Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: aliasjt: "Son du tonnerre"
- Previous message: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: too much information!"
- In reply to: John C. Polasek: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:39:12 -0600
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:52tau0dh4b4al29vt9sirdd4ph0j7jb93q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:25:51 -0600, "David Thomson"
> <news5@volantis.org> wrote:
>>A.u * (e.emax^2 / w.C) = m.e * c^2
> What are the units of Au? You claim you have units with your
> equations. And what is e.emax^2, is it the same as electron charge
> squared?
> If so, then your A.u is identical to alpha/2*eps0 and that would be
> 4.119*10^8 meters per Farad. How did you derive it? (There's too much
> here for me to read all these messages).
> John Polasek
> If you have something to say, write an equation.
> If you have nothing to say, write an essay
I like your by-line. You can see the equations in better detail at:
http://www.16pi2.com/unified_charge_theory.htm
The above page is merely my raw notes. The book is much more thorough.
Also, some ideas from the notes are dropped and others not in the notes are
added.
A.u above is the same thing as rmfd on the notes pages. A.u has a couple
different representations, but the easiest is:
A.u = 16pi^2 * k.c
where k.c is Coulomb's constant.
e.emax^2, as you will see on the notes page, is not the same thing as e^2.
They are two completely different quantum expressions of charge, but which
are related.
Dave
- Next message: aliasjt: "Son du tonnerre"
- Previous message: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: too much information!"
- In reply to: John C. Polasek: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
