
Posts
353 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Iwonderaboutthings


!
Moderator Note
Everyone,
No more comments directed towards the person please  either talk about the argument or don't comment.
I have been complaining about a member here ACME
is till using insulting and very very rude comments on my behalf, while telling others to stop interacting with me, I am not sure you have received my messages about this....
I am very confused as to what is going on here, and I am even a bit concerned as to why he is doing this, the remark are on the last page... I have told ACME about this note, but they refuse to stop...
0 
lol true enough
Or height.
flash light????? ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, height, I see, Opps sorry..
See in how many equations there is used h. You can reverse these equations.
It's basic mathematics  searching for unknown y, when there is known x... y=f(x)
Plug x to equation, and solve it, and you have y calculated.
But in pure math, values are usually meaningless. While in physics, they're measured quantities from real world.
E=h*c/wavelength
so after reversing equation we're receiving:
h=E*wavelength/c
E = Q*U
Q=I*t
so
E=I*t*U
so you have
h=I*t*U*wavelength/c
I  current from ampere meter
U  voltage from voltmeter
t  time from stopper
c  constant, but can be measured in experiment
wavelength  can be measured using optics equations..
For single electron Q=e, so equation simplifies to:
h=e*U*wavelength/c
When U is less than 1.9 V, and wavelength is 650 nm, red LED won't emit light.
If it's higher it's emitting light.
Similar for green,blue,ultraviolet diodes, but different voltages U will be needed.
Copied this and will practice over and over again.
Just a question, can an exponent just be used like this in a calculator..
example:
4.768^12
0000000000004.768
or
4.768^12
4.768000000000000
Or something like that.
0 
Given Mr. Wander's admissions of ignorance and his ongoing abuse of members giving thoughtful responses to remove that ignorance, isn't it about time to close this nonsense?
Given Mr. Wander's I am assuming you mean Iwonderaboutthings.
There is a note here by a moderator it states " no more comments about the person" and to please remain in the scope of the topic...
I have stated this several times already and sent a message about this...
You are 100% breaking forum rules, you do not have respect for other members kindness on my post here, and you " truly seem" to have a position of authority of which you are abusing...But not with me " baby" My forefathers have already done this for me as Slaves for 500 years....
So if this thread gets blocked and I get banned, It is because of politics and control..
IT MAKES THE FORUM LOOK BAD...
0 
anyone can make an honest mistake. No matter how much they know. One shouldn't imply an honest mistake with knowledge or ability. If I thought my first answer was correct I would have provided an answer showing an example, instead of admitting the error.
Don't mean to ask this, its just a simple observation.
You say: If I thought my first answer was correct I would have provided an answer showing an example.
So then, you must have known the answer to be incorrect in the 1st place?
http://www2.cose.isu.edu/~hackmart/planck%27s.PDF
this one isn't particularly home experiment
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0102
http://backreaction.blogspot.ca/2012/05/testingvariationsofplancksconstant.html
this video will be helpful, particularly in examples of how to do the calculations (he shows a nice easy method of doing the exponent calculations, that will greatly simplify your calculator problems)
http://www.brightstorm.com/science/chemistry/theatom/plancksconstant/
thanks
0 
Of course there is many ways to calculate h, or any other physical constant..
In post #5 I gave you a way to measure it and calculate using electronic circuit, with just a couple instruments like voltage meter, ampere meter, stopper, with just a few equations.. h is derived from kinetic energy of electron needed to emit photon with well known energy/wavelength..
Instead of discussion how to make experiment we're again talking about some basic things unrelated to subject..
No , no one ever told me " ever" not even online that there are many ways to calculate h.
Can you provide me a link that says you can??
Thanks for telling me though..
I'm not the only one going off topic either, I paused a bit their for others to get the " options" on e out of the way.
As usual I am thankful for your time.
