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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476046 > unrolled thread

E=mc2

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

Contents

  E=mc2 Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 14:43 -0700
    Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 22:55 +0000
    E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:04 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-02 09:21 -0700
        Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-02 09:52 -0700
          Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-02 15:28 -0700
    Re: E=mc2 Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 17:53 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 01:02 +0000
      Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-02 18:43 +0100
        Re: E=mc2 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 11:21 -0700
    Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-02 13:35 +1100
      Re: E=mc2 mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 21:43 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-11-01 23:09 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-02 01:33 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-04 12:34 +0000
        Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:20 +0100
          Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-04 05:51 -0800
          Re: E=mc2 Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-05 20:51 +0000
            Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-06 10:57 +1100
              Re: E=mc2 Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-06 20:21 +0000
                Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-07 08:57 +1100
                  Re: E=mc2 Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-07 19:35 +0000
                    Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-08 09:32 +1100
                      Re: E=mc2 Gaston Castaneda <agn@j2awdos.nc> - 2018-11-08 21:13 +0000
                        Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-08 22:26 +0100
                          Re: E=mc2 Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> - 2018-11-09 19:46 +0000
                            Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 02:47 +0100
                Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-07 00:13 +0100
                  Re: E=mc2 Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-07 19:38 +0000
        Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 13:17 -0500
          Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 20:01 +0100
            Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:38 -0500
              Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 20:53 +0100
                Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:01 -0500
                  Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 01:58 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:59 -0500
                      Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 05:39 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:54 +0100
                      Re: E=mc2 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-05 22:33 -0600
                        Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 06:27 +0100
                        Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 06:28 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-04 23:28 -0800
              Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:14 +0000
                Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:05 -0500
                  Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 02:02 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:59 -0500
                      Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 05:51 +0100
                  Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 03:00 +0000
                    Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 23:15 -0500
                      Re: E=mc2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
            Re: E=mc2 Buck Dehner <uktea@yswdoiz.cp> - 2018-11-05 21:00 +0000
              Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-13 15:38 +0100
                Re: E=mc2 Gaston Castaneda <uucp@jav4ow.nq> - 2018-11-13 20:22 +0000
                  Re: E=mc2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-13 23:09 +0100
                    Re: E=mc2 Shon Wible <shwn@shouwe.wh> - 2018-11-14 15:53 +0000
          Re: E=mc2 Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> - 2018-11-05 20:54 +0000
          Re: E=mc2 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 22:35 -0800
          Re: E=mc2 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 22:44 -0800
            Re: E=mc2 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-08 06:34 -0800
        Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-05 12:21 +1100
          Re: E=mc2 benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 23:12 -0500
            Re: E=mc2 Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-05 16:30 +1100
    Re: E=mc2 Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 16:48 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 19:07 -0700
      Re: E=mc2 Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-08 08:48 +0100

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#476046 — E=mc2

 I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#476054

Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> wrote:
>  I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by
> Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!!
> 

In science, conviction does not come from argument or derivation. A
scientific hypothesis could legitimately come from pure hunch. The test of
the validity of a scientific claim should rest on comparison with
experimental measurement. Period, end of story. 

If you’re relying on anything else to be convincing then you are missing
the point. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#476055

Omar Shabsigh
I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!! 

Fluid Dynamics 

(Planck Pressure/Planck Density) = c^2 

((Planck Density)*c^2) = (Planck Pressure)

(1 joules)/(1 pascal) = m^3

E=mc^2

(Classical Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity) to (electron Compton Kinematic Viscosity) to (Planck Kinematic Viscosity)

Premise 1 

(Matter & Energy) are (Relativistic Ballast) maintaining the  (Fluid Dynamic Balance Of Space Time) relative to (Bulk Modulus Period and Bjerknes Forces) 


https://photos.app.goo.gl/2tHNZ8XSWgnvW5yS6 


(((1.42756885 solar mass * (c^2)) / (1.50122737e+23^2)) / (6.5248935 ((kg m) / s))) * ((2pi)^2) * 2 = 137.030879 m / s


((1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879 

https://goo.gl/ocf5yM 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%281.50122737e%2B23+%2F+%282+*+pi%29%29+%2F+%28%284+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%282%5E6%29+*+%283+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%28pi%5Ee%29+%2F+%28e%5E%28e+-+1%29%29%29%5E%285+%2F+2%29%29%29%5E3%29%29%29%5E%281+%2F+3%29+  



#BoltzmannConstant & the #Electron 

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 

(c / (((2.4263263e-12 m) / c) / ((2.4263263e-12 m)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s 

(c / (electron Compton period ) / ((electron Compton length)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s = Kinematic viscosity 

(c / (((planck length * 1.50122737E+23) / c) / ((planck length * 1.50122737E+23)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394316 m^2 / s 

(c / ((planck Time) / (planck length^3)))^0.5 = 4.84533077e-27 m^2 / s = (Planck Kinematic Viscosity)

(((c / ((planck length / c) / (planck length^3)))^0.5) / (((0.5 kg) * G) / (c^2))) / 2 = 6.5248935 m / s 



(((6.5248935 / (2pi)) * 1.70377849e53 kg * G) / (13.8880509 billion light year))^0.5 = 299792458 m / s 

((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3 

1.70377849e+53 kg = mass of visible universe 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0  



Programming Planck units from a virtual electron; a Simulation Hypothesis 
Malcolm J. Macleod 

https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf  

4 * (π^2) * (((2^6) * 3 * (π^2) * 137.035999172 * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3) = 2.3895454e+22

2.3895454e+22 * 2 * pi = 1.5013957e+23

(1.5013957e+23 Malcolm J. Macleod ) / (1.50122737e+23 Dahl Winters) = 1.00011212825

(1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * 137.035999172 * (2.0071199557^5))^3)) = 1.00000000136 

((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^0.5 = 2.00713495432 



((1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 

(((electron Compton length/Planck Length)/ (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 

-8 i log(-1) (-i log(-1))^2 (137.030879198 3 2^6 (-i log(-1))^2 ((-i log(-1))^e/e^(-1 + e))^(5/2))^3 = 1.50122737001e+23

https://goo.gl/BdSYXT 



http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-8+i+log(-1)+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+(137.030879198+3+2%5E6+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+((-i+log(-1))%5Ee%2Fe%5E(-1+%2B+e))%5E(5%2F2))%5E3


-8 i log(-1) (-i log(-1))^2 (137.035999172 3 2^6 (-i log(-1))^2 ((-i log(-1))^e/e^(-1 + e))^(5/2))^3 = 1.50139565030e+23

