Planck's Constant Revealed for the First Time

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I have looked through 101 and 102, and i must say this is quite interesting. But there are many hours left of lectures before the basics is covered.
edit on 24-1-2013 by varikonniemi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
In case some of you want to catch up. This will help you speed through the basics.

Introduction to Tetryonics

Tetryonic Theory

I'll be the first to admit that I am not the most intelligent person here. What I keep asking myself is "Am I really this dumb for thinking Tetryonics is valid in a number of revolutionary ways?" I'm sure many of you will have the urge to block quote this and just say, "of course you are."

Then I think to myself, "Tetryonics appears to be something of staggering proportions." I've spent a great deal of time investigating this. I will will admit, with great difficulty, but I eventually came upon an inflection point where the lights just turned on a bit. Not a brilliantly illuminated light, but a small flicker that has consistently increased in intensity the longer I have remained open to what Tetryonics presents.

I have studied physics, math, and engineering but I was so soon became utterly confused. No one in the university setting could address my educational needs. I gave it a good many years of dedication then realized something. Nobody knows what's going on! It seems obvious to me and I wonder what is so different about myself that I can see it, but none of you can. Perhaps we are dealing with an ego problem, a close-minded know-it-all attitude or something of that nature, I can't be sure.

What I can be sure of is my willingness to pursue Tetryonic Theory until anyone gives me good reason to abandon it. So far, it offers a more logical, holistic, and elegant solution than anything else I have investigated.

The simplest solution is typically the correct one. You can't get simpler than having a single geometry which represents the entire physical reality on all scales. Can you...?
edit on 24-1-2013 by shixta because: adding a few cents.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


It would seem your math is limited to quoting Wikipedia, if you understood the 'math' as you claim you would know that such a method is necessarily limited due to thermal heat, energy of motion etc [hence why I specified v=0.

To parrot your signature bar :The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge", in this case you seem to just rehash existing wiki entries and claim 'Math' says your right but fail to give the math.

Avogadro's number for the number of atoms in 1 gram of substance must by definition equal the atomic rest mass of a single Hydrogen atom [so following the math t must give the answer of 1.660538841 e23 [yet you original reply does not support that] - again, by your math you are wrong....simply saying Tetryonics is wrong is not a valid statement [as you know, hence your limited and indirect responses to date].

Both of the constants you quoted from Wikipedia are measurements of superconductive E&M fields which by nature will be imprecise [as noted in the preamble of Wiki itself a number of times] and can only be used to narrow the estimate of exact value of the inverse of Avogadro's number.

Again you provide no answer to substantiate your claim that the math has no relationship to the geometry.
again I say it must - the math is simple a formal description of the relationships resulting from the geometry.

0.00055 of a percent is hardly the massive error you claim given the heat and kinetic energies involved
[so I counter you by saying given that my figure not only agrees with the inverse of Avogadro's number giving a molar mass of 1 gram for rest mass Hydrogen, it also applies to the geometry concerned and it is correct while yours is full of errors - to the deviation you stated]

The math is simply 1 gram of rest mass Hydrogen must contain 6.0221414579 e23 atoms
[giving a rest mass of 1.660538841 e-24 g] your value of Planck's Constant does not give this value
my value does - YOU kind sir are the one in error and no amount of wiki quoting will correct it

If you believed in the math as you claim you would simply do the above math and give the honest answers but you choose to select a mean physical measurement for its value from CODATA [simply flawed]

Wikipedia states quite clearly that the values you gave do not agree with each other in practical terms and are subject to errors in their calculations [yet you persist in your claim of its accuracy]



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


Of course knowing the inverse of Avogadro's number just gives us what the rest mass of a Hydrogen atom should be, we must use E=hv [nu] to calculate how many Planck quanta make up this rest mass atom.

What do we get? nu = 2.2512 e23 using my value [2.252432244 e23 using yours]
I can explain my value how about you?

Leptons have 12pi charged geometries & Baryons 36pi geometries
rest mass electrons have 12*[1e19] quanta in their rest mass geometries
Protons have 22,500*[1e19] quanta in theirs
giving a total of [guess what] 2,2512*[1e19] quanta - exactly matching the quanta in the inverse Avogadro number

Please forward your math derivation of 2.252432244 e23 quanta for comparison...............

Should you feel my quanta derivation is in error [as well] please refer to Tetryonics [1] - Quantum Mechanics where you will find the geometric derivation of all the values I have quoted in this thread.

I await your mathematical answer for the rest mass Planck quanta in a Hydrogen atom
edit on 24-1-2013 by Tetryonics because: typo
edit on 24-1-2013 by Tetryonics because: reword



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


If you are not planning on giving any math and are just going to assert that x is the plank constant, there isn't anything left to discuss. Looking at a triangle isn't going to help anyone, no matter how much you want that to be the case.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Theories that are presented with pretty pictures instead of math are, without any exception, garbage. They are however easy to consume by ignorant and/or gullible people.

Besides pictures I just see an attempt to baffle the reader with sciency sounding words. There isn't any practical use of this theory, and no predictions backed up by experiments.


Like, for instance just taking some simple quantum mechanics problem and showing
"in this new Theory Of Everything, this is how you compute XXX, and here's the comparison to the QM result". What predictions are the same? What predictions are different? What are the experimental consequences.

Before trying to predict dark energy or exotica, how about predicting, oh the spectroscopic lines of the hydrogen atom. That was a pretty big achievement for QM. Not to mention the angular-momentum addition rules etc which correctly predict the multiplicities of lines, using plain old non tetryonic angular momentum.

