Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?

No Einstein

I do not disagree with you intirely,but

According to my theory, the even the void of space contains at least a
ground state energy of “c = h”. This is logically inferred from the
fact that light travels even through this most empty state, with an
impedance and limiting speed of “c”, which is evidence of substance
that it is traveling through, as well as impeding it. Because the
speed of light is “c” regardless of frequency, as well as contains a
mass/energy of “h” also regardless of frequency, implies that this
ground state has a energy/mass of at least “h” and velocity “c”. If
this is true, along with what you stated, an imbalance of mass/energy
would create a flow toward the most empty state in a vortex vacuum
like a vacuum sucking in material, producing a concentration of energy
in that manner also.

As I see it mass is generated by energy = “h”, accelerating by being
displaced from straight line at constant speed of “c”, thus a straight
line will be displaced into the angular direction, creating waves with
energy of “E =hf/c^2”, analogous to spring energy of “F=kx^2”, and
Newton’s force equation “F=mv^2”. Energy is displaced by pushing
against light barrier from constant speed in straight line “non
acceleration”, into angular direction, which is acceleration = inertia
= gravity, the light barrier pushes back with an equal and opposite
reaction and for every quantum of E=mc^2 that pushes against light
barrier an equal opposite force of F=mv^2 pushes back.

Conrad J Countess

Pascal thought, his Plenum was an absolute vacuum;
y'know, that thing in the barometer?

--GMMXI, not my IQ; yours?
http://wlym.com

On Jan 2, 5:56*pm, BURT wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:02*pm, NoEinstein wrote:









On Dec 30 2010, 10:44*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Dec 29, 9:17*pm, cjcountess wrote: I agree that Einstein did not understand the E=mc^2 completely.

For one thing, he did say that mass would increase to infinity at
speed of light, and that is not correct by my calculations either. And
he did not understand (E=mc^2), geometrically can be interpreted as
(E=mc^circled and/or sphered), on quantum level, which would make it =
(F=mv^2), and (c x 2pi = h/2pi) and reveal quantum gravity.

*But I do think that the balance of centrifugal/centripetal forces are
equal and 90 degree angular, which in a sense leads to equal and
opposite.

Conrad, 'opposite' usually implies 180 degrees apart, not "90
degrees".

Look at it this way. One unite vector in horizontal direction, and
one *equal and 90 degree angular unite vector, creating a 90 degree
arc rotation, which if constant, create a full 360 degree circular
rotation, which afterwards can be said to also be equal and opposite,
if we place an arrow indication direction of motion at the bottom of
circle going left, which will make an arrow at top in direction of
motion, face right, which is opposite, but still together makes the
circle spin the same way.

Instead of "worshiping" your geometry, and your math, first try to
understand the most simple concepts in WORDS. *Clear thinking
parallels the ability to express things well. *So far, you are only
"playing" at doing that.

Imagine the sign of Pieces with the two fish swimming in opposite
directions if you consider them to swim linearly, but they swim in
same direction if they follow each others tails in a circular motion

So?

Here is another discussion of the centrifugal/ centripetal forces
being either equal and opposite or equal and right angular

The FAQ article: "Does centrifugal force hold the moon up?" from the
same website: *http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...al/centri.html
*mentioned above.

Conrad: *To understand the true science read my post:
'There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!'http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26...

This article also says that the force cannot be
equal and opposite because the sum of both forces would be zero, which
may or may not be true.

Of course it's true!

It may be more accurate to say that
centrifugal force must be equal and at a right angle instead of
opposite to centripetal force to keep something in orbit.

The circular (or close) velocity of the Moon has been preserved from
the collision event with the Earth some billion or so years ago. *The
force of gravity of the Moon and its centrifugal force (outward) are
equal and opposite without affecting the orbital velocity about the
Earth. *But since the orbital velocity is the "cause" of the
centrifugal force, the distance to the moon is changing over the eons..

