🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 24, 4:30 am, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi GSS
> I commend you for what you are doing with your work.

Thanks.

> I had the same
> idea as I too participated in enough discussions to  generate a lot of
> thought and enough material to write a book. I've already written one
> book which includes a non mathematical scientific theory of everything

In my opinion, writing a non mathematical scientific theory is
acceptable only if you are either writing a review of certain theories
or writing a popular version of some theory for the layman. But if you
are intending to cover a 'new ground' in physics, then I am afraid,
you cannot do that without mathematics.

> and have since compiled enough to write another based around the
> controversial idea that c^2 is not just a mathematical conversion
> factor of energy to matter but is an actual conversion frequency at
> high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to matter. I reason and
> visualize this to happen because the wave takes on a circular or
> spherical geometry such as a standing satirical wave. Like you I
> believe that we can visualize this because I have done it and nobody
> can tell me otherwise. Maybe their vision and /or my description is
> not as clear as my vision but I am having fun arguing the case.

You must be able to express it through mathematical equations in
addition to verbal descriptions.
> If
> you take a wave traveling at c in the horizontal direction and  give
> it a equal and 90 degree angular speed of c in vertical direction,
> this is c^2. This is analogous to a horizontal line of an inch, times
> a vertical line of equal measure to equal a square inch..  If we draw
> an arc from the beginning  of the horizontal line to  end of the
> vertical line this creates a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a
> circle. This can represent the trajectory a wave under the influence
> of a centrifugal and a centripetal force at a 90 degree angle to each
> other resulting in circular motion might take. In 3d this would be
> spherical motion .
> see:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
> and
>  http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm,
> If we start with a circular polarized wave like the one they ended up
> with on the website and continue the same logic and geometry  to all
> dimensions of the wave, x-y and z,  we should get a standing spherical
> wave.

No, unless you express the situation in mathematical 'symbolic logic'
it will not make sense.

>
> One question, did you think to include any of the Google dialogs to
> show the dynamism of the arguments or do they include too much google-
> gaga childish chatter that you'd rather exclude?
Only if you consider it be 'absolutely essential'.
> And furthermore, is
> it copyrite infringement to publish other peoples input into the
> dialog or is it o.k. to include at least their responses to you. Would
> appreciate your thoughts on this.
You must not publish other people's input as your own. You may include
other people's input after giving due credit, only for the purpose of
commenting, discussing or refuting. Otherwise you are generally
expected to get prior permission of the author for including any
portion of the copy wrighted work.

> I read some of your book and think it is very inciteful.
> Conrad Countess

Kindly let me know if you could follow the derivation of the
equilibrium equations in chapter 15.

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html