0 
um no the answer is accurate, e use in mathematics is exponent, but it is also used to mean energy or Eueler number or the charge of an electron. The answer I provided is accurate. To this statement
c in physics by convention usually means the speed of light
h is the planck constant
conventional constants are ones that are used so frequently that everyone accepts their meaning in the majority of models. However there is nothing preventing a model from using c to represent a missing value with another meaning
here is a list of some of the conventional ones
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/funcon.html
however as I mentioned there are examples where fundamental constants are used in a different context such as "e"
This is a simple home experiment" .
I would prefer to hear this:
There are many ways to calculate the h constant ...
Yes?
No?
Its very simple..
oops yeah your right my bad lol, was distracted when I typed that
Or maybe you simply did not know? "BUT" THANKS FOR BEING HONEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 50/50
0 
Yeah, garbage in, garbage out still applies.
Mostly just beneficial in terms of speed and allowing Google parse your meaning for you.
Can do: "elementary charge * e *1e5=" and Google can correctly parse it.
I don't mean to to say this, and sorry but I am observing that there are more than just one way to calculate this, and maybe that is worth wondering about in relation to numbers in general...Too much input here, I wish " someone can decide" which is which...
the use of symbols can change depending on their context of use, there isn't enough letters in the alphabet for every formula to maintain unique symbols for variables and constants. So you will find that e can have many meanings depending on the models being examined. There is some conventional symbols but there is always exceptions.
This does not make sense at all, and it's no help sorry, and it is misleading...
I am now convinced some people here do not know what they are talking out, or either choose to deliberately make others " look and feel dumb"
I am not the only one talking about this by the way trust me when I tell you...
It makes the forum look bad....
Such a simple question and such a complex answer...Somehow I feel someone is laughing at all of us!
You say: There is some conventional symbols but there is always exceptions.
OK, uhmm which ones???
0 
Right. But you have to remember that e is Euler number, not e elementary charge.
So in our case it's (what we were talking about in #5 post):
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=h*c%2F650e9%2Felementary+charge
Yeah, garbage in, garbage out still applies.
Mostly just beneficial in terms of speed and allowing Google parse your meaning for you.
Can do: "elementary charge * e *1e5=" and Google can correctly parse it.
I was told that e means exponent..in the other thread, but this explanations makes sense, because this has me very confused, its a shame " other members" don't say anything about this, and let others look bad,
0 
Yes.
Hymmm, was that what you wanted Acme>>>???
Why did you not answer question???
I replied back to you....This is a simple case of "GANGING UP ON MEMBER'S!
1 
The meaning of "e" is "exponent". I'm not sure what else you want to know.\
The only difference I can see is that you have a spurious extra "." in the first version. That is not a valid format for a number.
Any number can be represented as a percentage, just by multiplying it by 100.
Thanks Strange, I was trying to " make this point"
So, this topic should be tossed out in the trash can.
Taking a break from this forum, be back some time later. To all whom were patient with me, thanks you have no idea how much I have learned,,
0 
If you posted in a coherent, manner, avoided talking nonsense, stopped jumping all over the place, ceased using weird mixtures of font and wide open spaces, then we wouldn't have to guess what you mean. If anyone is insulting your intelligence it is yourself. Members are being outstandingly patient in trying to help you gain knowledge. I recommend you show appreciation of that, instead of attacking them.
I beg your pardon??????????????????????????????????
I have already stated that I am retarded, I have already stated that I am a drop out from highschool " because they don't want Blacks nor Latinos there, I have already stated that I get my books out from the garbage or read from the internet..
If members don't wont to deal with me, then they do so on their own free will...
ACME, the member did not answer my question nor did they have anything positive to say....
They are instigating on personal issues simply because I am asking questions about taboo topics in science, something I have known to be filled with conspiracy.
I am not going to tolerate abuse here plus their is already a NOTE here, about this from a moderator.....
Go against your own will and wishes while breaking your own forum rules, it only makes the forum look bad.
Its plain and simple, if I am such a bother to members, simply don't deal with me....
0 
Meaningless drivel.
...
