Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #402235 > unrolled thread

Formula for c

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Formula for c Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 18:45 -0800
    Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 19:14 -0800
      Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 19:45 -0800
    Re: Formula for c Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 15:07 +1100
      Re: Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 20:31 -0800
        Re: Formula for c Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 15:46 +1100
          Re: Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 21:33 -0800
            Re: Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 21:48 -0800
              Re: Formula for c Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 17:07 +1100
                Re: Formula for c Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 07:44 -0800
          Re: Formula for c Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 02:21 -0800
            Re: Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-23 03:18 -0800
              Re: Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-23 03:39 -0800
                Re: Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-23 03:57 -0800
                  Re: Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-23 04:24 -0800
                    Re: Formula for c "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-23 04:59 -0800
    Re: Formula for c Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 19:28 -0800
    Re: Formula for c Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-23 13:03 +0100
    Re: Formula for c alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-23 11:15 -0800

#402235 — Formula for c

The speed of light has an old formula about the 
inverse square root of permeability times permittivity. 
Here is that epsilon*mu formula:

c^2 = 1 / (epsilon*mu)

epsilon = 2*87*r*tau^2 / (pi q)

mu = 2 pi r second / (tau meter^2)

c^2 = q meter^2 / (4*87 r^2 tau second)

where r is proton radius .95fm, tau is 5.13ns, 
q is proton charge, 

c = 2.993*10^-7 meters sqrt(Coulomb) / (r second)

The sqrt(Coulomb) is replaced by "meter"

87/pi is the Local Blue Shift here in Maui.

Alan F.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#402236

The speed of light has an old formula about the 
inverse square root of permeability times permittivity. 
Here is that epsilon*mu formula: 

c^2 = 1 / (epsilon*mu) 

epsilon = 2*87*r*tau^2 / (pi q) 

mu = 2 pi r second / (tau meter^2) 

c^2 = q meter^2 / (4*87 r^2 tau second) 

where r is proton radius .95fm, tau is 5.13ns, 
q is proton charge, 

The Proton radius is skewed at 9.5e-16 m
If time tau was skewed to  phi/c also, it would catch allot of lookie loo's 

the golden ratio / the speed of light =
5.39718043 × 10-9 s / m
More info

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402239

9:14 PMme
The speed of light has an old formula about the 
inverse square root of permeability times permittivity. 
Here is that epsilon*mu formula: 

c^2 = 1 / (epsilon*mu) 

epsilon = 2*87*r*tau^2 / (pi q) 

mu = 2 pi r second / (tau meter^2) 

c^2 = q meter^2 / (4*87 r^2 tau second) 

where r is proton radius .95fm, tau is 5.13ns, 
q is proton charge, 

The Proton radius is skewed at 9.5e-16 m 
If time tau was skewed to  phi/c also, it would catch allot of lookie loo's 

the golden ratio / the speed of light = 5.39718043e-9 s / m 

It seems to be well within the existing skew you are utilizing 

(phi / c) / (95 / 87) = 4.94268103e-9 s / m

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402242

On 19/12/2016 1:45 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> The speed of light has an old formula about the
> inverse square root of permeability times permittivity.
> Here is that epsilon*mu formula:
>
> c^2 = 1 / (epsilon*mu)
>
> epsilon = 2*87*r*tau^2 / (pi q)
>
> mu = 2 pi r second / (tau meter^2)
>
> c^2 = q meter^2 / (4*87 r^2 tau second)
>
> where r is proton radius .95fm, tau is 5.13ns,
> q is proton charge,

That is dimensionally inconsistent, which is another way of saying that 
it's wrong.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402245

That is dimensionally inconsistent, which is another way of saying that 
it's wrong. 

Sylvia. 

Maybe YOU are wrong about the architecture of space time ?
Has that even crossed your mind once ?
Or are you just a dictionary regurgitating data??


Yes , we all have heard you blather on about dimensions
But it seems no one in the mainstream can finish it or decrypt gravity 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402246

On 19/12/2016 3:31 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> That is dimensionally inconsistent, which is another way of saying that
> it's wrong.
>
> Sylvia.
>
> Maybe YOU are wrong about the architecture of space time ?
> Has that even crossed your mind once ?

It makes no difference, and I have tried to explain this to you before. 
If the equation is dimensionally inconsistent, then it only works for a 
chosen set of units. Since units are man-made, it's highly unlikely that 
the universe has any interest in a particular set.


> Or are you just a dictionary regurgitating data??
>
>
> Yes , we all have heard you blather on about dimensions
> But it seems no one in the mainstream can finish it or decrypt gravity

Since when is gravity encrypted?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402253

It makes no difference, and I have tried to explain this to you before. 
If the equation is dimensionally inconsistent, then it only works for a 
chosen set of units. Since units are man-made, it's highly unlikely that 
the universe has any interest in a particular set. 

