But eventual math mastery is required all the same. > He was not saying, I am sure , that normal education does not have its > place, all we have to do is look at the discipline it fosters and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > greatest discoveries of all time, (Theory of Relativity) including the > equation that we are discussing. Well, maybe you don't know that Einstein did this after graduating, so although not a mathematician by formation, he perfectly mastered the math he required for dealing with Planck's and Wien's discoveries. > This last part really surprised me > Gates said: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Gates really surprised me. Giving up my rights and paying him all > that money for that privilege. I think he was politely turning you down. > Come on > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have academic credentials ,and means to publish. If anyones interested > E-mail me cjcount...@yahoo.com Well good luck. But if you don't learn the proper math, I can tell you that no one with any sort of academic credential will want to professionally associate with you. Without proper math, you are doomed to fail. The future will tell if Uncle Al was right. You at least understood why the mass should be part of the equation. André Michaud > For now as far as this thread is concerned > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > mere blacksmith's son, had come up with one of the greatest > discoveries of the Victorian era. Andre James Gates also said From the remainder of your message, it is clear to me that you know precisely what you are doing. Under these circumstances, I have a simple request. Please do not send me further communications on this topic is they will, indeed, elicit no response. I wonder what he meant by that. I would challenge any one on "Nova" and I'll bet a child could understand what I was saying and exactly because of of the lack of what you said “Too early harnessing the mind with mathematical rules tends to twarts the ability to freely explore geometries.” It's funny that you said “There is a difference between looking at diamond and owning one.” Because I like to tell a story of a geologist who went to school for 12 college years to learn his trade, was hired by gold company to find most likely area where gold is to be found by his familiarity with known minerals found around gold deposits. His years of work yields no findings. But a 7th grade child after learning of gold in school and seeing his mothers wedding rings stumbles across a piece and immediately recognizes it as gold like and looks pretty. He and his mother takes it to a place that buys gold and what happens. 1 They say “this couldn't possibly be gold because you did not go to school in order to learn to find gold” and throw it away 2 With my expertise I can assure you that this is gold 3 They say “this couldn't possibly be gold because you did not go to school in order to learn to find gold” and throw it away wait until they are gone pick it up and sell it as their own Why does Uncle Al continue posting to this thread if he doesn't agree with what I am saying. He is just cluttering the thread with things nobody wants to read. We already know what he thinks. Rest your case Al. Uncle Al seems to be a very bitter old prejudice man who probably considers himself a failure but wants people to think otherwise. And I have seen different post around where a certain group who participate in sci phy discuss certain people and post,and encourage each other to refute certain people and ideas. They remind me of a team of theory assassins. I remember seeing an article in either Scientific American or Discovery on the true existence of theory assassins. I'll have to get and post it. I think Uncle Al is of this group. I'd pay him no attention if he were not cluttering this space with garbage: I am done Conrad. > Andre > James Gates also said [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I wonder what he meant by that. Again, seems to me that he was politely turning you down. > I would challenge any one on "Nova" and I'll bet a child could > understand what I was saying and exactly because of of the lack of [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > I'd pay him no attention if he were not cluttering this space with > garbage: Well, Al is rather pessimistic about human nature. He diagnosed that you were a lost cause from the get go that you couldn't possibly change your ways and said so in no uncertain terms. On my side, I am rather optimistic about human nature, so occasionally try to give a push in what I see as the right direction. Statistically to date, he apparently seems to be in the lead. André Michaud On May 13, 5:21 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > > Andre > > James Gates also said [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > André Michaud better in the lead than up your butt- chirally speaking, that's the side he gravitates to > Andre > James Gates also said [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > nobody wants to read. We already know what he thinks. > Rest your case Al. He posts to remind you that you have no clue what you are doing. The things you are saying are not even close enough to be wrong. They are just silly and uninformed, spoken from ignorance and ego. You do not want to learn or study so you bluster. Of course that annoys people who actually know what they are doing. > Uncle Al seems to be a very bitter old prejudice man who probably > considers himself a failure but wants people to think otherwise. And