1.50139565030e+23/2pi = 2.3895454e+22 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-8+i+log(-1)+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+(137.035999172+3+2%5E6+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+((-i+log(-1))%5Ee%2Fe%5E(-1+%2B+e))%5E(5%2F2))%5E3

137.035999172 / (1.50122737e+23 / 1.50121697e+23) = 137.035049833

N is simply 2pi * sqrt(1/ag) where ag = the gravitational coupling constant 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant 

Unlike ag, N appears in several places in physics in not only mass but also length and consequently time. 
Some of these formulations of N are in Dahl Winters paper at https://www.academia.edu/35806992/

Uniting_the_Scales_of_Length_Mass_and_Charge 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant  

 

Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity 

(((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s 

((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) / (m^3)) = Friedmann energy density 

 (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = Friedmann mass density 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter  
 
Dahl Winters: A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime  


https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime 
 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ljusv5jFVIiNWHzOEejwQJyrToKbJkoq68XLLuOnEkk 

On the reversal of sign of secondary Bjerknes force acting between two pulsating gas bubbles
Masato Ida: Satellite Venture Business Laboratory, Gunma University,

http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf 



Holographic  Ideal fluid under pressure model 

The Pressure & Density dictate the speed of light & (rate of causality) 

Pressure and density dictate the (Quantization parameters) 

((6.5248935 kg m/s)^2*c)/((c^7/(hbar*G^2))*(planck length)^2) = hbar 

Friedmann parameters 

((hbar / ((((3.71295774e-28 ((kg m) / s))^2) * c) / (((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals) * ((1 m)^2)))) / (6.5248935^2)) / 2 = 1.00000000000 




(((((3.71295774e-28 * 6.5248935) * ((kg m) / s))^2) * c) / (((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals) * ((1 m)^2))) * 2 = 1.0545718e-34 m^2 kg / s = hbar 

3.71295774e-28 kg/m^3 Friedmann mass density 

((6.67408e-11/2) pascals = Friedmann energy density 

(((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s = Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity 


(((9.1224509E+20  pascals)/(10150.0955 kg/m^3))  * ((2.4263263e-12 m)^2)/c^2*(6.5248935 kg m/s)^2)^0.5/1.50122739e+23 = hbar 


((2.4263263e-12 m) / 1.50122739e+23) / planck length = 0.999999999 

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K

1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 

((2.4263102367E-12 meters) / 1.50121745e+23) / Planck Length = 1 


(((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^4)) / hbar = 299792458 m / s 


((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * ((2.4263102367E-12 m)^4)) / hbar = 299792458 m / s 


1 / (((1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4))) / (2 * pi))^2) = 1.75175162e-45 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant


1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4)) = 1.50121745e+23 



(1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4))) / (2pi) = 2.38926178e+22 



(((2pi) /(3^0.5 planck length/m) pascals^-1) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 


(((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 

https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp = 0.8751(61) x 10-15 m 

((4 * planck length * ((6.5248935 * ((kg m) / s)) / c)) / proton mass) * (6.5248935 / (2pi)) = 8.7359718e-16 meters 

(4 * planck length * ((6.5248935 * ((kg m) / s)) / c)) / proton mass = 8.41235641e-16 meters 


((((c^7/(hbar*G^2))/(pi*9.1224509E+20*pi*3.57498477586e+34)^2)/2)^2/5 = 1 




http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0118vS.pdf 


https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0 

https://www.academia.edu/12184243/Vacuum_Fluid_Dynamics_Electric_and_Gravitational_Forces_Linked_to_the_Primary_and_Secondary_Bjerknes_Forces_in_Vacuum 

https://www.academia.edu/37297960/Modeling_Matter_and_Acoustic_Radiation_Forces_Bjerknes_Forces_in_a_Fluid_Spacetime 

https://www.academia.edu/37173524/The_Gas_Laws_of_Spacetime_and_a_Description_of_Electric_and_Gravitational_Forces_as_Acoustic_Radiation_Forces

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

#476088

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:04:27 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Omar Shabsigh
> I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!! 
> 
> Fluid Dynamics 
> 
> (Planck Pressure/Planck Density) = c^2 
> 
> ((Planck Density)*c^2) = (Planck Pressure)
> 
> (1 joules)/(1 pascal) = m^3
> 
> E=mc^2

(c^7/(hbar*G^2)) = (6.5248935 kg m/s*c/(Planck length)^3) 

