Planck's constant is irrelevant..

It's just a function of the speed of transition.
This information comes from including the quote above comes from a youtube user Seattle4truth in his antigravity/coldfusion video series.

To get Planck's Constant you just take the charge of the electron^2 and divide it by [4 times the permittivity of free space times the speed of transition (which is1,094,000 meters/s)]

Im working on getting the formulas drawn up and posted but.. Im on a linux box so it might take a minute. If this doesn't make sense now wait till the formulas are posted.

Seriously.

I'm going to take advice on science from a person that can't spell "irrelevant' correctly (or check his own spelling?)...?

Sorry...no sale.

For the record, you aren't the only person that thinks that; and it will be years before the issue is settled so neatly as that.

All the same: s & f for an interesting line of thought!

reply to post by RoswellCityLimits

Well thanks i have autospellcheck so I didn't notice but I encourage you to try it out.. Planck was trying to find this equation his entire life after finding his constant..

Btw science is backed up by math not english.. so taking in to account my spelling is irrelevent lol

reply to post by mb2591


An inability to express an idea in anything other than formula is not something to be proud of. I have a friend who is a very old man. He was a nuclear physicist working in the fifties and sixties. Although I have no mathematical skill whatsoever (a fact which irks me, but which I am simply unable to change) myself and Neil have a good chat every now and again when he comes by the shop for a chat, and we talk about physics.

Strings, blackholes, the LHC had a long chat about all sorts of things , including me getting his advice on some of the subjects discussed here. One of the things he has always said to me goes pretty much like this:

" Listen here lad, you can be a marvel when it comes to mathematics, you can achieve insane progress with numbers, but there are two crucial things that are lacking in the world of physics today. One is creativity, imagination you understand, and the other is the ability to properly communicate a finding without resorting to the language we use on the chalkboard."

Although I respect a person who can sit and puzzle out a mathematical riddle, and answer a fundamental question by doing so , I am also aware that without the capacity to communicate a finding outside ones feild, all the computational capacity ,and mathematical skill , doesnt amount to a whole lot.

reply to post by mb2591


I've been trying really hard to think of something to say about this. And, honestly, I should have an opinion. But, so far, the only thing that comes to mind is "Meh". Planck's constant isn't irrelevant... it led us from Classical Physics to Quantum Mechanics. However, it may be the means to an end that is even more significant - a stepping-stone on the way to other side of the river. And what might we find on the other side? We might find that Frank Znidarsic is right. We might find that String Theory is right. We might find that some other theory is right. Or, we might find that there's just no way for us to know. Regardless, Planck's constant (and the concept of quantization that came with it) has been an important part of the advancement of physics, and it will continue to be - so long as we don't confine ourselves to the quantum box we think it represents.

This has been discussed in great detail here last year, if your interested.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TrueBrit


Eh I'm not proud that I can't spell perfect but if I can get close enough to the word so that you know what my intent was it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

reply to post by CLPrime


well planks shows there is a "speed of transition/wave output ratio" at an atomic scale at a given wave length ect
a scale or sorts at scale dependant on constriants placed on the atom,
how do this "lengths" compair to our "helio sphere" and the effects at corresponding scale adjusted lengths?

xploder

link broken

Planck's constant is actually the mean energy of a single oscillation of light, 6.626 X 10-34 J/oscillation.

reply to post by XPLodER


First, you should tell me what a "speed of transition/wave output ratio" is.
I know what the speed of transition is supposed to be (and I refute the concept - plus, Planck's constant shows no such thing), but I have no idea what such a ratio is supposed to mean.

reply to post by CLPrime

speed of transition

Speed implies time (which is a relativistic illusion) so..

Originally posted by mb2591
It's just a function of the speed of transition.
This information comes from including the quote above comes from a youtube user Seattle4truth in his antigravity/coldfusion video series.

I don't understand what you mean by irrelevant.

The energy of a photon is equal to Planck's constant times the frequency, or written as a formula:

E=h*f

Where E=Energy, h=Planck's constant , and f-frequency

How would you write that formula without Planck's constant?

www.antonine-education.co.uk...

reply to post by Bordon81


I know what the speed of transition is referring to.
I just don't know what "speed of transition/wave output ratio" means.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The basic premise is that the dependent variable shouldn't be the photon's frequency, it should be it's momentum... and the constant shouldn't be in units of angular momentum (kg m^2 s^-1), it should be in units of velocity (m s^-1) - supposedly more natural units.
Interestingly enough, the man who introduced this concept, Frank Znidarsic, doesn't use the units meters-per-second for velocity... he seems to prefer hertz-meters, for a reason I have yet to figure out. But, then, I'm still reading...

reply to post by CLPrime


I agree.

Unraveling the mysteries of everything we see as "constant" is the next giant leap in science. All of our scientific breakthroughs are contingent upon research that leads to so-called "constants." They serve the wonderful purpose of letting us make uniform calculations and predictions. They are extremely important, and yet they are still lacking unless we understand what makes them what they are.

If someone can come up with a theory to explain why it is a constant, then they can possibly come up with a way to manipulate it until it is not so constant, and then we have scientific realities that were fantasies just yesterday!