More meaningless drivel. The values are independent of the base chosen to represent them. There is no individual numeral six in any numeration base six or below.
The e refers to 'exponent'.
Sensei " has already" cleared that up for me, " with numerical examples" to back this up"
Uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, ANYTHING ABOUT PI RATIO THOUGH????????
That is the topic JUst SaYIng
Anyway,
ACME I asked for the "alpha numerical " meaning" of e
I am well aware that e stands for exponent.
Please don't insult my intelligence.
You say The values are independent of the base chosen to represent them?
I am , will and shall remain confused on this, until I understand the logic as to why>>>?
For example, c = 299.792.458 m/s right??
why do calculators only accept the number as 299.792458 ???????????
Thats what I wanna know.
This is what I am trying to understand about e, the alpha numeric meaning, I think you know what I am talking about.
Alphanumeric (sometimes shortened to alphameric) is a combination of alphabetic and numeric characters, and is used to describe the collection of Latin letters and Arabic digits or a text constructed from this collection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphanumeric
So then Your description on e appears to be a Meaningless drivel...How about that!
Also are you aware that pi ratio can be used as percent? I think you also know that too.
Are you reading this post correctly?????
Pi and the Fibonacci Numbers
http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hostedsites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibpi.html
0 
What am I doing wrong with this calculation>>>???
Is it the calculator???
E=h*c/650nm = 3.056*10^019 J6.626^33*299.792458 = 2.37423368261187e25<thats the way it comes out of the "online" calculator2.37423368261187e25/650nm = 3.65266720401826e28<thats the way it comes out of the "online" calculatorSo what you're saying is you don't know how to use scientific notation or decimal points?
thanks for the advice
0 
Then maybe it is an optical illusion. There are optical illusion that only some people see, but in general they have the same effect on everybody.
I can't really comment because I am not really sure what effect you are describing (for example, the black and white flower in your post just looks black and white to me) and I don't know what you mean by the "standard model". Vision is a very complex thing. You may have discovered a new optical illusion.
If you say optical illusion, then I will go with that...
When I say " standard model" pertaining to vision , I mean its not usual to see colors in contours such as the image provided...
Remember the video Universal Gravitation  Shell Theorem " on this thread" and the flash light?
Do we " really create reality as we see reality " with light'???
Is this why energy and mass are described as flat space time and continuum of space?
Since light comes from on single point massless particle "photon" , then shouldn't we be " seeing nothing at all"?
Or should it be that what we see is the exact size of a light photon?????
Inversely Proportional right????
I get this idea in regards to " sighting" in a mirror, sighting in a book, etc, with the human eyes..
To focus your vision in one direction or point focus.
They say that all else is within infinity..
For example when you read a book, the word you focus on, is only seen, the book the room etc, everything else that you are not focused on is said to be in infinity...Right?
I am thinking that when you shine light on something, it becomes real?
0 
f.e.
12 grams of pure Carbon is 6.022141*10^23 Carbon12 isotope atoms.
So if you have 1 kg of Carbon,
you have 1000 / 12 = 83.333(3) mol
which is 5.018451*10^25 atoms of carbon.
At websites of different isotopes, different elements, different chemical molecules,
you can read about their mass in unit, f.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_beryllium
See column named "isotopic mass (u)"
f.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_chloride
on the right you have table with row "Molar mass 58.44 g mol^{−1}"
1 g/mol is the same as 1 u. One is used by chemists, while is used by physicists.
Mass of complex chemical molecule is pretty much sum of masses of atoms it's made of.
H_{2}O has 18 u = 18 g/mol = 1u + 1u + 16u (1u is approximately mass of one Hydrogen atom, and 16u is approximately mass of one Oxygen atom)
if you have 1 kg of water it's approximately
1000 / 18 = 55.555(5) mol = 3.3456*10^25 molecules of water.
Elements have not fully integer masses in u unit like f.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine
because typical atom has different amount of isotopes, which vary masses.
