Quantum Gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 24 May 2005 08:59 cjcountess wrote: > This makes sense because gravity is accelerated motion No, it isn't. It *causes* accelerated motion, and in some sense is *equivalent* to it. Bye, Bjoern
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 24 May 2005 09:59 cjcountess wrote: > I am conceding to your claim that energy only increases 2x each time > frequency doubles. Could not find collaborating evidence Thanks. > and it did > begin to make sense if I considered that mass tends toward infinity as > it approached light speed for objects with rest mass but not for > photons, and so maybe that is the difference. Apparently you still have not understood the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. > I think that I confused inverse proportion with inverse square. I don't see any "inverse" in these problems. Only proportionalities and squares. > This is a learning experience > for me. I still think that photons can be considered to increase in > speed with increase in frequency but I will not argue that now. Then you still think wrong. You have no clue what photons actually *are*. > I did > though in my attempt to be precise and mathematical put together a > geometrical description of what I am trying to say. > http://emcsquare.net/c_as_a_vector_represented_by_one.htm c is a number, a scalar. You can't represent it as a vector, that makes no sense! You could equally well say that a temperature of 10 degrees Celsius is a vector, or that a mass of 1 kg is a vector! What is "expansive centrifugal force"? What center are you talking about? "added energy to this basic centrifugal force": what does it mean to add energy to a force? Apparently you have still not bothered to learn what "energy" actually means in physics. "energy ... goes into frequency": what is that supposed to mean? "as waves that extend at a right angle": that statement makes no sense. Apparently you still have not bothered to learn what "wave" actually means in physics. "contractive centripetal force": what is that supposed to mean? I won't bother to go on; you simply make the same errors again and again and again, and don't bother to take my advice: learning what the terms you use actually mean, and how equations are actually used in physics. As long as you stubbornly refuse to get a *minimal* level of knowledge about the things you talk about, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 25 May 2005 05:47 In my zeal to prove my point I admitt that I used words and definitions that where inaccurate and sometimes incorrect. But the main idea I think is correct. I will adjust all of this because it is my mission to present an acount of this idea in its most clear form. Thank you cjcountess
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher on 25 May 2005 06:57 cjcountess wrote: > In my zeal to prove my point I admitt that I used words and definitions > that where inaccurate and sometimes incorrect. Thanks. Please learn what they actually mean, and then try again. > But the main idea I think is correct. You are not in the position to judge that. You are lacking the most basic education in physics, math and logic. [snip] Bye, Bjoern
From: cjcountess on 25 May 2005 07:29
A vector has both magnitude and direction. I stated that the speed of light moving away from a center in a straight line with frequency of 1 is a vector because it has both magnetude(the speed of light with frequency of 1), and direction (away from a center as an expansive centrifugal force). I wanted to define it as an expansive force directed away from a center and with a magnetude of E=h*1 because I want to equate it with the cosmological constant, Planck's constant,and the most basic dark energy at its lowest frequency. When I said that energy goes into frequency I meant that frequency increases as energy increases. Contractive centripital force simply means that the force pulls inward toward a center. Sometimes gravity is referred to as a contractive or cetripital force. When I refered to waves extending at a right angle, I meant that in the case of a wave stream traveling horrizontaly on a graph so to speak, the frequency can be represented as extentions at a right angle or in the vertical direction. I did not want to make it overly complex. cjcountess |