If energy is traveling at c in circular and /or spherical rotation at
c^2 that explains how energy equals and turns to matter at conversion
factor of c^2, which reveals c^2 to be a conversion frequency/
wavelength and that rest mass is just relative mass kinetic energy in
rotation.

Save us this idle talk by giving any evidence whatsoever that matter
is actually being produced in the VOID of space by velocity alone. *To
do that, matter must be being produced without building blocks. *The
"stars" can do that from just dust and gas, and the process doesn't
involve "velocity" as the sole input energy. *It simply requires that
the early matter to be "cooked" inside the furnaces of stars to become
more complex. *Where are those furnaces in your theory, Conrad?

I am contemplating the rest of what you said

Great! *The world is waiting with baited breath for

Correction: *The 'logical' idiom is probably "bated" breath, or
holding one's breath. *The rest of the sentence should have said: ...
for your well-considered reply. *— NoEinstein —

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Energy from flow is matterial because its always in the mass.

Mitch Raemsch

Burt: The 'Mother' energy, the ether, is in the voids of space as
well as inside of matter. The heat given off by the matter is
infrared photons that carry away some of the internal ether. The
resulting deficiency of ether, within the matter, is what causes the
ether to keep flowing downward from space, as gravity, to try to
maintain the internal ether density of the matter. — NoEinstein —

On Jan 4, 8:40*am, cjcountess wrote:
No Einstein

I do not disagree with you entirely, but

According to my theory, even the void of space contains at least a
ground state energy of “c = h”. This is logically inferred from the
fact that light travels even through this most empty state, with an
impedance and limiting speed of “c”,

Only if you believe the Einstein crap!

which is evidence of substance
that it is traveling through, as well as impeding it. Because the
speed of light is “c” regardless of frequency, as well as contains a
mass/energy of “h” also regardless of frequency, implies that this
ground state has a energy/mass of at least “h” and velocity “c”.

Over very, very long travel distances through the ether, the faster
light will be slowed back to 'c', because the tangential velocity of
the IOTAs, or smallest energy units of the ether, is 'c'. The only
supposed measure of light velocity is the red or blue shifts of the
light of revolving systems. The presence of blue shifted light,
anywhere, is proof positive that the velocity of that light has
exceeded 'c'!

if this is true, along with what you stated, an imbalance of mass/energy
would create a flow toward the most empty state in a vortex vacuum
like a vacuum sucking in material, producing a concentration of energy
in that manner also.

The 'hobo' ether caught within the trains of photons from stars will
"fall out" pretty close to the same stars. That's why the ether
maximum density tends to remain in the regions near the stars. The
meniscus surrounding the Swiss cheese voids will allow light to pass.
But in most cases, all of the hobo ether has already fallen out. The
photons keep traveling at their entry velocity through the Swiss
cheese voids. All "flow" of ether (as in weather systems) is pressure
dependent, without the requirement that there be any masses involved.

As I see it mass is generated by energy = “h”, accelerating by being
displaced from straight line at constant speed of “c”, thus a straight
line will be displaced into the angular direction, creating waves with
energy of “E =hf/c^2”, analogous to spring energy of “F=kx^2”, and
Newton’s force equation “F=mv^2”. Energy is displaced by pushing
against light barrier from constant speed in straight line “non
acceleration”, into angular direction, which is acceleration = inertia
= gravity, the light barrier pushes back with an equal and opposite
reaction and for every quantum of E=mc^2 that pushes against light
barrier an equal opposite force of F=mv^2 pushes back.

Conrad: True science can be expressed in words, alone. As soon as you
state an equation, you reveal your lack of clear, verbal thinking.
Stephen Hawking said that theories are formulated in words, first. He
was right. Of course, little else that Hawking has said holds true.
— NoEinstein —

Conrad J Countess

On Jan 4, 2:45*pm, spudnik wrote:
Pascal thought, his Plenum was an absolute vacuum;
y'know, that thing in the barometer?