I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd pay him no attention if he were not cluttering this space with > garbage: He is pointing out your mistakes as others have done with varying degrees of politeness. That did not work so maybe the direct approach will. > I am done > Conrad. This is Conrad Here is a graphics link that I hope will help illustrate my point http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_209723wdc9 Some math diverges from reality. If I were to say that China is 1000 miles away and proceeded to go there by way of plane geometry or a straight line I wind up in space somewhere. But if I use a spherical geometry that conforms to the shape of the earth at its large scale I'm fine. Following a line of math that was correct for some things does not necessarily make it right for present situation. It may not touch basis with reality in the long run and need to be revised. I am trying to explain c^2 geometrical for the first time, not just as a lines times a 90 degree angular line of equal measure making a squared. Although this may in fact describe the amount of energy in c^2 as compared to just c as a straight line of energy, and I have used that description in past, it doesn't describe the circular or spherical shape the energy takes that turns a wave to a particle. Although I use the analogy of a line times a 90 degree angular line of equal measure to describe c^2, I am just as interested in the 90 degree arc the energy takes which if constant creates circular or spherical motion as a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces that turns a wave into a particle, as I am in the amount of energy present at c^2. This is Conrad Andre You don't have to respond if you don't want to. I know people have pretty much made up their minds on this one. Because I have given into peoples arguments in the past just to avoid conflict and compromise might at least encourage them to compromise with me, this is not always the best policy in a situation like this. You said E=hf=mc^2 in your paper, but E=hf is formula for radiation and may vary with strength, while E=mc^2 is energy of rest mass ,that might includes compound matter. You also in your paper pointed out that electrons and positrons had an energy of exactly c^2 (probably the only free particles to do so) and makes a formula of exactly equal to c^2 taylor made for them just as I have. It only seems logical that E=hf=c^2 or E=hf@c^2 or E=m=c^2 or E=m@c^2 night be applicable with a little logical explanation of why this is the case. No offense, I just thought that was important. Conrad > Some math diverges from reality. If I were to say that China is 1000 > miles away and proceeded to go there by way of plane geometry or a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > E=hf=mc^2 in your paper, but E=hf is formula for radiation and may > vary with strength, If you read again, you will see that for this specific development, I set E to the very precise energy making up the rest mass of the electron (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) . No other energy is considered. > while E=mc^2 is energy of rest mass ,that might includes compound matter. The rest mass of the electron can include nothing else but the exact amount of equivalent energy (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) or else it wouldn't be the rest mass of the electron. > You also in your paper pointed out that > electrons and positrons had an energy of exactly c^2 If you read again, you will see that nowhere do I point anything like this out. > (probably the > only free particles to do so) and makes a formula of exactly equal to > c^2 taylor made for them just as I have. If you read again, you will see that this is not what I do. > It only seems logical that > E=hf=c^2 or E=hf@c^2 or E=m=c^2 or E=m@c^2 night be applicable with a > little logical explanation of why this is the case. > No offense, I just thought that was important. What would be important really is that you learn coherent math. André Michaud On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > > Some math diverges from reality. If I were to say that China is 1000 > > miles away and proceeded to go there by way of plane geometry or a [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > André Michaud Coherent math!! Andre you are nit picking. You seem to be more concerned about who is right than what is right. Even if it were technically imperfect the idea itself is not and the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. This baby may need a little cleaning up but so what, I think it is a Noble Prize level discovery, and anybody with enough courage to collaborate it may benefit. If you want to get technical about it, even though you said You are not far from the truth here even if your formulation is incomplete, and this is why I said you have potential, but your equation should write E=hf=mc^2 I have explored this in the past and found that this direct equality can be true only for the energy making up the rest mass of the electron (or positron), which is 8.18710414E-14 Joules (or .511 MeV) in your post, your paper says something different. In your paper that you linked to http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/decoupling_orbit.jpg you said From the equality of the orbital wavelength and the linear wavelength, we can draw the following relation: rest mass wavelength = wavelength = h/mc =c/f from which we can directly derive the following equation regarding the energy of a half-photon of a photon energy 1.022 MeV destabilizing through Coulomb interaction (CI)as it grazes a