> 
> (Classical Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity) to (electron Compton Kinematic Viscosity) to (Planck Kinematic Viscosity)
> 
> Premise 1 
> 
> (Matter & Energy) are (Relativistic Ballast) maintaining the  (Fluid Dynamic Balance Of Space Time) relative to (Bulk Modulus Period and Bjerknes Forces) 
> 
> 
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/2tHNZ8XSWgnvW5yS6 
> 
> 
> (((1.42756885 solar mass * (c^2)) / (1.50122737e+23^2)) / (6.5248935 ((kg m) / s))) * ((2pi)^2) * 2 = 137.030879 m / s
> 
> 
> ((1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879 
> 
> https://goo.gl/ocf5yM 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%281.50122737e%2B23+%2F+%282+*+pi%29%29+%2F+%28%284+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%282%5E6%29+*+%283+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%28pi%5Ee%29+%2F+%28e%5E%28e+-+1%29%29%29%5E%285+%2F+2%29%29%29%5E3%29%29%29%5E%281+%2F+3%29+  
> 
> 
> 
> #BoltzmannConstant & the #Electron 
> 
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 
> 
> (c / (((2.4263263e-12 m) / c) / ((2.4263263e-12 m)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s 
> 
> (c / (electron Compton period ) / ((electron Compton length)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s = Kinematic viscosity 
> 
> (c / (((planck length * 1.50122737E+23) / c) / ((planck length * 1.50122737E+23)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394316 m^2 / s 
> 
> (c / ((planck Time) / (planck length^3)))^0.5 = 4.84533077e-27 m^2 / s = (Planck Kinematic Viscosity)
> 
> (((c / ((planck length / c) / (planck length^3)))^0.5) / (((0.5 kg) * G) / (c^2))) / 2 = 6.5248935 m / s 
> 
> 
> 
> (((6.5248935 / (2pi)) * 1.70377849e53 kg * G) / (13.8880509 billion light year))^0.5 = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> ((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3 
> 
> 1.70377849e+53 kg = mass of visible universe 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0  
> 
> 
> 
> Programming Planck units from a virtual electron; a Simulation Hypothesis 
> Malcolm J. Macleod 
> 
> https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf  
> 
> 4 * (π^2) * (((2^6) * 3 * (π^2) * 137.035999172 * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3) = 2.3895454e+22
> 
> 2.3895454e+22 * 2 * pi = 1.5013957e+23
> 
> (1.5013957e+23 Malcolm J. Macleod ) / (1.50122737e+23 Dahl Winters) = 1.00011212825
> 
> (1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * 137.035999172 * (2.0071199557^5))^3)) = 1.00000000136 
> 
> ((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^0.5 = 2.00713495432 
> 
> 
> 
> ((1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 
> 
> (((electron Compton length/Planck Length)/ (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 
> 
> -8 i log(-1) (-i log(-1))^2 (137.030879198 3 2^6 (-i log(-1))^2 ((-i log(-1))^e/e^(-1 + e))^(5/2))^3 = 1.50122737001e+23
> 
> https://goo.gl/BdSYXT 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-8+i+log(-1)+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+(137.030879198+3+2%5E6+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+((-i+log(-1))%5Ee%2Fe%5E(-1+%2B+e))%5E(5%2F2))%5E3
> 
> 
> -8 i log(-1) (-i log(-1))^2 (137.035999172 3 2^6 (-i log(-1))^2 ((-i log(-1))^e/e^(-1 + e))^(5/2))^3 = 1.50139565030e+23
> 
> 1.50139565030e+23/2pi = 2.3895454e+22 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-8+i+log(-1)+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+(137.035999172+3+2%5E6+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+((-i+log(-1))%5Ee%2Fe%5E(-1+%2B+e))%5E(5%2F2))%5E3
> 
> 137.035999172 / (1.50122737e+23 / 1.50121697e+23) = 137.035049833
> 
> N is simply 2pi * sqrt(1/ag) where ag = the gravitational coupling constant 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant 
> 
> Unlike ag, N appears in several places in physics in not only mass but also length and consequently time. 
> Some of these formulations of N are in Dahl Winters paper at https://www.academia.edu/35806992/
> 
> Uniting_the_Scales_of_Length_Mass_and_Charge 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant  
> 
>  
> 
> Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity 
> 
> (((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s 
> 
> ((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) / (m^3)) = Friedmann energy density 
> 
>  (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = Friedmann mass density 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter  
>  
> Dahl Winters: A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime  
> 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime 
>  
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ljusv5jFVIiNWHzOEejwQJyrToKbJkoq68XLLuOnEkk 
> 
> On the reversal of sign of secondary Bjerknes force acting between two pulsating gas bubbles
> Masato Ida: Satellite Venture Business Laboratory, Gunma University,
> 
> http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf 
> 
> 
> 
> Holographic  Ideal fluid under pressure model 
> 
> The Pressure & Density dictate the speed of light & (rate of causality) 
> 
> Pressure and density dictate the (Quantization parameters) 
> 
> ((6.5248935 kg m/s)^2*c)/((c^7/(hbar*G^2))*(planck length)^2) = hbar 
> 
> Friedmann parameters 
> 
> ((hbar / ((((3.71295774e-28 ((kg m) / s))^2) * c) / (((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals) * ((1 m)^2)))) / (6.5248935^2)) / 2 = 1.00000000000 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (((((3.71295774e-28 * 6.5248935) * ((kg m) / s))^2) * c) / (((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals) * ((1 m)^2))) * 2 = 1.0545718e-34 m^2 kg / s = hbar 
> 
> 3.71295774e-28 kg/m^3 Friedmann mass density 
> 
> ((6.67408e-11/2) pascals = Friedmann energy density 
> 
> (((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s = Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity 
> 
> 
> (((9.1224509E+20  pascals)/(10150.0955 kg/m^3))  * ((2.4263263e-12 m)^2)/c^2*(6.5248935 kg m/s)^2)^0.5/1.50122739e+23 = hbar 
> 
> 
> ((2.4263263e-12 m) / 1.50122739e+23) / planck length = 0.999999999 
> 
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K
> 
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 
> 
> ((2.4263102367E-12 meters) / 1.50121745e+23) / Planck Length = 1 
> 
> 
> (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^4)) / hbar = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> 
> ((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * ((2.4263102367E-12 m)^4)) / hbar = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> 
> 1 / (((1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4))) / (2 * pi))^2) = 1.75175162e-45 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant
> 
> 
> 1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4)) = 1.50121745e+23 
> 
> 
> 
> (1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4))) / (2pi) = 2.38926178e+22 
> 
> 
> 
> (((2pi) /(3^0.5 planck length/m) pascals^-1) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> 
> (((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp = 0.8751(61) x 10-15 m 
> 
> ((4 * planck length * ((6.5248935 * ((kg m) / s)) / c)) / proton mass) * (6.5248935 / (2pi)) = 8.7359718e-16 meters 
> 
> (4 * planck length * ((6.5248935 * ((kg m) / s)) / c)) / proton mass = 8.41235641e-16 meters 
> 
> 
> ((((c^7/(hbar*G^2))/(pi*9.1224509E+20*pi*3.57498477586e+34)^2)/2)^2/5 = 1 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0118vS.pdf 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/12184243/Vacuum_Fluid_Dynamics_Electric_and_Gravitational_Forces_Linked_to_the_Primary_and_Secondary_Bjerknes_Forces_in_Vacuum 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37297960/Modeling_Matter_and_Acoustic_Radiation_Forces_Bjerknes_Forces_in_a_Fluid_Spacetime 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37173524/The_Gas_Laws_of_Spacetime_and_a_Description_of_Electric_and_Gravitational_Forces_as_Acoustic_Radiation_Forces

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

#476089

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:04:27 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 
> Omar Shabsigh 
> I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!! 
> 
> Fluid Dynamics 
> 
> (Planck Pressure/Planck Density) = c^2 
> 
> ((Planck Density)*c^2) = (Planck Pressure) 
> 
> (1 joules)/(1 pascal) = m^3 
> 
> E=mc^2 

(c^7/(hbar*G^2)) = (6.5248935 kg m/s*c/(Planck length)^3) 

Friedmann Parameters 

((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) / ((3.71295774e-28 ((kg m) / s) * c) / ((1 m)^3)) = 299792458