--GMMXI, not my IQ; yours?http://wlym.com

spudnik: Science is not being done using Roman Numerals. On Earth
the ether pervades even a "perfect" vacuum. But the ether has no
effect of the function of a barometer. — NE —

"The 'Mother' energy, the ether, is in the voids of space as well as
inside of matter. The heat given off by the matter is infrared
photons that carry away some of the internal ether. The resulting
deficiency of ether, within the matter, is what causes the ether to
keep flowing downward from space, as gravity, to try to maintain the
internal ether density of the matter." — NoEinstein —

Ye have something there. --- Hughphorius

On Jan 4, 6:50*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jan 4, 8:40*am, cjcountess wrote: No Einstein


Conrad: True science can be expressed in words, alone. *As soon as you
state an equation, you reveal your lack of clear, verbal thinking.
Stephen Hawking said that theories are formulated in words, first. *He
was right. *Of course, little else that Hawking has said holds true.
— NoEinstein —


To the contrary, the insertion of mathematical equations only shows
that I have expanded my modes of expression to include them. I began
posting using very little math at all. Explaining the concept using
pictorial language, still allowed me to use geometry in its simplest
form along with analogy, somewhat like this:

1) c in the linear direction

2) x c in 90 degree angular direction

3) = c^2 = c in circular motion as a balance of centripetal
centrifugal force.

Only later did I notice that equations for circular motion where
directly analogous to E=mc^2 such as a=v^2/r, F=mv^2/r and so on.
This, along with the pressure by other posters and scientist I
communicated with to include mathematics encouraged me to include math
but in its simplest form possible. Thus I use geometry, which I always
have but also analogy which make the application wider ranged and this
also happens to include the analogy and direct correspondence of the
two equations E=mc^2 and F=mv^2.
In summery I am supported by analogy, logic, mathematic geometry and
statistics, making the argument and evidence sound

..
Conrad J Countess

On Jan 2, 5:56*pm, BURT wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:02*pm, NoEinstein wrote:









On Dec 30 2010, 10:44*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Dec 29, 9:17*pm, cjcountess wrote: I agree that Einstein did not understand the E=mc^2 completely.

For one thing, he did say that mass would increase to infinity at
speed of light, and that is not correct by my calculations either. And
he did not understand (E=mc^2), geometrically can be interpreted as
(E=mc^circled and/or sphered), on quantum level, which would make it =
(F=mv^2), and (c x 2pi = h/2pi) and reveal quantum gravity.

*But I do think that the balance of centrifugal/centripetal forces are
equal and 90 degree angular, which in a sense leads to equal and
opposite.

Conrad, 'opposite' usually implies 180 degrees apart, not "90
degrees".

Look at it this way. One unite vector in horizontal direction, and
one *equal and 90 degree angular unite vector, creating a 90 degree
arc rotation, which if constant, create a full 360 degree circular
rotation, which afterwards can be said to also be equal and opposite,
if we place an arrow indication direction of motion at the bottom of
circle going left, which will make an arrow at top in direction of
motion, face right, which is opposite, but still together makes the
circle spin the same way.

Instead of "worshiping" your geometry, and your math, first try to
understand the most simple concepts in WORDS. *Clear thinking
parallels the ability to express things well. *So far, you are only
"playing" at doing that.

Imagine the sign of Pieces with the two fish swimming in opposite
directions if you consider them to swim linearly, but they swim in
same direction if they follow each others tails in a circular motion

So?

Here is another discussion of the centrifugal/ centripetal forces
being either equal and opposite or equal and right angular

The FAQ article: "Does centrifugal force hold the moon up?" from the
same website: *http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...al/centri.html
*mentioned above.

Conrad: *To understand the true science read my post:
'There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!'http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26...

This article also says that the force cannot be
equal and opposite because the sum of both forces would be zero, which
may or may not be true.