Chlorine35 isotope has mass 34.96885268 u (approximatelly 35 u)
Chlorine37 isotope has mass 36.96590259 u (approximatelly 37 u)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_chlorine
Cl35 has ~76% abundance,
but
Cl37 has ~24% abundance,
34.96885268 * 0.7576 + 36.96590259 * 0.2424 = 35.4529375782
on website you can read average mass of Chlorine 35.45 g/mol (pretty close to above, isn't?)
To stay on topic I will ask..Pi squared = percent?????????????Like this: Cl37 has ~24% abundanceI copied this for later practice...
In this here:
if you have 1 kg of water it's approximately1000 / 18 = 55.555(5) mol = 3.3456*10^25 molecules of water.1000 = kg of water, where did 18 come from???You see I have a hard time stopping the number theory I see, very sorry about this, it happens automatically...I see patterns, I cant control that..In this:34.96885268 * 0.7576 + 36.96590259 * 0.2424 = 35.45293757823635 = 1??This is how I see " numbers."Not sure why all this looks like " time" and nothing else..percent? 10^2Pi squared = percent?????????????I will practice on this...Nothing. It's just a number.
Planck const in electron volt units is 4.135667*10^15 eV*s
After normalization of some units to 1, you would get other answers..
You're writing wrong again.
You can't write 6.24*10e18,
it should be 6.24*10^18
or
6.24e18
or
6.24e+18
When there is 10 to power x, you don't use "e".
f.e.
1e3
or
10^3
or
1000
normalization of a surface normal? equilibrium?
normalization has many meanings...
These are fundamental constant right? or just numbers?
They appear to follow an order of operations, due to their relationships to the number 6, what ever that at this point means..
There is a connection...
Wave Function uses normalizing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalisable_wave_function
To stay on topic I will ask..Pi squared = percent?????????????Like this: Cl37 has ~24% abundanceI copied this for later practice...
In this here:
if you have 1 kg of water it's approximately1000 / 18 = 55.555(5) mol = 3.3456*10^25 molecules of water.1000 = kg of water, where did 18 come from???You see I have a hard time stopping the number theory I see, very sorry about this, it happens automatically...I see patterns, I cant control that..In this:34.96885268 * 0.7576 + 36.96590259 * 0.2424 = 35.45293757823635 = 1??This is how I see " numbers."Not sure why all this looks like " time" and nothing else..percent? 10^2Pi squared = percent?????????????I will practice on this...normalization of a surface normal? equilibrium?
normalization has many meanings...
These are fundamental constant right? or just numbers?
They appear to follow an order of operations, due to their relationships to the number 6, what ever that at this point means..
There is a connection...
Wave Function uses normalizing
are you sure when you say this:
You can't write 6.24*10e18 =6.24e+19it should be 6.24*10^18=6.24e+186.24e+19/6.24e+18=10They seem to 'fit in quite well" with the base of ten number system. in fact this where I specialize...Maybe we are overlooking this letter>eWhat is its alpha numerical " meaning"?0 
Mass is a measure of the "amount" of stuff. It is hard to define, except as mass.
It is not really a measure of the number of atoms. But if it were, it wouldn't be zero or 1 or unknown, it would a very, very large number. It is quite easy to calculate the number of atoms in a given mass of a substance. (Avogadro's number, if you are interested.)
molar mass 6.02*10^34
G = 6.7*10^11
h = 6.626
1 A = 1 C/s = ~ 6.24*10e18 = 62400000000000000000 electrons/second
elementary charge of single electron 1.602*10e19 Celementary charge of single proton +1.602*10e19 Cplanck length 1.61619997*10e35 mObservation " remember"
I am the only one that notices this???
Why 6???? Whats so special about 6??????
You say, Mass is a measure of the "amount" of stuff. It is hard to define, except as mass.
now you sound like me
WHAT STUFF??????????????
1 
0.001 is a number. It is not frequency, length, time pr number of kittens until the units are supplied.
