Re: Geometrical interpretation of c^2

On 12 mai, 13:13, cjcountess <cjcount...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

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
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."

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
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,

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
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.

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
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." <gat...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Conrad Countess" <cjcount...@xxxxxxxxx>
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
that I attended at your place of work, University of
Maryland, years ago as I was living in Baltimore at
the time but now reside in Columbia just down the road.
Go towww.cjc123.netand 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
equations E=mc^2, M=E/c^2 and m=Ec^2 is not just a
mathematical conversion factor of energy to matter but
is an actual frequency at the high end of the electro-
magnetic spectrum where energy turns to matter and has
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.

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-
mentum of light along the linier path for a balance of
centrifugal and centripetal forces resulting in a clos-
ed loop of rotating energy. A more detailed explana-
tion is available at

www.cjc123.net/review

I've tried to take this idea to its logical end and
so a lot of what it contains may be speculative or
inaccurate, but the main idea I just mentioned I am
sure of and I have logical, mathematical and geome-
trical evidence to back it. Due to the efficiency of
the Internet and search engines the evidence is pil-
ing up and I do think there is no way around it.

There is plenty of collaborating evidence. It would
be a great honor for me if you would review this paper
and evidence, especially the idea just mentioned.
Imagine a new breakthrough on this subject after 100
years. It is bound to generate much excitement and get
more people interest in the sciences. E=mc^2 tells
us that a lot of energy is trapped inside of matter
and that they are one related by that formula. But up
tell now I have not heard anyone explain how. This ex-
plains it so simply that even a child can understand it.
The implications are far reaching. Among other things
it will show a more direct relationship between
relative and rest mass, waves and particles, energy
and matter, relativity and quantum mechanics.
SEE FOR YOURSELF - IT WOULD BE A GREAT HONOR FOR ME.

CJCountess
e-mail-cjcount...@xxxxxxxxx

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: gat...@xxxxxxxxxxx
College Park, MD 20742-4111 ...

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
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The existance of time as anything other than a mere "concept"
    ... In the mathematical context time *is* what a clock measures. ... exists in the physical that has energy, or mass, or dimension. ... or the movement or transformation of some matter or energy ... hinting at a desire to talk about physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Geometrical interpretation of c^2
    ... direction at moving from energy to rest mass smoothly along the same ... This validates to me that the matter wave emerges from ... I looked up dimension analysis and got this from "wikipedia" ... understood how theoretical physics is done. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mosquitoes (On Topic)
    ... Advantage - fleas ... Frontline Plus - fleas and ticks ... live) ticks a day from them) so Frontline Plus is my only real option. ... Can you tell me the web site for these Australian vendors? ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it
    ... Our existence is based upon physics, math, and what ... Matter and energy are indeed the same. ... > and resistance. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it
    ... Our existence is based upon physics, math, and what ... Matter and energy are indeed the same. ... > and resistance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)