Of course it's true!

It may be more accurate to say that
centrifugal force must be equal and at a right angle instead of
opposite to centripetal force to keep something in orbit.

The circular (or close) velocity of the Moon has been preserved from
the collision event with the Earth some billion or so years ago. *The
force of gravity of the Moon and its centrifugal force (outward) are
equal and opposite without affecting the orbital velocity about the
Earth. *But since the orbital velocity is the "cause" of the
centrifugal force, the distance to the moon is changing over the eons..

If energy is traveling at c in circular and /or spherical rotation at
c^2 that explains how energy equals and turns to matter at conversion
factor of c^2, which reveals c^2 to be a conversion frequency/
wavelength and that rest mass is just relative mass kinetic energy in
rotation.

Save us this idle talk by giving any evidence whatsoever that matter
is actually being produced in the VOID of space by velocity alone. *To
do that, matter must be being produced without building blocks. *The
"stars" can do that from just dust and gas, and the process doesn't
involve "velocity" as the sole input energy. *It simply requires that
the early matter to be "cooked" inside the furnaces of stars to become
more complex. *Where are those furnaces in your theory, Conrad?

I am contemplating the rest of what you said

Great! *The world is waiting with baited breath for

Correction: *The 'logical' idiom is probably "bated" breath, or
holding one's breath. *The rest of the sentence should have said: ...
for your well-considered reply. *— NoEinstein —

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Energy from flow is matterial because its always in the mass.

Mitch Raemsch

Alright, Burt: If energy is always (only) in the mass, then how does
mass get created from (just) energy? Your are caught in a catch-22.
Your statement requires that there be MASS before there can be
energy. — NE —

On Jan 4, 7:36*pm, h1705 wrote:
"The 'Mother' energy, the ether, is in the voids of space as well as
inside of matter. *The heat given off by the matter is infrared
photons that carry away some of the internal ether. The resulting
deficiency of ether, within the matter, is what causes the ether to
keep flowing downward from space, as gravity, to try to maintain the
internal ether density of the matter." *— NoEinstein —

Ye have something there. --- Hughphorius

Dear h1705: Thank you Sir! Those expressing agreement with my New
Science are few and far between!

On Jan 5, 6:39*am, cjcountess wrote:
On Jan 4, 6:50*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 4, 8:40*am, cjcountess wrote: No Einstein

Conrad: True science can be expressed in words, alone. *As soon as you
state an equation, you reveal your lack of clear, verbal thinking.
Stephen Hawking said that theories are formulated in words, first. *He
was right. *Of course, little else that Hawking has said holds true.
— NoEinstein —

To the contrary, the insertion of mathematical equations only shows
that I have expanded my modes of expression to include them. I began
posting using very little math at all. Explaining the concept using
pictorial language, still allowed me to use geometry in its simplest
form along with analogy, somewhat like this:

1) c in the linear direction

2) x c in 90 degree angular direction

3) = c^2 = c in circular motion as a balance of centripetal
centrifugal force.

Only later did I notice that equations for circular motion where
directly analogous to E=mc^2 such as a=v^2/r, F=mv^2/r and so on.
This, along with the pressure by other posters and scientist I
communicated with to include mathematics encouraged me to include math
but in its simplest form possible. Thus I use geometry, which I always
have but also analogy which make the application wider ranged and this
also happens to include the analogy and direct correspondence of the
two equations E=mc^2 and F=mv^2.
In summery I am supported by analogy, logic, mathematic geometry and
statistics, making the argument and evidence sound

.
Conrad J Countess

Dear Conrad: Many things in nature vary according to the square, or
to the inverse square. But unless one understands the VERBAL
distinctions relating to each equation, the resulting "science" (sic)
is all screwed up. Until you can learn that no object in Nature can
be traveling in two directions and velocities at the same time, there
is little hope that anything you have to say will affect true
science. — NE —