0.001 Hz is a frequency.
0.001 Kg is a mass.
0.001 mm is a length
In this case it is 0.001%  this is the amount by which the calculation is incorrect (expressed as a fraction: the answer is 0.001/100th different from the correct answer).
Yes, kilo means 1000. It is commonly applied to distance (kilometre) and weight (kilogram), etc. It could be applied to time (kiloseconds) but I don't think I have ever seen that.
Milli means 1/1000 and can be applied to distance (millmetre) and weight (millgram), time (milliseconds), etc.
No. Kilogram measures mass, which is independent of distance or time.
I see, but then Kilogram as mass still = 1 point?
I read that mass basically means all the atoms in an object, so I assume in this case kilogram = 1 or 0 = "I don't know" , not sure.... Then 1 just means that 1 of " something."
This is hard to grasp, its that 1 basically it seems unavoidable to define....
0 
a is the length of the semi major axis (orbital radius). you need to calculate for "a" depending on the orbital period. (orbital period is the time it takes for an orbiting body to complete of full orbit. the error is the accuracy of the model method. this has no relation with the rest of your post.
a better formula relating orbital period, (time) semi major axis and bodies gravity is covered here. (due to the extreme difference in the suns mass and the Earths mass the center of gravity is the Sun itself in Kepler's laws so the sun is stationary)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_orbit
keep in mind orbiting bodies are elliptical which is where it visvisa equation comes into play (also on that page).
here is what the semimajor axis means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semimajor_axis
"In geometry, the major axis of an ellipse is the longest diameter: a line (line segment) that runs through the center and both foci, with ends at the widest points of the shape"
for an ellipse you have two axis the semimajor axis and the semi minor axis.
a is the semi major axis
b is the semi minor axis
your not ready for a technicolor article this will only confuse the bugger out of you or in this case M theory (ADS/CFT) correspondance= string theory models
stick to the standard model until you understand it before trying to learn the alternatives ( trust me geometry is something you need stronger skills in before you tackle string theory geometry)
"Technicolor theories are models of physics beyond the standard model that address electroweak gauge symmetry breaking, the mechanism through which W and Z bosons acquire masses" key note not standard model
for that matter what little I know of it, it confuses the bugger out of me lol
the link on the unit names is a good reference to use
I 90% agree with you, thanks for that link by the way..
Hymm 'a' is solving for arc minutes right?
1/360 of a cycle...it looks like on orbital frequency..These are inversely proportional??? My assumptions still hold..I don't think this is complex at all, its right there...F= force, but then f = frequency???
really??????
Its these things in science that is the hurdle that blocks my intellect and communication skills
But I will take your advice " for now." So far all the links you given me have been incredible..
Yes, I think I am moving too fast and need to slow down...
When you say:
the error is the accuracy of the model method
It makes me think of " human error" surly there are better ways of calculations right??
Electroweak interaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
Hymm sounds interesting, and looks " like I would be good at it."
Electro Static? Conservative Forces? Plasma Fields? Strong Nuclear Forces?
Worm Holes? Time Travel< I HOPE??
How deep is this??????
What does it do????
1 
If you are talking about seeing colours (that shouldn't be there) then there are many possible explanations: optical illusion (there are many optical illusions that generate colour from black and white images; including "impossible" colours like yellowblue) or hallucination (due to drugs, tiredness, illness, etc) or synaesthesia or ...
You need to understand that pretty much everything you see is generated by the brain, not the eyes. This is a very complex process that can create all sorts of odd effects. So it is very easy to "fool" the visual system.
What if others have seen it too??? They are healthy productive citizens.
I've read extensively on this till blue in the face.
Its an observation that does not agree with the standard model.
0 
just a side note here is the procedure to calculate a planets mass lets say you just spotted a new planet and would like its basic characteristics
http://www4.wittenberg.edu/sgmoa/supplemental/FindExtrasolarPlanetMass.pdf
In your link here:
I see Kepler's Third Law law uses pi ratio squared, " looks like I am several centuries too late on this" however,
I noticed something peculiar here:
Copied and pasted information:
As an example, since the Sun is about three hundred thousand times heavier than the Earth, ignoring the mass of the Earth in this calculation would introduce an error of less than 0.001%. The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius, 'a'. Or 'a' = x^2 = 1?????
