A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: cjcountess on 24 Feb 2010 11:13 Artfull you are an obstructionist, with no incite or vision, and belong to the party of, NO! And so I expect this kind of response from you, but I am so sure of this, and see this so clearly, that your comments only amuse me. New incites are sometimes hard to frame in language and mathematics of the old, and so this revelation too, may not be framed in the best of these. But the main idea is correct Geometrically (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled), and (c=i) (c^2) is the point on EM spectrum where energy or (E) = (m) or (rest mass/matter) as a electron of (1- charge). Therefore, (c=i). Just as (E=mc^2) = (m=Ec^2), because of (energy/mass) equivalence ( m=Ec^2) = (G = Ec^2) because of the inertia mass gravity mass equivalence. Because of space/energy equivalence, (E=mc^2) = (L= mc^2) also = Einstein and Minkowsky's (cti), Therefore the "Cosmological Constant", as most basic ground state energy = c also. Because of the space/time equivalence (L=mc^2) = (T=mc^2), and the most basic time unit becomes the spin cycle of the electron. Because a particle only becomes charged at (mc^2) or (Ec^2) as both are interchangeable here, these also = (Q=mc^2). And finally, because temperature is just a matter of frequency, (temp= m/c^2). I am choosing (m/c^2) instead of (mc^2), although they are both interchangeable at this level because (1x1=1/1=1), because when we speak of radiant heat, it refers to EM waves below frequency of (mc^2) as a division of c^2. But c^2 is the frequency at which EM waves cease to radiate and attain rest mass, although they do radiate a charge which is felt by other charged particles which might also be quantified as a division of c^2. The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 is a GOLD MINE of discoveries!!! Conrad J Countess
From: artful on 24 Feb 2010 18:10 On Feb 25, 3:13 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Artfull > > you are an obstructionist, Nope > with no incite or vision, and belong to the > party of, NO! I have all the insight required to see what you post is just plain gibberish > And so I expect this kind of response from you, but I am so sure of > this, and see this so clearly, that your comments only amuse me. I'm sure you laugh insanely from your straight-jacket > New incites are sometimes hard to frame in language and mathematics of > the old, and so this revelation too, may not be framed in the best of > these. That does not mean that what you right is not gibberish .. it is > But the main idea is correct > > Geometrically (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled), and (c=i) There is no such thing as a "^circled" .. that is just gibberish And .. c CANNOT be i, i is an imaginary number .. c is a real number. so claiming c=i is nonsense [snip rest of nonsense unread... no point in reading gibberish that follows from other gibberish]
From: cjcountess on 25 Feb 2010 10:38 On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 3:13 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Artfull > > > you are an obstructionist, > > Nope > > > with no incite or vision, and belong to the > > party of, NO! > > I have all the insight required to see what you post is just plain > gibberish > > > And so I expect this kind of response from you, but I am so sure of > > this, and see this so clearly, that your comments only amuse me. > > I'm sure you laugh insanely from your straight-jacket > > > New incites are sometimes hard to frame in language and mathematics of > > the old, and so this revelation too, may not be framed in the best of > > these. > > That does not mean that what you right is not gibberish .. it is > > > But the main idea is correct > > > Geometrically (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled), and (c=i) > > There is no such thing as a "^circled" .. that is just gibberish > > And .. c CANNOT be i, i is an imaginary number .. c is a real number. > so claiming c=i is nonsense > > [snip rest of nonsense unread... no point in reading gibberish that > follows from other gibberish] Artful I am not going to argue this with you anymore, because it gets personal and degenerates into childishness. The evidence is clear and speaks for itself. With that said I rest my case Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on 25 Feb 2010 17:51 "cjcountess" <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:08c71179-61ec-43ea-9037-840b0caf5091(a)d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 25, 3:13 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > Artfull >> >> > you are an obstructionist, >> >> Nope >> >> > with no incite or vision, and belong to the >> > party of, NO! >> >> I have all the insight required to see what you post is just plain >> gibberish >> >> > And so I expect this kind of response from you, but I am so sure of >> > this, and see this so clearly, that your comments only amuse me. >> >> I'm sure you laugh insanely from your straight-jacket >> >> > New incites are sometimes hard to frame in language and mathematics of >> > the old, and so this revelation too, may not be framed in the best of >> > these. >> >> That does not mean that what you right is not gibberish .. it is >> >> > But the main idea is correct >> >> > Geometrically (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled), and (c=i) >> >> There is no such thing as a "^circled" .. that is just gibberish >> >> And .. c CANNOT be i, i is an imaginary number .. c is a real number. >> so claiming c=i is nonsense >> >> [snip rest of nonsense unread... no point in reading gibberish that >> follows from other gibberish] > > Artful > > I am not going to argue this with you anymore, > > because it gets personal and degenerates into childishness. > > The evidence is clear and speaks for itself. > > With that said I rest my case indeed it does .. your nonsense is nonsense as anyone can see.
From: cjcountess on 26 Feb 2010 11:06
Inertial Do you agree with artful, that there is no such thing as c ^circled and c=i ? Of course you do. Well it is now. I discovered it in part, and invented it in part, just like Newton and Leibniz, discovered and invented the calculus. In order to geometrically describe how energy equals and turns to matter through conversion factor of c^2, I employed the geometry of the circle and sphere, to show that at the frequency /wavelength c^2, energy aquires circular and or spherical motion. (E=mc^2) tells us that allot of energy is trapped inside of matter and that they are one, related through mathematical conversion factor of c^2, but does not explain how. Ask any physicist or professor, and look at these explanations http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html This geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1) and (h/2pi/2) explains exactly how energy equals and turns to (matter/rest mass), by acquiring circular and or spherical rotation, and therefore contains more info than the equation alone, advancing physics by building upon and explaining the most famous equation in the world by the most famous scientist. This is an explanation that even a child can understand In the process, I also discovered (the natural unit sqrt of the natural unit -1), removing it from the realm of the imaginary, as well as removing uncertainty from the measurement of the electron as indeed its momentum and position is exactly (h/2pi/2) demystifying that also. What an honor it is to be the discoverer of such great ideas, and there are more. You two play a very important role in the presentation of these ideas because you help me to establish that I am the first to present it and prove it by your heated denial of it. I am going to make you famous, as foolish resistors, of some of the greatest most innovative ideas to come along in physics. Thank you for playing along, you will have something else to tell your grandchildren. Conrad J Countess |