Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained


Hi this is Conrad Countess

No Einstein, like you I see a lot of contradictions in relativity and
science in general. Still, I am sure of my geometrical interpretation
of E=mc^2. This is because of so many other pieces of evidence that
align so perfectly, it is very statistically improbable that it is all
coincidental.
There is just too much evidence.
You say that E=mc^2 violates law of conservation of energy, I am
rereading some of your papers to get a better understanding of why you
say this. My idea is that (E) or energy (=) or equals (m) rest mass or
matter (c^2) at a frequency wavelength where the 90 degree angular
velocity equals and balances the linear velocity for a balance of
centrifugal and centripetal forces, resulting in circular and or
spherical rotation of light. Thus the speed of light squared equals
the speed of light in circular motion. As an analogy, if you take a
line of 1 inch in the linear direction and multiply it by 1 inch in
the 90 degree angular direction, you get a square inch. It is my
conclusion that c in the linear direction, times c in the 90 degree
angular direction will create a 90 degree arc trajectory of energy
which if constant, creates a circle of rotating energy, and that this
is what creates rest mass. Spherically rotating energy will have a
gyroscopic or helicopter like balancing and hovering effect which
should give it rest mass because the energy is more balanced around a
center of rotation as opposed to being projected in a relatively
straight line as with normal EM waves. Electrons, which naturally seem
to emerge from this geometry, are said to be mini gyroscopes.

Like you I wondered why KE=1/2 mv^2, F=mv^2, and F=mv, are so
different yet suppose to describe the same thing, the force or kinetic
energy of moving and or falling objects. I came to conclusion that as
long as you stay with the formula you start with you should be o.k.
KE=1/2mv^2 may take the action/reaction pair of Newton’s law “every
action causes an equal and opposite reaction”, into effect, the ½
referring to only one half of the action/reaction pair, whereas F=mv^2
does not. And F=mv may take individual moving objects into effect
while F=mv^2 takes objects at speed in relation to each other into
effect. I might be wrong on this but that is only logical explanation
I could think of. Your expiation of one being a scaler and one a
vector seems to me to be a matter of semantics, but again I may be
wrong here too. These things really did not get in the way of my
findings Because I did not use them as premises on which to build my
theory. My theory came mainly from contemplating the question of, “if
the speed of light is highest possible speed than how can it be
squared?”. I could not get a logical answer from anyone as they all
said pretty much the same thing which was that c^2 is just a
mathematical conversion factor with no physical significance.
Well that did not make sense to me. Also, because higher frequency
photons are more particle like than lower frequency photons, and sense
they have more mass, momentum ,and kinetic energy, it only made sense
to assume that they are traveling faster, if not in the linear
direction, at least in the 90 degree angular direction.. They most
certainly make more cycles per time unite. I imagined from this that
if the speed reached c in this angular direction, than this should be
c^2.

Lots of physicist still believe that frequency diverges to v^2,
interpreted as infinity which is where the ultra violet catastrophe
idea came from, but I am sure that it converges to c^2, which is a
circular and or spherical frequency leading to standing spherical
waves such as electrons in some cases.

1)Planck discovered E=hf for photons
2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter
3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) fro electron and that
electron was also a wave.
4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to
circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of
h/2pi




If we draw progressively shorter waves with progressively higher
energy, we will evidentially arrive at a wave whose 90 degree angular
energy/momentum equals its linear energy/momentum, which might create
a  balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces and 90 degree arc
which if constant creates a circle in 2d, or a spherical wave in 3d.
This 3d wave makes two rotations in order to complete one wave cycle,
(spin1/2) and also spins backward counter to it trajectory in half the
cases which is how electron gets its -1 charge. In the other half of
cases a forward spinning positron emerged
A smooth transition from photon to electron, energy to matter, along
the same EM spectrum, which might from now on be called the (energy/
matter), spectrum as well as (electromagnetic), is geometrically
demonstrated incorporating Planck’s, Einstein’s, deBroglie’s, and
Bohr’s ideas, as well as the two recent pieces of experimental
evidence, including creation of circular polarized wave, picture of
electron and also what Neil deGrasse Tyson stated on Nova site.
It just all seems to fit together so neatly that it is statistically
improbable that it could be just coincidence     

     
“Light is an electromagnetic wave that can carry angular momentum by
way of circular polarization. Transverse waves such as light, can have
polarization in two directions, "left-right", "up-down" or any
combination thereof. As an analogy, you can shake the end of a slinky
up and down, left to right, or at some arbitrary angle. Linear
polarization occurs when these two components occur in phase, e.g. you
shake the end of your slinky back and forth along the same path. When
the two components are of equal amplitude but 90 degrees out of phase,
however, circular polarization is created. This is what happens when
you shake the end of your slinky in a circular motion.”

