Re: E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), and celestial orbits, may indeed be, “Natures Squaring of the Circle”.
- From: cjcountess <cjcountess@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
This is Conrad Countess
Unity of the Constants
I find it interesting that both -1 and pi don’t seem to have a square
root until you consider the natural unite c. Just as c x c or c^2 as I
have described it leads to a -1 particle such as electron which makes
c in a sense the square root of -1, (h/2pi) which is a measure of the
same particles momentum and its inverse (hx2pi) = (cx2pi) as a
measure of its wavelength, makes (c x c) = (cx2pi) which make (c =
2pi) in this special case. I find it quite interesting that so many
constants in nature, and I suspect all of them, are somehow unified
around (the constant speed of light or c). Just as c = h = square root
of -1 = 2pi, in this special case, c^2 =
h/2pi = G. G, h/2pi and c, not c^2 are used to derive the Planck scale
which
according to http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm
is said to be (1.6 x 10-35 metres), and is said to be the scale at
which (Quantum, and General Relativity Theory), will be unified, and
also the basic natural unites of, E (energy), M( mass), T (time), Q
(charge) and G (gravity). But I think that I have sufficient evidence
that they are all unified at the critical frequency/wavelength of
(c^2) . And this is a good thing because it is within our reach which
the Planck scale is not
In an article on string theory by Michio Kaku in “Scientific
American”, he stated that the cost of finding a “Quantum Theory of
Gravity”, may be just the cost of paper, pencil, and the human mind,
as opposed to the billions spent on projects like the “Large Hadron
Collider”, just put into action recently.
He was correct. I can show with just paper and pencil and my own human
brain, or in this case a “computer word processor”, that Special
Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Theory, come seamlessly
together for a “Quantum Theory of Gravity, with an analysis of
Einstein’s equation E=mc^2. Please observe: E (energy) = m (matter-
mass) c^2 (a frequency where c in the 90 degree angular direction
equals and balances c in the linear direction analogous to a line of 1
inch in horizontal direction being multiplied by a line of 1 inch in
vertical or 90 degree angular direction to create a square inch, for a
balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces resulting in circular
and or spherical motion and rest mass. Another way of viewing it is
that the two 90 degree angular lines of force create a 90 degree arc,
which if constant creates a circle or sphere in 3d, or a “Lorentz
Contraction”, of EM waves, that lead to “Space - Time Curvature” of EM
waves, to create rest mass particles, which are quantum particles,
subject to come to rest in neutral gravitational field.
Einstein and Mankowski, used the “square root of -1” to multiply ct or
the speed of light over time by in order to come up with a basic unit
of space-time length and time. This is equivalent to my own theory of
just using c^2 or c x c because as I have shown c can also be
considered the square root of -1 as it also leads to -1 particle or
electron and thus shows that E (energy) M (mass) T (time) L (length) Q
(charge) and (Inertial = Gravitational mass) are equivalent at
mathematical conversion factor, which is revealed to be a conversion
frequency/wavelength, which is (c^2). And thus, (E=mc^2) = (m=Ec^2) =
(L=mc^2) = (T=mc^2) = (Q=mc^2) = (G=mc^2).
There is no way around this. Foolish intellectual pride and the desire
to keep pet projects and the grants that fund them may stand in the
way but sooner or later the truth of this will be acknowledged.
Conrad Countess
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), and celestial orbits, may indeed be, “Natures Squaring of the Circle”.
- From: cjcountess
- Re: E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), and celestial orbits, may indeed be, “Natures Squaring of the Circle”.
- From: cjcountess
- Re: E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), and celestial orbits, may indeed be, “Natures Squaring of the Circle”.
- From: spudnik
- Re: E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), and celestial orbits, may indeed be, “Natures Squaring of the Circle”.
- From: spudnik
- E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), and celestial orbits, may indeed be, “Natures Squaring of the Circle”.
- Prev by Date: knuth - vol 1 - inductive proof questions
- Next by Date: Re: Calc - Question on intervals/slope.
- Previous by thread: Re: E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), and celestial orbits, may indeed be, “Natures Squaring of the Circle”.
- Next by thread: Re: E=mc(squared) = E=mc(circled), and celestial orbits, may indeed be, “Natures Squaring of the Circle”.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