nucleus that shows how the decoupling energy allows to smoothly transfer from equation E=hf for pure energy to famous equation E=mc^2 for massive particles: h/mc =c/f and finally E = hf =mc^2 Let us note that the energy of the electron (or the positron) is the only one for which this direct equality is possible. I interpret this equality to be between (hf) and (mc^2) which is only possible for electron/positron. It is the only particles where this energy is equivalent and a taylor made equation would convey this. There is no mention of (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) which could not convey this direct equivalence. Your equation E=hf =mc^2 does not because hf can refer to a wide range of energies while mc^2 can refer to a wide range of rest mass. Although they overlap at the mass/energy level of the electron/ positron, they each can be applied to other levels. Only an equation that refers to energy exactly at c^2 can convey this and is Taylor made for them. I submit E =hf =C^2 or E=hf @ c^2 and its derivatives that I earlier mentioned with a logical explanation of why, to convey this exact equality. As for coherent math, if you and your colleagues can't understand this than I am talking to wrong people. I know what I am talking about and I know how to convey it. I also know when some one is deliberately trying to over complicate things just to win an argument. Truth is there is no way around this reality of c^2 as frequency measurement although there may be a way around including me as its discoverer. Time will tell. I really rest my case now Conrad > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > I interpret this equality to be between (hf) and (mc^2) which is only > possible for electron/positron. Yes, but only if the energy considered is exactly 8.18710414 E-14 Joules > It is the only particles where this > energy is equivalent and a taylor made equation would convey this. > There is no mention of (8.18710414 E-14 Joules) which could not > convey this direct equivalence. If you understood the math you would see that there is no other possibility. > Your equation E=hf =mc^2 does not because hf can refer to a wide range > of energies while mc^2 can refer to a wide range of rest mass. Not in this case. It refers to the exact mass of the electron. > Although they overlap at the mass/energy level of the electron/ > positron, they each can be applied to other levels. Not for E=hf=mc^2. Only one value possible. > Only an equation that refers to energy exactly at c^2 can convey this > and is Taylor made for them. I submit E =hf =C^2 or E=hf @ c^2 and its > derivatives that I earlier mentioned with a logical explanation of > why, to convey this exact equality. If you only used a hand calculator to verify your equation with actual values , you would immediately see that it is wrong. > As for coherent math, if you and your colleagues can't understand this > than I am talking to wrong people. I know what I am talking about and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I really rest my case now Well, I give up. I will try to explain why you are wrong with words, the same way that you are trying to explain what you see with math. Try to see how much sense this makes. You say that some math from reality. If I to that China 1000 miles away and to there by way of plane geometry or a straight line I up in space somewhere. But if I a spherical geometry that to the shape of the earth at its large scale fine. Following a line of math that correct for some things not necessarily it right for present situation. It not touch basis with reality in the long run and to. I to c^2 geometrical for the first time, not just as a lines times a 90 degree angular line of equal measure a squared. Although this in fact the amount of energy in c^2 as to just c as a straight line of energy, and I that description in past, it the circular or spherical shape the energy that turns a wave to a particle. I will stop here. This is how your math looks to anyone who tries to read them. I was not deliberately trying to over complicate things just to win any argument. Just trying to give you a hint that with coherent math, people would at least have the possibility of understanding what you are trying to describe. Math is just a language, and you have to speak it coherently if you want people to understand what you say. But I am done with this. Won't try any more. André Michaud > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ------------------ now how about photons?? can you apply the hf =mc^2 as well ??? (:-) TIA Y.Porat ------------------------------- > > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > hf =mc^2 as well ??? (:-) The answer hasn't changed from the last thousand times you asked it. > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------- > > > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ----------------- but the question was aimed to ***thinking people*** not to little CRACKPARROTERS !! (:-) Y.P ----------------------------- > > > > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > ----------------- > but the question was aimed to ***thinking people*** Exactly. You want to suck more educated people into spending more hours explaining the same thing to you yet again. > not to little > CRACKPARROTERS !! (:-) > > Y.P > ----------------------------- > > > > > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > > - Show quoted text - --------------------------- little moron Bonaparte i am not discussing with you i will discuss with more cleaver people than you are : so a bit of other reasoning: E=hf is the