Iwonderaboutthings

Conservation of energy of coarse. Energy of a photon: E = h*c = 1.9878e-23 / L c/G = 30 30 / 1.9878e-23 / G = 1.5e+25 That " may " be a way of examining what 1/2 is. My relation to 30 is time as in 60 seconds = 1 minute but this is theoretical. With other examples, it would be nice to see some numbers in the formulas.. If energy is truly conserved, then by all means the energy of a photon should be G itself.. Hence, c is everywhere in all places all at once, mass-less?? I have a hard time believing this by the way. What does this have to do with KE??? " The---->Constant Energy related to c" They all seem to be 1/2 connected. It appears that there is always something " reserved " with all that applies to energy in all its forms. I really think issues stem from: Gravity, The Speed of Light, and the h constant, they are all =1 and related to torque and angular momentum which obscures many things. The reason for this is because their is something spinning around something that is missing or simply not there. I know that sounds dumb. But inverse square laws are a perfect example! To further make matters not fully understood the very calculus we use "also" relies on Trigonometry and Geometry. With that being said, there appears to be many virtual ways to calculate the same things over and over again to make that 1/2 = 1, but what is this 1 relative to??? Because of inversion there would yet still be another half missing onto infinity. This is where pi ratio plays the final role. Since this would be the case then our known pi ratio is 1/2 missing!

Looking at " PORN" ???? shame on you!

What about conservation?

The sphere and light bulb were excellent for me to visualize, I am very appreciative, saw the links and thanks..I will take your advice too.

Can you proof this mathematically???? I'm sorry but I hold firm on this 1/2 "makes" something missing.. That is a simple math fact below. 1/2 = 0.5 2*0.5 = 1 1^2 = 1 UNLESS of coarse you mean that .5 = a ratio "torque-free precession" Then I can understand this. Could this be conservation? E=mc squared then? Lorents transformations uses 1 as a numerator, but still does not explain what this 1 is = too. It simply divides this by a denominator denominations. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html I think it is very clear to many that 1/2 is not fully understood. However science does deal with precession, predictions and closer than average accuracy at the mercy of "WAVES." For this it would then be deductive and logical to "assume" " precession" for this 1/2 usage as waves. There is a larger part missing in the whole of cycles which = some type of precession. Rather this be harmonic ocsillation, music theory, color theory or what ever.. There is some thing...

The 1/2 and exponential increases has to do with precession. The exponent drives the force and the 1/2 precesses to a completion, within " this" formula.. The 1/2 thus become =1 squared due to the 1/2 and the exponent looping and completion within the boundaries rather limits of the formula. 1/2 by the rules of calculus Very well said!

It seems that GR, a PDF from a member here linked me to, does not apply to this topic. I will need the science community in helping me understand the wave function to further explain this in a more precise manner if that is at all possible, I cant comprehend the symbols. However, would this even apply if the following may be true? Here is the E = hf = hc / wave length of which determines the energy of the photon. The resulting numerator is: = 1.9878e-23???? This is the number my calculator gave me. Extrapolated the new product is now 1.982e-17 Using this new unit of measure with cosmic rays we have the following: 1.982e-17/ cosmic rays 10e-16 meters = 0.01982 meters Using an "undefined number " 1 " as a numerator we have the following: 1/0.01982 meters= 50% The notion that the speed of light is = 1 may be incorrect due to "cycles and waves." NOTE: cycles= time waves = loops in time rather 'squared units.' Again I really don't think this here is applicable to GR or QM. The reason being that I believe c, G, h and pi ratio all = 1 This may be something revolutionary. Speed of light as 60 seconds. In this case c = 60 seconds - 1 = 59 seconds. The speed of light known to be everywhere all the time mass-less, may also be this connection to pi ratio of which creates a barrier "rather" singularity that defines F= ma However time used as seconds, also uses 60 seconds squared: 60*60*24*365 = 31536000 31536000 / hc = 1.58e+30 The exponent*2 = 60 and 1/2 or 1.5 remains constant. God I hope people understand this! The h constant The h constant is the quantized energy state of this 1 which is = to 60 seconds of a complete cycle. The above example shows this. THIS IS WHY I NEED TO KNOW THE WAVE FUNCTION About G The confusion with the speed of light stems from square roots and derivatives as these only " translate "derivatives " back to their initial starting positions as .5 degrees within trigonometric forms of waves leaving them as if though they have not moved at all from their initial starting x positions within the waves = loops in time rather 'squared units" as pressure dependent force carriers again : F= ma, however angular momentum proves useful when used with manifolds, matrices and imaginary units for statistical reasons. 1 squared The constant of 2 " rather squared units" thus squares this "ratio" .5 as 1 second squared. Which is again useful when used with manifolds, matrices and imaginary units for statistical reasons. However, this "will" get complex because pi, h, c and G are all = 1... So, I will need the science community in helping me understand the wave function to further explain this in a more precise manner. Here is another extrapolation used with: E = hf = hc = 1.9878e-23 The extrapolated value is G = 9.8e-35 meters Can this be tested??? Thanks!

the wave aspect very very confusing stuff, why does one electron seem to split in 2?? From 1 electron then becomes 2 electrons? is this wave " there" already guiding the electron " before it enters into the slits??

Hymm, very very good points here thanks...