The universe Obviously Does care or there would Not be Regge trajectory charts 

http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/bjp/v35n1/a06fig04.gif

http://ysfine.com/feynman/chewfra.jpg

Space time has left massive amount of evidence it is a repeating fractal dimensionless heterodyne 

You are an ignorant Block head if you do not eve acknowledge this possibility that is backed up by much evidence 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402257

The only units on this whole chart is c & pi
It's just geometry 

https://goo.gl/photos/g8fbJpsTTZ1jrxELA

Give some credence to your self.
Show where Folmsbee is being dimensionally inconsistent in his calculations 
Make it correct or show where the deficit is 
All you is bark like a dog
You are just a loud car horn a thought terminating cliques. 

What point is there to comment on Folmsbee's activities if you do not clarify your critique??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402259

On 19/12/2016 4:48 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> The only units on this whole chart is c & pi
> It's just geometry
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/g8fbJpsTTZ1jrxELA
>
> Give some credence to your self.
> Show where Folmsbee is being dimensionally inconsistent in his calculations

Where?

The dimensions of the LHS differ from the dimensions of the RHS. That's 
all that can be said.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402296

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 8:08:00 PM UTC-10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/12/2016 4:48 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > The only units on this whole chart is c & pi
> > It's just geometry
> >
> > https://goo.gl/photos/g8fbJpsTTZ1jrxELA
> >
> > Give some credence to your self.
> > Show where Folmsbee is being dimensionally inconsistent in his calculations
> 
> Where?
> 
> The dimensions of the LHS differ from the dimensions of the RHS. That's 
> all that can be said.
> 
> Sylvia.

Hello SE, your critique encourages me to give more details 
about balancing dimensions. Only the q, proton charge will 
cause enforcers of Olde Science to doubt the reasonableness.

The Mass=Area Theorem is based on abstract ideas, common in 
math but rejected by traditionalists. If mass-area

force = meter^3 / second^2

Therefore charge is area in the 8D continuum. Since charge is 
area the sqrt(q) is a distance. That is not in high school 
books and it would not be graded well in high school tests. 
Progress has been made since 1938 when units of measure were
agreed by a congress of top people. Embrace the progress or 
be articulate about your belief that charge is a prime number 
with no factors possible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402823

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:46:55 PM UTC-10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/12/2016 3:31 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > That is dimensionally inconsistent, which is another way of saying that
> > it's wrong.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> >
> > Maybe YOU are wrong about the architecture of space time ?
> > Has that even crossed your mind once ?
> 
> It makes no difference, and I have tried to explain this to you before. 
> If the equation is dimensionally inconsistent, then it only works for a 
> chosen set of units. Since units are man-made, it's highly unlikely that 
> the universe has any interest in a particular set.
> 
> Sylvia.

Rejection of Sylvia's assertion that my formulas 
are only valid in one system of units of measure, 
but not other systems of units.

Reference 1: Introduction to Tensor Analysis and 
the Calculus of Moving Surfaces, Grinfeld, 2013

pp 27 If an expression has the same meaning in
all coordinate systems, then that must have 
geometric meaning.

pp 53 Objects that are constructed without reference 
to a coordinate system are called geometric. These 
are called invariant.

pp54 All invariant objects are geometric. The terms 
geometric and invariant are often used 
interchangeably.


Reference 2 Relativistic Hydrodynamics by Rezzolla 
and Zanotti, 2013

pp 16 vectors represent the simplest class of a 
more generalized geometric object, i.e., tensors.

pp 16 
define a contravariant tensor as a geometric object
define a covariant tensor as a geometric object

Conclusion

Sylvia is wrong about a problem existing with my 
using the MKS system of units to get right answers
from The Gravity Volume Theory. This theory uses only
geometric objects so it is invariant under
coordinate transformations. Imagine ocean wave 
physics described using furlongs, hogsheads, slugs, 
and nanoyears instead of MKS. The waves act the same, 
regardless of units of measure because they are 
geometric objects.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402824

 The waves act the same, 
regardless of units of measure because they are 
geometric objects. 

Yep ... purely geometric dimensionless Constants
https://goo.gl/photos/Wrx41ZCxEPrtAyKw8

https://goo.gl/photos/UdmVWd3VQA3qK7XD8

((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) / phi = 1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402827

Mr Folmsbee 
Let's make your theory go backwards. 

Let's say you shrunk yourself down to a height of one proton radius. 

Your are watching a proton that has a volume of 1 unit 

One second later there are 2 volume units
Two seconds later there are 3 volume units 
3 seconds later there are 5 volume units 
4 seconds later there are 8 volume units 
5 seconds later there are 13 volume units 

Would you say this pattern is correct to your model ?

((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) / phi = 1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402828

Mr Folmsbee 
Let's make your theory go backwards. 

Let's say you shrunk yourself down to a height of one proton radius. 