energy of the photon E=mc^2 is the general formula for all energies so there is some connection between the two formulas whether the moron Gisse understands it or not (the massless entities is only in the skull of Gisse and other crackparroters !!!) now Gisse you just f.ck off with Porar breas of Alaska and their frozen braines and let others come in others that are more open minded than you are at the age of 24!!!!......... TIA to others except Gisse Y.Porat ------------------------------ Hello All Andre, I did not mean any disrespect and don't want to turn the Google dialogs into The Google - Gaga as in childish dialogs. That would not be very interesting and I would rather be known for a civil disagreement even if I am found to be wrong than a nasty one even if I am found to be right. E=hf=mc^2 is correct if the mathematical conversion factor between hf and mc^2 is the rest mass of the electron. You are right. I only wanted to point out that without it (hf) can be applied to a whole range of energies below it and (mc^2) can be applied to a whole range of rest mass above, making them equivalent only at the level of the rest mass of electron, but diverging from equivalence below or above it. That is all I meant. Peace Conrad > Hello All > Andre, I did not mean any disrespect and don't want to turn the Google [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Peace > Conrad ---------------------- mc^2 = hf is right for the photon case as well !!! the only thing that is missing is some coefficient the will settle the equation because the photon has mass and there is just one kind of mass !!! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- > E=hf=mc^2 is correct if the mathematical conversion factor between hf > and mc^2 is the rest mass of the electron. You are right. I only any mass [shift] > wanted to point out that without it (hf) can be applied to a whole > range of energies below it and (mc^2) can be applied to a whole range > of rest mass above, making them equivalent only at the level of the > rest mass of electron, but diverging from equivalence below or above > it. That is all I meant. No, at any range. > > > > > > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > > E=mc^2 is the general formula for all energies No, it isn't. > so there is some connection between the two > formulas [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 177 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ---------------- pc for photons - is as well mc^2 see the dimensions there BYE Y.Porat ----------------------------- > > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] > > - Show quoted text - In the end Einstein concluded what he won the Nobel Prize for was actuallly irrreconsirable. He said he could not treat a wave as a particle at the same time. He questioned what he won the prize for. The energy of light is not in a photon but spread out accross its wave and defined by frequency. On May 23, 12:35 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:51 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > > > > > > > > > h/mc =c/f and finally E = hf =mc^2 . > > > > > > not to little > > > > > > CRACKPARROTERS !! (:-) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > The energy of light is not in a photon but spread out accross its wave -------------- ????? whats wrong with the understanding that energy is **mass in movement** so it some basic particle is moving in some geometric pathern then it is carying energy ??? i think that all that unnecesary confusion **started wi the ** **stoopid idea** that photons have no mass !!! and that no mass can reach c.. there was no idea then that **the photon is the only mass that can move at c !! ie an exception to the above rule !!! so a wave is some mass in some sort of movemet!! can there be something simper than that?? andit is under that more abstarct law of physics that ENERGY IS MASS IN MOVEMENT!! EXACTLY AS IN MACROCOSM !!!!!!!!!!!! (iow physics 'scholars invented a scarecrow and do not stop for more than a century to fight the **scarecrow****** they themselves invented !!! can you immagine something more stupid by people who consider themselved the Elite of mankind ?? ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------------ ATB Y.Porat > and defined by frequency.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > On May 23, 12:35 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - What is wrong is it is backwards. The movements of energy define borders that are particles. Masses. Particles *are made from energy*. Here's a molecular pattern: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/win1.GIF John Galaxy Model > > On May 23, 12:35 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 163 lines] > > - Show quoted text - --------------------- so according to you energy creates mass from nothing ???............... TIA Y.Porat ------------------------- > > > On May 23, 12:35 am, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 167 lines] > so according to you > energy creates mass from nothing ???............... Energy *is* everything. Different configurations of energy have different characteristics. Energy in a 1-to-1 linked rotation is emr: depending on which axis of this pattern it is 'falling' along at c, it is a photon or a neutrino. Energy in a 1-to-2 linked rotation is matter. When matter 'travels' through spacetime from place to place, it doesn't push the spacetime aside- the spacetime *becomes* matter in that place because the energy has arrived there. It's *all* moving energy. John |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message