- Thank you received: 0
C Squared
20 years 5 months ago #10220
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
B's an arbitrary constant associated with Boltzmann's constant and I put h=kB because I didn't go into all of the math surrounding cavity radiances Max derived from Rayleigh and Wein's work.
Remember when I said to you 'expand your inner h-soul' and metaphysical la la la several posts back, what you're referring to now with the photon energy equating to the beam cross section time increase is along those mysterious lines.
So do you have any new methodology to derive what you believe the upper s in the units Js is?
Remember when I said to you 'expand your inner h-soul' and metaphysical la la la several posts back, what you're referring to now with the photon energy equating to the beam cross section time increase is along those mysterious lines.
So do you have any new methodology to derive what you believe the upper s in the units Js is?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #10222
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
If I had any answers I wouldn't be asking questions. The upper s value is a variable that I am sure of. Now when the energy bundle or packet is assumed to be as stated: E=hf; E is the energy of some volume of photons if that makes sense. I think Planck got that from experiments with cavities that were used. A tiny hole was used to measure the energy from a blackbody. That may still be in use for all I know about it. In any event the energy packet leaves and arrives at an area with a cross section that is measureable but the size is not factored into Planck's calculations-it is assumed to be as small as it can get. This is speculation on my part since there seems to be nothing I can find about how he actually deduced the constant. The constant h gets the same result as blackbody laws that were around before 1900.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 5 months ago #10223
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
Ok, then.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #10358
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
Jim, I thought about that second and put it on the fault line. I came to a couple of conclusions. One is that d/dt is t=d/d where P=6.626x10^-34Ed/dt meaning that the normal hf is work or the act of creation in a variable second relative to the frequency examined per second format and Ed/dt is Power or creation itself in differentially cancelling format. So everything is made out of hf simultaneously powered by Ed/dt. The hf is the work of the past memory and the Ed/dt is the power of the future imagination presently.
Now when the Reverend Al says G_E/c=8piT_mc meaning gravity is akin to some temporal momentum tensor if G=Fd^2/m^2 then p=6.672x10^-11tm^2/d^2 meaning there's a 'gravitime' inverse square law for gravitational momentum as there's a gravitational inverse square law for F=Gm^2/d^2. Then you'd have to p_her=6.672x10^-11t/-q^2-s meaning 6.672x10^-11t=-q^2-s which is where the Rev Al equates gravity and time via G=-q^2-s further defining the upper second as 6.672x10^-11d/d=-q^2-s. The infinite tidal effects are variable relative to the momentum studied like the upper second is variable relative to the frequency examined.
So where there's two uncertainty principles for force and electric force and two inverse square laws for force and e-force, there's two uncertainty principles for momentum and electric momentum and two inverse square laws for momentum (p=6.672x10^-11tm^2/d^2) and e-momentum (p=8.986x10^9tq^2/d^2). The thing is that this inverse square momentum is contained within G and K theirselves meaning there's gravitime momentum and 'chargetime' momentum vectors found within gravity and charge just like the Bearden says the Whittaker math shows.
And even Hawking's been quoted as saying 'whatever that is' in regards to time, but I can roll it over the fault line some more and come up with a better answer sometime for us.
...........................Om
Now when the Reverend Al says G_E/c=8piT_mc meaning gravity is akin to some temporal momentum tensor if G=Fd^2/m^2 then p=6.672x10^-11tm^2/d^2 meaning there's a 'gravitime' inverse square law for gravitational momentum as there's a gravitational inverse square law for F=Gm^2/d^2. Then you'd have to p_her=6.672x10^-11t/-q^2-s meaning 6.672x10^-11t=-q^2-s which is where the Rev Al equates gravity and time via G=-q^2-s further defining the upper second as 6.672x10^-11d/d=-q^2-s. The infinite tidal effects are variable relative to the momentum studied like the upper second is variable relative to the frequency examined.
So where there's two uncertainty principles for force and electric force and two inverse square laws for force and e-force, there's two uncertainty principles for momentum and electric momentum and two inverse square laws for momentum (p=6.672x10^-11tm^2/d^2) and e-momentum (p=8.986x10^9tq^2/d^2). The thing is that this inverse square momentum is contained within G and K theirselves meaning there's gravitime momentum and 'chargetime' momentum vectors found within gravity and charge just like the Bearden says the Whittaker math shows.
And even Hawking's been quoted as saying 'whatever that is' in regards to time, but I can roll it over the fault line some more and come up with a better answer sometime for us.
...........................Om
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #11220
by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
Upon further review, after driveling through that ep of Farscape on sci fi, since the G=Fd^2/m^2 and p=6.672x10^-11tm^2/d^2 then t=6.672x10^-11pd^2/m^2, not that your apt to believe the gravitime link in the general model that's been so trivially detailed here.
........................................zerosfear
........................................zerosfear
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #10363
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The statement E=hf is very deceptive even though it seems simple. This is because the upper s in the h section of the statement is not any kind of unit of time. This tiny detail is very important and I see you are over looking this very tiny detail just as anyone else would. This upper s factor should be focused on if you can focus on anything(that seems to be a problem in this case). Upper s is the time it takes for the energy packet to do whatever it does. This is not arbitrary or any unit of time but is not a constant amount of time either. Upper s can be estimated by using radiation laws that work quite well in some frequencys and not at all in other frequencys which means they are not universal rules.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.354 seconds