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter

> 
> (Classical Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity) to (electron Compton Kinematic Viscosity) to (Planck Kinematic Viscosity) 
> 
> Premise 1 
> 
> (Matter & Energy) are (Relativistic Ballast) maintaining the  (Fluid Dynamic Balance Of Space Time) relative to (Bulk Modulus Period and Bjerknes Forces) 
> 
> 
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/2tHNZ8XSWgnvW5yS6 
> 
> 
> (((1.42756885 solar mass * (c^2)) / (1.50122737e+23^2)) / (6.5248935 ((kg m) / s))) * ((2pi)^2) * 2 = 137.030879 m / s 
> 
> 
> ((1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879 
> 
> https://goo.gl/ocf5yM 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%281.50122737e%2B23+%2F+%282+*+pi%29%29+%2F+%28%284+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%282%5E6%29+*+%283+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%28pi%5Ee%29+%2F+%28e%5E%28e+-+1%29%29%29%5E%285+%2F+2%29%29%29%5E3%29%29%29%5E%281+%2F+3%29+   
> 
> 
> 
> #BoltzmannConstant & the #Electron 
> 
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 
> 
> (c / (((2.4263263e-12 m) / c) / ((2.4263263e-12 m)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s 
> 
> (c / (electron Compton period ) / ((electron Compton length)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s = Kinematic viscosity 
> 
> (c / (((planck length * 1.50122737E+23) / c) / ((planck length * 1.50122737E+23)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394316 m^2 / s 
> 
> (c / ((planck Time) / (planck length^3)))^0.5 = 4.84533077e-27 m^2 / s = (Planck Kinematic Viscosity) 
> 
> (((c / ((planck length / c) / (planck length^3)))^0.5) / (((0.5 kg) * G) / (c^2))) / 2 = 6.5248935 m / s 
> 
> 
> 
> (((6.5248935 / (2pi)) * 1.70377849e53 kg * G) / (13.8880509 billion light year))^0.5 = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> ((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3 
> 
> 1.70377849e+53 kg = mass of visible universe 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0   
> 
> 
> 
> Programming Planck units from a virtual electron; a Simulation Hypothesis 
> Malcolm J. Macleod 
> 
> https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf   
> 
> 4 * (π^2) * (((2^6) * 3 * (π^2) * 137.035999172 * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3) = 2.3895454e+22 
> 
> 2.3895454e+22 * 2 * pi = 1.5013957e+23 
> 
> (1.5013957e+23 Malcolm J. Macleod ) / (1.50122737e+23 Dahl Winters) = 1.00011212825 
> 
> (1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * 137.035999172 * (2.0071199557^5))^3)) = 1.00000000136 
> 
> ((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^0.5 = 2.00713495432 
> 
> 
> 
> ((1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 
> 
> (((electron Compton length/Planck Length)/ (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 
> 
> -8 i log(-1) (-i log(-1))^2 (137.030879198 3 2^6 (-i log(-1))^2 ((-i log(-1))^e/e^(-1 + e))^(5/2))^3 = 1.50122737001e+23 
> 
> https://goo.gl/BdSYXT 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-8+i+log(-1)+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+(137.030879198+3+2%5E6+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+((-i+log(-1))%5Ee%2Fe%5E(-1+%2B+e))%5E(5%2F2))%5E3 
> 
> 
> -8 i log(-1) (-i log(-1))^2 (137.035999172 3 2^6 (-i log(-1))^2 ((-i log(-1))^e/e^(-1 + e))^(5/2))^3 = 1.50139565030e+23 
> 
> 1.50139565030e+23/2pi = 2.3895454e+22 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-8+i+log(-1)+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+(137.035999172+3+2%5E6+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+((-i+log(-1))%5Ee%2Fe%5E(-1+%2B+e))%5E(5%2F2))%5E3 
> 
> 137.035999172 / (1.50122737e+23 / 1.50121697e+23) = 137.035049833 
> 
> N is simply 2pi * sqrt(1/ag) where ag = the gravitational coupling constant 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant 
> 
> Unlike ag, N appears in several places in physics in not only mass but also length and consequently time. 
> Some of these formulations of N are in Dahl Winters paper at https://www.academia.edu/35806992/ 
> 
> Uniting_the_Scales_of_Length_Mass_and_Charge 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant   
> 
>   
> 
> Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity 
> 
> (((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s 
> 
> ((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) / (m^3)) = Friedmann energy density 
> 
>  (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = Friedmann mass density 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter   
>   
> Dahl Winters: A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime   
> 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime 
>   
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ljusv5jFVIiNWHzOEejwQJyrToKbJkoq68XLLuOnEkk 
> 
> On the reversal of sign of secondary Bjerknes force acting between two pulsating gas bubbles 
> Masato Ida: Satellite Venture Business Laboratory, Gunma University, 
> 
> http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf 
> 
> 
> 
> Holographic  Ideal fluid under pressure model 
> 
> The Pressure & Density dictate the speed of light & (rate of causality) 
> 
> Pressure and density dictate the (Quantization parameters) 
> 
> ((6.5248935 kg m/s)^2*c)/((c^7/(hbar*G^2))*(planck length)^2) = hbar 
> 
> Friedmann parameters 
> 
> ((hbar / ((((3.71295774e-28 ((kg m) / s))^2) * c) / (((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals) * ((1 m)^2)))) / (6.5248935^2)) / 2 = 1.00000000000 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (((((3.71295774e-28 * 6.5248935) * ((kg m) / s))^2) * c) / (((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals) * ((1 m)^2))) * 2 = 1.0545718e-34 m^2 kg / s = hbar 
> 
> 3.71295774e-28 kg/m^3 Friedmann mass density 
> 
> ((6.67408e-11/2) pascals = Friedmann energy density 
> 
> (((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s = Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity 
> 
> 
> (((9.1224509E+20  pascals)/(10150.0955 kg/m^3))  * ((2.4263263e-12 m)^2)/c^2*(6.5248935 kg m/s)^2)^0.5/1.50122739e+23 = hbar 
> 
> 
> ((2.4263263e-12 m) / 1.50122739e+23) / planck length = 0.999999999 
> 
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 
>  
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 
> 
> ((2.4263102367E-12 meters) / 1.50121745e+23) / Planck Length = 1 
> 
> 
> (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^4)) / hbar = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> 
> ((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * ((2.4263102367E-12 m)^4)) / hbar = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> 
> 1 / (((1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4))) / (2 * pi))^2) = 1.75175162e-45 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant 
> 
> 
> 1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4)) = 1.50121745e+23 
> 
> 
> 
> (1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4))) / (2pi) = 2.38926178e+22 
> 
> 
> 
> (((2pi) /(3^0.5 planck length/m) pascals^-1) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> 
> (((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp = 0.8751(61) x 10-15 m 
> 
> ((4 * planck length * ((6.5248935 * ((kg m) / s)) / c)) / proton mass) * (6.5248935 / (2pi)) = 8.7359718e-16 meters 
> 
> (4 * planck length * ((6.5248935 * ((kg m) / s)) / c)) / proton mass = 8.41235641e-16 meters 
> 
> 
> ((((c^7/(hbar*G^2))/(pi*9.1224509E+20*pi*3.57498477586e+34)^2)/2)^2/5 = 1 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0118vS.pdf 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/12184243/Vacuum_Fluid_Dynamics_Electric_and_Gravitational_Forces_Linked_to_the_Primary_and_Secondary_Bjerknes_Forces_in_Vacuum 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37297960/Modeling_Matter_and_Acoustic_Radiation_Forces_Bjerknes_Forces_in_a_Fluid_Spacetime 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37173524/The_Gas_Laws_of_Spacetime_and_a_Description_of_Electric_and_Gravitational_Forces_as_Acoustic_Radiation_Forces 