If this is true we might extend the above logic base on experimental
evidence to include that two similar components in the up/down and
back/forth or x and y planes of equal amplitude and 90 degrees out of
phase, may cause circular motion, along the x and y plane just as I
have suggested. And that when this occurs in all three dimensions or x-
y -z planes, that this might cause a 3D standing spherical wave.
Perhaps experiments along the same lines as that mentioned above will
bear this out.

See this picture of electron on you tube I found it interesting that
it resembles an elongated standing spherical wave rotation about two
axis. I don’t know how they could have got this sense electrons are
smaller than EM waves but it does seem to resemble my geometrical
model of a backward spinning, standing spherical wave, making two
rotations in order to complete one wave cycle as oppose to just a
point particle or probability wave which are really vague
descriptions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCaqdcg7dwM

Conrad
P.S. Einstein’ and Minkowskie’s  (ct) x (square root of -1) , equating
a fundamental unite of time with a fundamental spacial length, also
collaborates this. Geometrically,( square root of -1) serves same
purpose as c in the 90 degree angular direction to create 90 backward
rotation or arc in case of geometrical interpretation of c^2 leading
to Electron. According to this source:   
An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1
by Paul J. Nahin page 54 paragraph 2:
“multiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation
by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense
Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator
operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.”

Besides uniting (time and length) as stated above with (energy and
matter) as well as (charge) because really (E=mc^2) = (ct)x(square
root of -1), I am sure that it is the long awaited solution to the
quantum gravity problem.


Conrad Countess

P.S.
See this from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist
American Museum of Natural History


Because, for example, visible light that you use to illuminate the
page you read, you can calculate how much energy that light has. It's
not enough to make any particles with. You need more energetic light
than visible light, than ultraviolet. You gotta get into X-rays. If
you get high enough energy X-rays passing by your room, spontaneously,
unannounced, unprompted, unscripted, they will make electrons. The
whole suite of particles you learn about, all of those can be
manufactured simply by entering a pool of energy where that energy is
above the mass threshold for that particle.

Notice that he did not say that they will create electron/positron
pairs he just said they will create electrons
I stated in my very first post on sci phys in 2005 that this theory
might explain why there is not an anti particle for every particle, as
matter seems to emerge in this model without the need for a
corresponding anti particle. Of course I was refuted, but seeing this
maybe I am right again.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d6a580c9cd44687e?hl=en


Conrad






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Light
    ... While a traveling wave electro-magnetic wave does contain both an electric ... As Mr. Russel indicated light is only one form of EM energy. ... The wavelength is inversely proportional to the ... energy does not have to be driven by electron orbitals. ...
    (sci.engr.color)
  • Re: Zero Point Electron Orbit Stability?
    ... be, by definition, a perpetual motion system. ... An electron has mass and charge properties, ... finite energy level, may occupy. ... An electron is a wave and this is empirically demonstrated by applying ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Wave as wave, particle as particle
    ... not change its radius sensitibley depending on its energy uptake, ... if the energy capacity of old orbital electron ... questioned is to have radius of electron ring possible to emit ... standing wave forming ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Zero Point Electron Orbit Stability?
    ... be, by definition, a perpetual motion system. ... An electron has mass and charge properties, ... finite energy level, may occupy. ... An electron is a wave and this is empirically demonstrated by applying ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • 2 New Math Ideas (E=mc"squared")=(E=mc"circled") and c=square root of -1
    ... inside of matter and that energy and matter are equal related through ... turn into particles resolving the wave particle duality and many other ... spherical wave, same geometry as an electron, emerges from an EM wave ...
    (sci.math)