Um....Isn't 0.001 used as a frequency?
This really now complicates things does it?
I never even knew this " really " I did not, thanks for the link!
Now, pi ratio " obviously squared " = close to 9.8 m/s/s, would this be referencing earth as the center of the Universe??
It looks like so...
Think about it in relation to time. I know I am not the only one whom has thought of the correlation, however I am more intrigued with the statements:
As an example, since the Sun is about three hundred thousand times heavier than the Earth, ignoring the mass of the Earth in this calculation would introduce an error of less than 0.001%. The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius, 'a'. Or 'a' = x^2 = 1?????
Earth is measured in kilograms right?
So how could " any metric" system describe "energy" within:
10^3 = kilo = Distance and grams= milla = Time??
GOSH! That is very small!
Here is a link on this:
Black Holes and Submillimeter Dimension
http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9808138
We are still in space here so this inquiry should still be a valid case here.
So then, wouldn't the " kilogram" have two separate systems of measure that make them both inversely proportional not to the square of the distance but to > time! as in E=mc^2???????????
I get this logic from:
As an example, since the Sun is about three hundred thousand times heavier than the Earth, ignoring the mass of the Earth in this calculation would introduce an error of less than > THERE>0.001%. The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius, 'a'. Or 'a' = x^2 = 1?????
Again shouldn't that be saying this:
The equation can be solved for the only remaining variable which is the orbital radius as x^2 = 1?????
About 10^3 = kilo = Distance and grams= milla = Time.
1 micron = 1 000 nanometers
1 μm = 1 000 nmTT?1 micron = 1 micrometer1 μm = 1 μmTT?1 micron = 0.001 millimeter1 μm = 0.001 mmLink for these units is here:
http://www.aquacalc.com/whatis/length/micron
a^3 is only obvious here as volume, acceleration, and time rather the speed of light squared as mass and energy equivalence..
Now wonder space is flat, not necessarily outer space but both spaces inversely..This radius must then describe the straight path of a 1 complex number relation in QM subjects. All exponent "then" are merely arc minutes*.5 = +1. I guess their is more to a static universe than we know ???
I think pi ratio does have units but not units we " recognize" as a metric but maybe static units, or something ......
1 
To a limited extent. It only applies exactly for something that is spherical and symmetrical. But it is often a good approximation in many real world cases.
We can often treat planets, moons and asteroids, etc as if they were spherical (even when they are not) and therefore model their gravity as coming from a point at the centre.
If you need to model the effects of a very irregular asteroid when you get close to it, then you can't use the shell theorem.
If you want to do a very detailed analysis of Earth's gravity at different locations (and depths) then you can't use the shell theorem.
I see now...Thanks.
Ok, if a "Color Book" experiment "showed" that " you don't necessarily need " color crayons" to color in the contours of shapes IE flowers, animals etc, and the experiment, is physically tested and legitimate, IE black and white contours have color in them " but no crayons were used." I assume this does not agree with our standard model and " nature" in regards to visual perception?
Would this mean a possible new discovery has been made in regards to the human senses, or have the human senses been misunderstood?
Thats where i really get confused...How can a discovery be a discovery if something was miss understood..
I think that is something worth pointing out..
In simpler words, or maybe even a better example: If you saw this flower on a white piece of paper, just as it is in the photo below " has no color", then you printed this on paper, and held this in your hand for say about 5 seconds and saw a formation of colors "appearing on it" ie: you saw all colors for example" What would that mean??
To me it could mean some of the following: We could build holograms "in empty"?
We have misunderstood " the human senses??
0 
Yes, I didn't phrase that very well !