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

#476110

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:04:27 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: 
> Omar Shabsigh 
> I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!! 
> 
> Fluid Dynamics 
> 
> (Planck Pressure/Planck Density) = c^2 
> 
> ((Planck Density)*c^2) = (Planck Pressure) 
> 
> (1 joules)/(1 pascal) = m^3 
> 
> E=mc^2 

(c^7/(hbar*G^2)) = (6.5248935 kg m/s*c/(Planck length)^3) 

Friedmann Parameters 

((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) / ((3.71295774e-28 ((kg m) / s) * c) / ((1 m)^3)) = 299792458 

(0.5 planck length) / ((3.71295774e-28 * ((kg m) / s) * c) / (c^2)) = 6.5248935 m / kg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter 



> 
> (Classical Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity) to (electron Compton Kinematic Viscosity) to (Planck Kinematic Viscosity) 
> 
> Premise 1 
> 
> (Matter & Energy) are (Relativistic Ballast) maintaining the  (Fluid Dynamic Balance Of Space Time) relative to (Bulk Modulus Period and Bjerknes Forces) 
> 
> 
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/2tHNZ8XSWgnvW5yS6 
> 
> 
> (((1.42756885 solar mass * (c^2)) / (1.50122737e+23^2)) / (6.5248935 ((kg m) / s))) * ((2pi)^2) * 2 = 137.030879 m / s 
> 
> 
> ((1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879 
> 
> https://goo.gl/ocf5yM 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%281.50122737e%2B23+%2F+%282+*+pi%29%29+%2F+%28%284+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%282%5E6%29+*+%283+*+%28pi%5E2%29%29+*+%28%28%28pi%5Ee%29+%2F+%28e%5E%28e+-+1%29%29%29%5E%285+%2F+2%29%29%29%5E3%29%29%29%5E%281+%2F+3%29+   
> 
> 
> 
> #BoltzmannConstant & the #Electron 
> 
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 
> 
> (c / (((2.4263263e-12 m) / c) / ((2.4263263e-12 m)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s 
> 
> (c / (electron Compton period ) / ((electron Compton length)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394325 m^2 / s = Kinematic viscosity 
> 
> (c / (((planck length * 1.50122737E+23) / c) / ((planck length * 1.50122737E+23)^3)))^0.5 = 0.000727394316 m^2 / s 
> 
> (c / ((planck Time) / (planck length^3)))^0.5 = 4.84533077e-27 m^2 / s = (Planck Kinematic Viscosity) 
> 
> (((c / ((planck length / c) / (planck length^3)))^0.5) / (((0.5 kg) * G) / (c^2))) / 2 = 6.5248935 m / s 
> 
> 
> 
> (((6.5248935 / (2pi)) * 1.70377849e53 kg * G) / (13.8880509 billion light year))^0.5 = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> ((0.5 Planck Time) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / 299792458 = 1.70377849e+53 s / m^3 
> 
> 1.70377849e+53 kg = mass of visible universe 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0   
> 
> 
> 
> Programming Planck units from a virtual electron; a Simulation Hypothesis 
> Malcolm J. Macleod 
> 
> https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf   
> 
> 4 * (π^2) * (((2^6) * 3 * (π^2) * 137.035999172 * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3) = 2.3895454e+22 
> 
> 2.3895454e+22 * 2 * pi = 1.5013957e+23 
> 
> (1.5013957e+23 Malcolm J. Macleod ) / (1.50122737e+23 Dahl Winters) = 1.00011212825 
> 
> (1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * 137.035999172 * (2.0071199557^5))^3)) = 1.00000000136 
> 
> ((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^0.5 = 2.00713495432 
> 
> 
> 
> ((1.50122737e+23 / (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 
> 
> (((electron Compton length/Planck Length)/ (2pi)) / ((4 * (pi^2)) * (((2^6) * (3 * (pi^2)) * (((pi^e) / (e^(e - 1)))^(5 / 2)))^3)))^(1 / 3) = 137.030879198 
> 
> -8 i log(-1) (-i log(-1))^2 (137.030879198 3 2^6 (-i log(-1))^2 ((-i log(-1))^e/e^(-1 + e))^(5/2))^3 = 1.50122737001e+23 
> 
> https://goo.gl/BdSYXT 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-8+i+log(-1)+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+(137.030879198+3+2%5E6+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+((-i+log(-1))%5Ee%2Fe%5E(-1+%2B+e))%5E(5%2F2))%5E3 
> 
> 
> -8 i log(-1) (-i log(-1))^2 (137.035999172 3 2^6 (-i log(-1))^2 ((-i log(-1))^e/e^(-1 + e))^(5/2))^3 = 1.50139565030e+23 
> 
> 1.50139565030e+23/2pi = 2.3895454e+22 
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-8+i+log(-1)+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+(137.035999172+3+2%5E6+(-i+log(-1))%5E2+((-i+log(-1))%5Ee%2Fe%5E(-1+%2B+e))%5E(5%2F2))%5E3 
> 
> 137.035999172 / (1.50122737e+23 / 1.50121697e+23) = 137.035049833 
> 
> N is simply 2pi * sqrt(1/ag) where ag = the gravitational coupling constant 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant 
> 
> Unlike ag, N appears in several places in physics in not only mass but also length and consequently time. 
> Some of these formulations of N are in Dahl Winters paper at https://www.academia.edu/35806992/ 
> 
> Uniting_the_Scales_of_Length_Mass_and_Charge 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant   
> 
>   
> 
> Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity 
> 
> (((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s 
> 
> ((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) / (m^3)) = Friedmann energy density 
> 
>  (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = Friedmann mass density 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter   
>   
> Dahl Winters: A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime   
> 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime 
>   
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ljusv5jFVIiNWHzOEejwQJyrToKbJkoq68XLLuOnEkk 
> 
> On the reversal of sign of secondary Bjerknes force acting between two pulsating gas bubbles 
> Masato Ida: Satellite Venture Business Laboratory, Gunma University, 
> 
> http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf 
> 
> 
> 
> Holographic  Ideal fluid under pressure model 
> 
> The Pressure & Density dictate the speed of light & (rate of causality) 
> 
> Pressure and density dictate the (Quantization parameters) 
> 
> ((6.5248935 kg m/s)^2*c)/((c^7/(hbar*G^2))*(planck length)^2) = hbar 
> 
> Friedmann parameters 
> 
> ((hbar / ((((3.71295774e-28 ((kg m) / s))^2) * c) / (((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals) * ((1 m)^2)))) / (6.5248935^2)) / 2 = 1.00000000000 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (((((3.71295774e-28 * 6.5248935) * ((kg m) / s))^2) * c) / (((6.67408e-11 / 2) * pascals) * ((1 m)^2))) * 2 = 1.0545718e-34 m^2 kg / s = hbar 
> 
> 3.71295774e-28 kg/m^3 Friedmann mass density 
> 
> ((6.67408e-11/2) pascals = Friedmann energy density 
> 
> (((6.67408e-11/2) pascals) * (1 second)) / (3.71295774e-28 (kg / (m^3))) = 8.98755179e+16 m^2 / s = Friedmann Kinematic Viscosity 
> 
> 
> (((9.1224509E+20  pascals)/(10150.0955 kg/m^3))  * ((2.4263263e-12 m)^2)/c^2*(6.5248935 kg m/s)^2)^0.5/1.50122739e+23 = hbar 
> 
> 
> ((2.4263263e-12 m) / 1.50122739e+23) / planck length = 0.999999999 
> 
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 
>  
> 1 / ((((Boltzmann constant^4) / 6.5248935) / (8^0.5))^0.25) = 1.50122737e+23 m-2 kg-1 s2 K 
> 
> ((2.4263102367E-12 meters) / 1.50121745e+23) / Planck Length = 1 
> 
> 
> (((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^4)) / hbar = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> 
> ((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * ((2.4263102367E-12 m)^4)) / hbar = 299792458 m / s 
> 
> 
> 1 / (((1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4))) / (2 * pi))^2) = 1.75175162e-45 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant 
> 
> 
> 1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4)) = 1.50121745e+23 
> 
> 
> 
> (1 / (((((9.1224509E+20 pascals) * (planck length^4)) / hbar) / c)^(1 / 4))) / (2pi) = 2.38926178e+22 
> 
> 
> 
> (((2pi) /(3^0.5 planck length/m) pascals^-1) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> 
> (((2pi) * (3.5722072e+34 pascals) * ((8.74931845e-16 m)^3)) / (c^2)) = proton mass 
> 
> https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp = 0.8751(61) x 10-15 m 
> 
> ((4 * planck length * ((6.5248935 * ((kg m) / s)) / c)) / proton mass) * (6.5248935 / (2pi)) = 8.7359718e-16 meters 
> 
> (4 * planck length * ((6.5248935 * ((kg m) / s)) / c)) / proton mass = 8.41235641e-16 meters 
> 
> 
> ((((c^7/(hbar*G^2))/(pi*9.1224509E+20*pi*3.57498477586e+34)^2)/2)^2/5 = 1 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0118vS.pdf 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/12184243/Vacuum_Fluid_Dynamics_Electric_and_Gravitational_Forces_Linked_to_the_Primary_and_Secondary_Bjerknes_Forces_in_Vacuum 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37297960/Modeling_Matter_and_Acoustic_Radiation_Forces_Bjerknes_Forces_in_a_Fluid_Spacetime 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/37173524/The_Gas_Laws_of_Spacetime_and_a_Description_of_Electric_and_Gravitational_Forces_as_Acoustic_Radiation_Forces