The consistent property of pseudoscience is the ignorance of the *experimental* history and results which lead historically to our current theories. These things give actual numerical values for energy differences, rates, cross-sections, scattering, etc, and Dead White European Males in black-and-white pictures measured these and got the same answer.
edit on 24-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tetryonics
[
Leptons have 12pi charged geometries & Baryons 36pi geometries
rest mass electrons have 12*[1e19] quanta in their rest mass geometries
Protons have 22,500*[1e19] quanta in theirs
giving a total of [guess what] 2,2512*[1e19] quanta - exactly matching the quanta in the inverse Avogadro number


You realize that the particular numerical value of Avogadro's constant has no intrinsic physical meaning, because it was historically based on a connection to the gram/kilogram, which itself was arbitrarily defined as the mass of a hunk of metal in a lab in Paris.

So there's no expected way to be able to derive this from any intrinisic principles of nature, and if you do, it means you artificially juiced it with the known answer somehow (i.e. the theory is nonsense).

It's not an intrinsic dimensionless constant of nature like the fine structure constant---at least other crazy theories attempt to predict *that*.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Oh SNAP.....
You haven't read my work before commenting
.
Spectral lines - Check (Tetryonics [2] - QED)
Dark Energy -Dark Matter - check (Tetryonics [4] - Cosmology)
Fine Line Spitting - Check (Tetryonics [2] - QED)

I haven't just given geometry - I've given EXACT numerical values from the geometry
[and you just continue to offer words despite claims of math - I'm still waiting btw]

Copying from WIKIPEDIA without explanation is not Math].
BTW - in most cases Tetryonics 'fine-tunes' the current mathematical values correcting for errors in physical measurements [see previous comments]

How about explaining your MATH??



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


Re Avagardo number - the rest Math of a Hydrogen atom etc etc... it is measure of the number of atoms in any given volume of Gas. I suggest you do some more home work on the derivation of the number - they are indeed related.

Unfortunately, for you, I also derived Alpha [the Fine coupling Constant] - in turn confirming the values for the elementary charge, Coulomb's electrical Constant etc FROM THE GEOMETRY and the values I gave you.
[care to explain all the constants and values in WIKI' s derivation of the same?]

I hope you're not trying to suggest that the FCC has no role in physics

So again you have missed the point by continuing to comment on material you haven't even read !
I trust you read something other that WIKI.

If you really know math then you must know that it is just an artificial methodology created to describe measured, geometric relationships between mass-ENERGY-Matter [hence algebra etc] in an attempt to understand the underlying geometry of Energy itself in all its forms [hence the conservation LAWS].



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 



To parrot your signature bar :The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge".


That would be -PLB-'s signature.



if you understood the 'math' as you claim you would know that such a method is necessarily limited due to thermal heat, energy of motion etc


Limited? I'm not so sure that these limitations you mention can account for the 0.05% (not 0.00055%) error your value would require.

Also, you use Avogadro's number as if it's any more accurate than the current estimate for the Planck constant. In fact, the error present in the current value of Avogadro's number is due to the error in the Planck constant value:

Nₐ = [cα²Aᵣ₍ₑ₎]/[2Rh·10³]

You can't have error in one without having corresponding error in the other.

(And, yes, that is another Wikipedia equation.)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tetryonics
Yes... The books are for sale for the princely sum of NOTHING.



I tried to get one for the princely sum of NOTHING. Guess what:

eBook [242 pages] AUD$199.99

(source)

Will you be so kind of depositing 10 times of your nothing on my account? You can PM me for my accound details.

Though I guess this is a good illustration of your math skills. 199.99 = NOTHING. Well done.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


My bad - old web page not updated

Try any of the other sources on the web
Google+ Pirate Bay, YouTube



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
edit to add: if it's free, never mind
edit on 24-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


That's not how Avogadro calculated his number - that's how current physicists try to refine it

My Planck C - 6.629697947 e-34 vs [6.62607102 and 62606812 x 10^-34]
0.999452 0.999452
I have a calculator.

I still contend the 11000-sigma applies to your averaged physical measurements from sources that don't agree with each other [I derive my from multiple methodologies in Tetryonics which you will see when you read the eBooks]



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


Well, look at it from the bright side. At least we get "Clean, limitless ENERGY" and "Unlimited natural RESOURCES"

Too bad your theory does not include a cure to all known diseases and a flux thruster atom pulsar, so I will stick with Rodins donuts instead.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Is that your best... really what happened to math?
I gave you free, clean, limitless energy and that is what you do with it?

I hope someday you'll put the donuts down and read Tetryonics with an open mind like WIKI
It seriously ties QM, QED,Chemistry & Cosmology all together for you
edit on 24-1-2013 by Tetryonics because: typo



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


I already have free, clean, limitless energy. Plus the flux thurster atom pulsar, the morphogenic fields, the ionic acoutic levitation and I can travel anywhere in the universe I want. And then you come with just free clean limitless energy. You really have to do better than that.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


NO need, if you have all that you must be using equilateral energy and Tetryonic geometries after all



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


Yes, I am using donuts instead of triangles, it works way better. Did I meantion yet that I got unlimited food, vortex energy and the underpinning geometry of the universe? Did you know that 18=9? And that 9 is darkmatter? I don't think your theory is that far advanced yet.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Again, you failed to open eyes and read before engaging your mouth [or fingers]
But I am compensating for you BS now.

Once you started using English and claimed it was Math I understood completely
[Filters in place now]

I'll leave you to publish your math/English/vortex work to set the record straight





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join