Quantum numbers?? Can there be others than h? Singularities, I have read about them in where it is believed to be a barrier of some type. I 100% agree with you! Your explanation is very very clear to me, seems like an issue for dimensional analysis too, and you are very correct about the H atom, now I understand the quest of understanding other atoms whom have many many more shells to them! Thanks!

WAIT WAIT WAIT... A photon has no electric charge???? I never knew this... this makes sense, but to the atomic scale "at this size" " orbitals, the speed of light still is considered to be everywhere?? For example, the speed of light in a vacuum is 299.792.458 m/s I assume this vacuum initially was about the size of a " living room " in a house? But to the "atomic scale" is c 299.792.458 m / s still valid?? or would m / s be much much smaller ??? In other words m / s converged to: microns / seconds? nano-meters / second?? In where the speed of light just the number is constant, in where the " units" get smaller and smaller??? Electron that changes to another energy level. So then technically its not the same electron??

Ok I have no idea as to how to give a visualization of this question so I will do my best here. ALSO! C and h play a role here so excuse my question when I mention them... We can keep this simple using a Hydrogen Atom​ This inquiry has to do with atomic orbital "shells" in relation to excited states of the electron jumping from one orbital to the next... When an electron in its " excited state" jumps from one orbital to the next orbital is it: The same electron? I assume the electron does a disappearing act while it's doing this. But then we have the mass-less photon that transfers energy to the electron that allows this to happen???? I'm not even sure here. But if this is a yes, then now another question: How can scientist be sure that it is the "electron" and not the photon doing the bouncing from one orbital to the next????? I am very confused on: Me e They seem to be indistinguishable????

HA! now that was a good reply BUT, I think she has a thing for sharks....

WOW! your pretty savvy, the PDF looks incredible and I cannot wait until I read the whole thing, thanks for the time very much appreciated!

Hymmm, not sure if I agree, you see the issue is why the " wave" motion??? I always had in my mind that c and pi ratio seem somehow connected due to sin waves and pi ratio used in trig but that is only a point of view here. However, does the electron also " split in two"? Meaning that does the electron in mid air prior to passing through the slit, does it multiply into 2?? Another way of asking... 1 electron is projected towards the slit, but before it passes it becomes 2... The reason I ask is because this video link, seems to show that it does, but I may be wrong. DR. QUANTUM - DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENThttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho Thanks!

someone = Pamela Anderson travelling= Riding unicorn = time age = getting off at the next stop In this case the lucky bstrd should not mind HA! I think it has something to do with horizontal positions Dam!

I agree thanks Yes very true, gonna try my best to fully understand the wave function, but those " symbols' are something awful to understand, wish there was an easier way...

You are very correct I had no idea about interpolation and extrapolation , from your reply it is extrapolation that I am looking for. One question here please, is extrapolation similar in a sense to the Wave Function used in QM?? Thanks

How do Physicists Consider Interpolation? The following link shows a statistics method on dynamic responses to time. Here is a link: Applications of Imaginary Numbers in the Real World http://www.picomonster.com/complex-numbers-meet-dynamic-systems-lesson-2/ However, Do Physicists Consider Interpolation in this link above? My personal issues with Interpolation: In 3d animation using my computer it uses curves for editing motion of the game, characters and etc. I have 3 options as per animation Interpolation: 1:Constant 2:Linear 3:Bezier I "always" choose "Linear" otherwise there will be a delay in the animation from the original "real time" recording of my animation. What does this have to do with science? I have noticed the "Linear" word used in many math styles Linear Algebra being one of them., Linear Algebra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_algebra I was also wondering if this had anything to do with: Rest Mass Constant Velocity And Velocity Thanks In Advance,

Ok thanks, and I will do my best to study this

Multiplying i is a rotation by 90 degrees counter-clockwise, 1 is still undefined, but defined as a ratio, precession, and or cycle. Imaginary units are still " undefined." Rotation matrix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix

What link?? What paper ? I don't see it anywhere Where do I find this please?? Well here is something to consider about the usage of 1. I believe " my thoughts here" that 1 will and shall always be " undefined" again it is because of imaginary units and 1 being squared. The number 872532296769.507 is a circumference with pi ratio / the speed of light as miles per hour then multiplied by h. However, the first division in my opinion breaks the whole dimensional sound imaginary unit " now a circumference" because it is a 1 that is undefined. The number has no relative positions it is just a number in empty space used with pi ratio. It is the circumference and the number 1 that I only care about for now. I believe this might explain what 1 is and can further help us figure our what c, h and G are really all about. To add, the complete cycle of 60 is 1 minute, however I use 60*60 for the " miles per hour" again another squared number as hour and minutes linked to 1 c and miles per hour, very confusing! Hence, 1 in the first division is still un-defined.. 1s /872532296769.5077 = 1.1460893811065e-12 60 s /872532296769.5077 = 6.87653628663901e-11 120 s /872532296769.5077 = 1.3753072573278e-10 This is why I believe that scientist should use caution because 1 is not defined but serves as a means for some prediction. In either case its my choice.

Oh, how does the cube change size if it is relative to me?? Thats interesting.. Yes in indeed I would like more information on the java code. But first off I really need to able to learn these "Lorentz transformations " technicals" though. I am a wizard at math, the issues is going to be, all the symbols used with the Lorentz Transformations and the "scientific technicals of their meanings. That in itself may take me some time. Any links on how to do this?? Intro to Lorentz transformations