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

#476060

A hunch is a hunch. But to become a fact of science it has to be proven mathematically and in the end experimentally. Now the mathematical proof did not convince me. And in our age of atomic energy has it been confirmed, measured somehow?

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

#476063

Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> wrote:
> A hunch is a hunch. But to become a fact of science it has to be proven mathematically 

No. That’s a mistake. Science does not prove anything with mathematics b

> and in the end experimentally. 

Yes, and this is what I told you. 

> Now the mathematical proof did not convince me. And in our age of atomic
> energy has it been confirmed, measured somehow?
> 

TONS of ways. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#476091

Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> A hunch is a hunch. But to become a fact of science it has to be proven mathematically and in the end experimentally. Now the mathematical proof did not convince me. And in our age of atomic energy has it been confirmed, measured somehow?

There is nothing to convince in mathematical derivation. Either
 you understand it or not  
If you do, you see if it is right or not.
If you do not, you either believe it is correct or not, or you
 cannot decide.  

Even if its mathematics is formally right, it says nothing if it
 fits observations and measurements.

Since the dawning of quantum physics, there have been done
 countless measurements confirming that the SR math of mass/energy
 equivalence fits the observations.

3 examples of many: 

1/the masses of electrons and positrons are known, so is known the
 energy of photons created by their annihilation.

2/ The mass difference of hydrogen and helium isotopes is known,
 so does energy of hydrogen fusion.

3/ Mass of 235U and 239Pu isotopes is known, so does average mass
 of fission products and released energy.

BTW, "HELP !!!" should be used only for case of being in dangerous
 situation, otherwise it is over-demanding. Furthermore, you have
 provided no sign of your own effort, asking for spoon-feeding.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#476092

On Friday, 2 November 2018 18:43:43 UTC+1, Libor Striz  wrote:

> There is nothing to convince in mathematical derivation. Either
>  you understand it or not  
> If you do, you see if it is right or not.
> If you do not, you either believe it is correct or not, or you
>  cannot decide.  

Speaking of mathematics and its derivations, it's
always good to remind that your bunch of idiots
had to reject its oldest, very important part, as it 
didn't want to help you to derive your idiocies.