In my opinion, that is the greatest beauty of science. It helps us understand our observations, and then we can make predictions, and then we can manipulate the outcomes until we understand more than what we can observe, and then we start to tap into the real mysteries of the universe! We are advancing so fast right now, we are on the brink of some major advancements in so many realms of science. This is an exciting time!

Originally posted by CLPrime
The basic premise is that the dependent variable shouldn't be the photon's frequency, it should be it's momentum... and the constant shouldn't be in units of angular momentum (kg m^2 s^-1), it should be in units of velocity (m s^-1) - supposedly more natural units.
Interestingly enough, the man who introduced this concept, Frank Znidarsic, doesn't use the units meters-per-second for velocity... he seems to prefer hertz-meters, for a reason I have yet to figure out. But, then, I'm still reading...

Then how do you relate the photon's momentum to the photon's energy, and how does the frequency relate to both of those without Planck's constant?

And even if you express the relationship of energy to momentum and to frequency in a different way, that doesn't negate that the E=hf formula is consistent with observation, though just because it's consistent with observation doesn't mean there can't be multiple possible explanations for that.

And expressing velocity in hertz-meters second sounds strange. It sounds like an approach I tried with one of my physics professors, I go the right answer, but used the wrong method to do it. You may be able to use such an approach to calculate a different momentum for the photon, but that doesn't mean the photon's velocity is varying according to that formula. The math not only has to work out, but it has to be consistent with observation and as far as I know, measuring velocity in hertz-meters is not consistent with observation. And if it's not consistent with observation, it's wrong, right?

reply to post by CLPrime


i was refering to the frank equations ability to calculate the numerical representation of planks constant from the interaction of a wave as measured from lights propagation through a given atom.

xploder

reply to post by TrueBrit


The capacity to communicate is there. I understood the thread, get off your high horse and keep to the topic....
s+f....

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Hertz-meters is merely a matter of semantics, but it's like calling water "dihydrogen monoxide." It's silly.

The photon's energy is equal to it's momentum times its velocity:

E = pc

This is the left half of Einstein's relativistic energy equation... the right side of which is E = mc^2. Together, of course, the equation is:

E^2 = (p^2)(c^2) + (m^2)(c^4)

So, since a photon has no mass, the relevant equation reduces to E = pc. However, being a massless particle, it's not intuitive (or directly measurable) that a photon has momentum, so this equation is typically solved for momentum:

p = E/c

Note, the photon energy equation is congruent with the Planck equation:

E = pc = hf

However, Znidarsic doesn't use the E = pc equation. Yet, he chooses to keep the form "Energy equals momentum times velocity." Instead of using the speed of light, he uses the electron's speed of transition of the quantum state - a concept he introduced, and a concept that mainstream QM rejects (not to say it's wrong...it's just against the grain). This, then, demands a second constant of proportionality between the speed of transition (which he claims is 1.094 * 10^6 m/s) and the speed of light (3.00 * 10^8 m/2). And I'm not sure what that constant is, 'cause, as I said, I'm still reading his papers...

I have yet to see much justification for any of this. Just the claim of "it seems to work with Cold Fusion" isn't nearly enough to support such decisions.

Originally posted by CLPrime
he seems to prefer hertz-meters, for a reason I have yet to figure out. But, then, I'm still reading...

OK I found a paper that claims to be "Based On The Works And Teachings Of Frank Znidarsic", is that the topic of this thread? It's a heck of a poorly chosen title if that's the topic.

Here's the paper:

QUANTUM COLD-CASE MYSTERIES REVISITED

That paper doesn't say Planck's constant is irrelevant. It gives the same formula using Planck's constant I cited in my previous post:

p11/40 in pdf:

Substituting h into the equation
leaves us with E = hf, which is Einstein's photo-electric equation;
the first-ever correct application of Planck's constant in history, for
which Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize in 1921. What I have
just shown with these equations is that in reality, Planck's constant,
which is the fundamental increment of action in the quantum world,
is actually an aggregate constant. Yes, it provides us with an accuracy
in calculations that is uncanny, but in reality Planck's constant
is completely empirical. This means that it is derived purely from
experimentation alone.

So basically it's confirming the following:

Planck's constant is not irrelevant (meaning end of thread with the title that Planck's constant is irrelevant, it's not).
Planck's constant is just as much a part of Znidarsic's math as anybody else's math, however the author is claiming it's not a fundamental constant and is experimentally derived and agrees with observation very well, thus again, it's NOT irrelevant.
The paper explains why it's derived and not fundamental, and in doing so it states the following:

Let us now assume for a minute that the width of the collapsed photon during the transitional state becomes the same as the wavelength. Yes, these are big jumps of logic...

The author admits the derivation is using big jumps in logic. As a hypothesis to be tested, I have no problem with that. But where is the experimental evidence to support any of these "big jumps in logic"?

Without observations or experimental evidence to support the claims, it's just another hypothesis. Lots of people have hypotheses, but only those which are confirmed by observation or experiment progress from hypothesis to theory.