Your are watching a proton that has a volume of 1 unit 

One second later there are 2 volume units 
Two seconds later there are 3 volume units 
3 seconds later there are 5 volume units 
4 seconds later there are 8 volume units 
5 seconds later there are 13 volume units 

Would you say this pattern is correct to your model ? 
- hide quoted text -

((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) / phi = 1 

(2 sec^2)/5 = 0.8
((Tau^0.5)^2/Tau = 1
(3 sec^2)/8 = 1.125
(4 sec^2)/13 = 1.23076923077
(5 sec^2)/21 = 1.19047619048
(6 sec^2)/34 = 1.05882352941
(Tau sec^2)/tau^2 = 1
(7 sec^2)/55 = 0.8909090909
(8 sec^2)/89 = 0.71910112359
(9 sec^2)/144 = 0.5625
(10 sec^2)/233 = 0.42918454935

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402836

(2 sec^2)/5 = 0.8 
((Tau^0.5)^2/Tau = 1 
(3 sec^2)/8 = 1.125 
(4 sec^2)/13 = 1.23076923077 

(4pi/3 sec)^2/17.5459633797 = 1

(5 sec^2)/21 = 1.19047619048 
(6 sec^2)/34 = 1.05882352941 

(Tau sec^2)/tau^2 = 1 

(7 sec^2)/55 = 0.8909090909 
(8 sec^2)/89 = 0.71910112359 
(9 sec^2)/144 = 0.5625 
(10 sec^2)/233 = 0.42918454935 

(pi^2) / (((4 * pi) / 3)^2) = 0.5625 = 9 seconds 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402841

1 / ((1 - (((34 + 1) / (((4 * pi) / 3)^2)) / 2)) * ((4 * pi) / 1e+7) * c) = 1.01329219 s / m

Q = 1.01329

http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v8.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402810

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 4:45:48 PM UTC-10, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> The speed of light has an old formula about the 
> inverse square root of permeability times permittivity. 
> Here is that epsilon*mu formula:
> 
> c^2 = 1 / (epsilon*mu)
> 
> epsilon = 2*87*r*tau^2 / (pi q)
> 
> mu = 2 pi r second / (tau meter^2)
> 
> c^2 = q meter^2 / (4*87 r^2 tau second)
> 
> where r is proton radius .95fm, tau is 5.13ns, 
> q is proton charge, 
> 
> c = 2.993*10^-7 meters sqrt(Coulomb) / (r second)
> 
> The sqrt(Coulomb) is replaced by "meter"
> 
> 87/pi is the Local Blue Shift here in Maui.
> 
> Alan F.

Corrected formulas for c 

The speed of light has an old formula about the 
inverse square root of permeability times permittivity. 
Here is that epsilon*mu formula:

c^2 = 1 / (epsilon*mu)

epsilon naught =  4 sqrt(2) 87.98 r tau^2 / (q pi^2)

mu zero = pi^2 r second / (sqrt(2) tau meter^2)


c = sqrt(q) meter / (2 r sqrt(87.98 tau second))

The ratio 87.98 / 3.1 is called "the local blue shift" which may be due to 
stretching of space in this galaxy, relative to intergalactic space density. 
The proton radius r is between 0.93fm and 1.07fm. tau is 5.1315ns to
conserve continuum, q is proton charge

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402830

Op 19-dec-2016 om 03:45 schreef Alan Folmsbee:
> The speed of light has an old formula about the
> inverse square root of permeability times permittivity.
> Here is that epsilon*mu formula:
>
> c^2 = 1 / (epsilon*mu)
>
> epsilon = 2*87*r*tau^2 / (pi q)
>
> mu = 2 pi r second / (tau meter^2)
>
> c^2 = q meter^2 / (4*87 r^2 tau second)
>
> where r is proton radius .95fm, tau is 5.13ns,
> q is proton charge,
>
> c = 2.993*10^-7 meters sqrt(Coulomb) / (r second)
>
> The sqrt(Coulomb) is replaced by "meter"
>
> 87/pi is the Local Blue Shift here in Maui.

Ah.
That explains a lot.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402890

W dniu poniedziałek, 19 grudnia 2016 03:45:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Alan Folmsbee napisał:
> The speed of light has an old formula about the 
> inverse square root of permeability times permittivity. 
> Here is that epsilon*mu formula:
> 
> c^2 = 1 / (epsilon*mu)
> 
> epsilon = 2*87*r*tau^2 / (pi q)
> 
> mu = 2 pi r second / (tau meter^2)
> 
> c^2 = q meter^2 / (4*87 r^2 tau second)
> 
> where r is proton radius .95fm, tau is 5.13ns, 
> q is proton charge, 
> 
> c = 2.993*10^-7 meters sqrt(Coulomb) / (r second)
> 
> The sqrt(Coulomb) is replaced by "meter"
> 
> 87/pi is the Local Blue Shift here in Maui.
> 
> Alan F.

Another stupid composition of the popular constants...

1/pi = pi/pi^2

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web