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

#476065

On 2/11/2018 8:43 am, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
>   I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!!
> 

You haven't provided much information. You might have an issue with the 
postulates or with the algebra. Or you might just have a philosophical 
objection that is incapable of being addressed by any kind of argument.

It is generally accepted that the algebra is correct, and the resulting 
formula fits experimental results.

Sylvia.

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

#476067

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 7:36:01 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 2/11/2018 8:43 am, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> >   I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!!
> > 
> 
> You haven't provided much information. You might have an issue with the 
> postulates or with the algebra. Or you might just have a philosophical 
> objection that is incapable of being addressed by any kind of argument.
> 
> It is generally accepted that the algebra is correct, and the resulting 
> formula fits experimental results.
> 
> Sylvia.

Light has a density.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#476070

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 2/11/2018 8:43 am, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> >   I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!!
> >
> 
> You haven't provided much information. You might have an issue with the
> postulates or with the algebra. Or you might just have a philosophical
> objection that is incapable of being addressed by any kind of argument.
> 
> It is generally accepted that the algebra is correct, and the resulting
> formula fits experimental results.
> 
> Sylvia.


"algebra"???? what number does M represent?

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

#476075

On Friday, 2 November 2018 03:36:01 UTC+1, Sylvia Else  wrote:
> 
> It is generally accepted that the algebra is correct, and the resulting 
> formula fits experimental results.

It's surely generally accepted by You.

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

#476203

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 2/11/2018 8:43 am, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
>>   I was not convinced by the derivation of this formula whether by
>>   Einstein or others. HELP!!!!!!
>> 
>> 
> You haven't provided much information. You might have an issue with the
> postulates or with the algebra. Or you might just have a philosophical
> objection that is incapable of being addressed by any kind of argument.
> It is generally accepted that the algebra is correct, and the resulting
> formula fits experimental results.

Negative. E=mc² is invalid from head to tail. Based entirely on circular 
reasoning and assumed assertions. When you can prove that E=/=mc³ or that 
E=/=mc^1.6 wake me up.

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

#476207

Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> Wrote in message:
> Negative. E=mc² is invalid from head to tail. Based entirely on circular reasoning and assumed assertions. When you can prove that E=/=mc³ or that E=/=mc^1.6 wake me up.

Simple dimensional analysis tells the exponent 2 is the  only one 
 possible. As only mc^2 has dimension of energy.

Any physical equation is true only if both values and dimensions
 are equal.

When what you think is contradicted by experimental data, then
 such thinking is invalid.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#476211

Libor Striz
Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> Wrote in message: 
> Negative. E=mc² is invalid from head to tail. Based entirely on circular reasoning and assumed assertions. When you can prove that E=/=mc³ or that E=/=mc^1.6 wake me up. 

Simple dimensional analysis tells the exponent 2 is the  only one 
 possible. As only mc^2 has dimension of energy. 

Any physical equation is true only if both values and dimensions 
 are equal. 

When what you think is contradicted by experimental data, then 
 such thinking is invalid. 

(2.1764702e-8 kg * (c^7)) / (c^5) = 1.95611386e+9 joules

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM

Planck Momentum =  6.52791193 kg m/s 


((c^7/(hbar*G^2))/(c^5/(hbar*G^2))) = ((c^2/(hbar*G^2))/(1/(hbar*G^2))) 

2.42160617e+42 m^5 / s^5 

( c^5) = (6.5248935 kg m/s *c^2*G/planck length) 

m^5/s^5 = Phi Decagon 

http://rs1168.pbsrc.com/albums/r500/GMATPrepNow/star3_zpsb1wb2kpx.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip  

2pi/10 = pi/5 

PERFECTION!! 

((((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / (299792458^5)) * (planck length^2)) / (5 kgf))^2) * (2pi) = 6.52791193 


(((c^2) / ((((s^2) / (m^8)) * (c^5))^(1 / 3))) / ((5pi) * ((m^3) / s)))^0.5 = 6.52744937


(((6.5248935 s) / (m * kg)) / (2pi)) / ((70406.791856 ((m / s) / Mpc)) / (((2pi) * hbar * c) * (10973731.568508 (m^(-1))))) = 0.99211178 meters 

(70406.791856 ((m / s) / Mpc)) * (13.8880509 billion light years) = 299792459 m / s 

(((0.5 Planck length) / c) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / c =  1.70377849e+53 kg = mass universe 

(((((0.5 Planck length) / c) / ((0.5 Planck Length)^3)) / c) / (((13.8880509 billion light years) * pi)^3)) / (((0.5 kg) * G) / (c^2)) = 6.52489349 s^2 / m^8 

(((c^2) / ((((s^2) / (m^8)) * (c^5))^(1 / 3))) / ((5pi) * ((m^3) / s)))^0.5 = 6.52744937

(((((c^2) / ((((s^2) / (m^8)) * (c^5))^(1 / 3))) / ((5pi) * ((m^3) / s)))^0.5) / 6.5248935)^2 = 1.00078357

Planck Momentum =  6.52791193 kg m/s 

((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / (299792458^5)) * (planck length^2)) / (5 kgf) = 1.0192887 

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


((c^7/(hbar*G^2))/(c^5/(hbar*G^2))) = ((c^2/(hbar*G^2))/(1/(hbar*G^2))) 

2.42160617e+42 m^5 / s^5 ... messes up units going from Planck units to Classical units 

( c^5) = (6.5248935 kg m/s *c^2*G/planck length) 

m^5/s^5 = ...... Phi Decagon 

The Mainstream Physics community seems to have  schizophrenia. 

They do not see any problem with proclaiming an "Aether-less space time" with a necessary energy density of (10^113 joules per cubic meter) 

The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 joules (10^−2 ergs) per cubic meter.

However, in both quantum electrodynamics (QED) and stochastic electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggest a much larger value of 10^113 joules per cubic meter. 

This huge discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy 

an ("Ideal Fluid Solution" under pressure) seems entirely more Fitting and Logical 

(9.270391e+111 joules/m^3) / c^5 *(Planck length)^2 = 1 

((9.270391e+111 (joules / (m^3))) / (299792458^5)) * ((Planck length / m)^2) = 1 pascals 

((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2)) = 49.9790376 kg s^3 / m^4 

(((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2))) * (G * c) = 1 

((Planck Pressure) / ((c^5) / (Planck length^2))) * (G * c) = 1 

Decagon Dodecahedral Penrose Fractal = c^5 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17W_L19_YvxkKXv1vNya0YekR0vb8K31XTq4_4-CssSM/ 


((1.60389183e+11 Hz) / (20836617636.1328 hertz))^0.5 = 2.7744309876 Kelvin


1 / (((((9.2703912e+111 (joules / (m^3))) / (c^5)) * (planck length^2) * G * c) * ((5^0.5) * 5))^2) = 19.9832336 = (missing dark energy & dark matter)


http://rs1168.pbsrc.com/albums/r500/GMATPrepNow/star3_zpsb1wb2kpx.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip  

2pi/10 = pi/5 

PERFECTION!! 

((((((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / (299792458^5)) * (planck length^2)) / (5 kgf))^2) * (2pi) = 6.52791193 

360 / (72 + 72 + 72 + 108) = 1.1111111111111111

(2*360)/(108+ 36) = 5 

(((pi / 1.1111111111111111111111111) * (2^3) * (5^4))^2) / c = 0.666659497 s / m = Koide Formula 


https://photos.app.goo.gl/PMoU96M1Ukt1kZrJ2  


It’s a fractal .. a Penrose Tiling ... a Decagon 

(2*360 degrees)/(108 degrees + 36 degrees ) = 5 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_triangle_(mathematics)#Golden_gnomon 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling 

c^5 ....  Decagon .... 10 lines ... m^5/s^5 

Why the units Are messed up going from Planck System to Classical System... Existing   Pressure is omitted because it is unnoticed…. Near frictionless Ideal Fluid under pressure. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid 


((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) / (299792458^5) =  1.9132972e+71 pascals 

((1.9132972e+71 pascals) * (planck length^3)) / ((2pi) * hbar) = 1.2190867 hertz 

1) spacetime can be modeled as an ideal gas under high pressure, giving it fluid qualities 

2) the electric and gravitational forces are acoustic radiation forces operating within this fluid 

3) the magnetic force is linked to the presence of a small nonzero viscosity within the fluid. 

 https://www.academia.edu/37242000/A_Fluid_Model_of_Matter_Forces_and_Spacetime  

x = 9.8696 

x/ (pi^2) = 0.99999955407 

(x/pi) ((8 (x/pi))/5 - 5) = 0.25/2.99792458 

https://goo.gl/PjVFe5 

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


Phi Decagon 
http://rs1168.pbsrc.com/albums/r500/GMATPrepNow/star3_zpsb1wb2kpx.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip 

360 / (72 + 72 + 72 + 108) = 1.111111111111111111 

(1 / (((6.674084333707e-11 / 6.6666666666666666e-11) - 1)^0.5)) =  29.9792458 


(1/29.9792458^2+1)*(1/(2^9*3*5^10))  = 6.674084333707e-11 

(1/(2^9*3*5^10)) = Fibonacci 
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7S6ivZY6yw16owxy9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/MYAfpjjWoSXJCcPq7


(299792458 / (((2^5) * 3 * (5^8)) / 1.2345679012345679012345)) / (pi^2) = 1.00001075528 


(299792458 / (((2^5) * 3 * (5^8)) / (1.1111111111111111111111^2))) / (pi^2) = 1.00001075528

(((pi / 1.1111111111111111111111111) * (2^3) * (5^4))^2) / c = 0.666659497 s / m = Koide 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PMoU96M1Ukt1kZrJ2

Dodecahedral Flat Tiling 

Flat Tiling Rhombic Dodecahedron

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

#476344

Libor Striz wrote:

> Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> Wrote in message:
>> Negative. E=mc² is invalid from head to tail. Based entirely on
>> circular reasoning and assumed assertions. When you can prove that
>> E=/=mc³ or that E=/=mc^1.6 wake me up.
> 
> Simple dimensional analysis tells the exponent 2 is the  only one
>  possible. As only mc^2 has dimension of energy.

The issue is rather quantitative, please reread, my polish friend. You can 
put anything there squared, including c which is no more than a constant.

> Any physical equation is true only if both values and dimensions
>  are equal. When what you think is contradicted by experimental data,
> then such thinking is invalid.

You won't begin deriving an expression for the sake of the dimensions, but 
rather the domains, my polish friend.

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

#476359

On 6/11/2018 7:51 am, Buck Dehner wrote:
> Libor Striz wrote:
> 
>> Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> Wrote in message:
>>> Negative. E=mc² is invalid from head to tail. Based entirely on
>>> circular reasoning and assumed assertions. When you can prove that
>>> E=/=mc³ or that E=/=mc^1.6 wake me up.
>>
>> Simple dimensional analysis tells the exponent 2 is the  only one
>>   possible. As only mc^2 has dimension of energy.
> 
> The issue is rather quantitative, please reread, my polish friend. You can
> put anything there squared, including c which is no more than a constant.
> 

If we initially know c in cm/s and m in grams, we can calculate the 
energy in ergs directly from the equation.

If we want the result in Joules, we can just apply the conversion factor 
10^-7.

Alternatively, we can convert our inputs into m/s and kg, by dividing c 
by 100, and m by 1000, and get the same result.

But this only works if the exponent of c is two. For any other exponent, 
the outcome will depend on whether we convert the inputs to the 
equation, or convert the result.

This is why the dimensions have to be consistent - if they are not, then 
we arrive at an inconsistency, which tells us that the equation must be 
wrong.

In summary, a dimensionally consistent equation is not necessarily 
right, but a dimensionally inconsistent equation is definitely wrong.

Sylvia.

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

#476433

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 10:57:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 6/11/2018 7:51 am, Buck Dehner wrote:
>> Libor Striz wrote:
>> 
>>> Buck Dehner <uktoa@yswdoez.cb> Wrote in message:
>>>> Negative. E=mc² is invalid from head to tail. Based entirely on
>>>> circular reasoning and assumed assertions. When you can prove that
>>>> E=/=mc³ or that E=/=mc^1.6 wake me up.
>>>
>>> Simple dimensional analysis tells the exponent 2 is the  only one
>>>   possible. As only mc^2 has dimension of energy.
>> 
>> The issue is rather quantitative, please reread, my polish friend. You
>> can put anything there squared, including c which is no more than a
>> constant.
> 
> But this only works if the exponent of c is two. For any other exponent,
> the outcome will depend on whether we convert the inputs to the
> equation, or convert the result.

Come on, and that thing must be true because it only works with a power of 
two down there. Du you think we are stupid? That's why the "energy" is 
still ill defined, right now as we speech.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web