The basic point of the shell theorem is that inside a sphere (with a wall of even thickness all around) is that there is no overall gravity anywhere inside. You might think that if you get closer to the wall on one side, then that wall would attract you more than the opposite wall (which is further away).
This makes sense at the centre. All of the surface of the sphere is the same distance away and so pulls on you the same amount. But what if you are not at the centre?
What Newton cleverly showed is that there is a smaller area of the wall that is close to you but there is a much larger are of wall that is further away. It works out that if you add up the effects from all areas of the wall, there is an equal gravitational force in all directions.
To work this out you really need basic calculus. But it is one of those (rare?) things that is quite hard to explain in words but is a really simple exercise in calculus. Which is why we rely on maths in science!
The other part of the shell theorem is for outside the sphere. The gravitational force of the sphere behaves exactly the same as if it came from a single point at the centre of the sphere (with all the mass of the sphere there.
Yes I can visualize this somewhat. But not sure to visualize this as a Flat Shell...Meaning Mass Energy..
So then, masses of all types shapes, and forms, "Particles Included"
In "some way" can be described by the concept of Newton Shell Theorem?
I am thinking this because I read much on " point mass" " point charges" black holes " points in space" surface charges and etc, until now I think I understand what they are...
0 
Imagine simple electronic circuit, battery with red LED (Light Emitting Diode).
Single red photon which has 650 nm wavelength has energy E=h*c/650nm = 3.056*10^019 J
3.056*10^19 J / 1.602*10^19 = 1.9 eV (in electron volt unit)
Electron in electronic circuit that has voltage U has kinetic energy E=e*U
so if voltage in above circuit will be smaller than 1.9 V, there will be too little energy to emit red photon, and LED won't shine.
Q=I*t,
current I you read from ampere meter,
time t you read from stopper,
so quantity of electrons in electronic circuit is:
quantity of electrons = Q/e = I*t/e
(for t=1 s, current I=1 A, it's 6.24*10^18 electrons per second)
Electron is emitting red photon, and losing its kinetic energy ("voltage drop on element").
Typical LED allows 1035 mA so it's 0.010.035 * 1s / 1.602e19 = 6.242e+16 to 2.185e+17 electrons per second passing through it.
(After exceeding limit I, LED will burn  too many electrons/photons per second will destroy it (if you will touch it, you can feel how hot it's becoming very quickly) )
If you will repeat this experiment with green LED, blue LED, UV LED, white LED you will see different threshold voltages at which they emit light.
UV LED and white LED are similar, because in reality white LED is emitting UV photon that is later absorbed by fluorescent material and emitted in full visible spectrum.
UV LED is not working with 2 AA 1.25 V (2.5 V total) batteries, but it's working with 3 AA (3.75 V).
UV photon with 350 nm, needs U > 3.54 V.
UV photon with 400 nm, needs U > 3.1 V.
Experimentally checked.
Do you now see how to calculate h?
Seems like I need some materials I will practice the " math formula here" and practice till I get it right, and pay " more attention" to them exponent more than anything else..Since you have typed in the answers to the math here above, it will make life easier thanks! I make it habit to do things 1000 times over till I get it right, no joking either.
You say:
in reality white LED is emitting UV photon that is later absorbed by fluorescent material and emitted in full visible spectrum."
If you may can you explain this a little more, it has me very interested...
full visible spectrum? you mean colors right?
0 
Not necessarily. We measure all sort of phenomena by indirect effects that don't involve light. (Although we tend to use our eyes to read the final results, but there are blind scientists so that isn't necessary).
Christ. That was painful. ("Well, I'm errr.... no let me .... uh ... change that ... so.... what we .... and um ...")
He could have written himself a script, or even some notes before he started.
Anyway.
I think he was trying to use the way light illuminates the wall as an analogy for the amount of mass that contributes gravity to your position. But it is a confusing way of explaining it presented in a confusing way.
amount of mass that contributes gravity to your position....
HOW???????? You can be as technical as you want....if you wish...
Your predictions may not have anything to do with light directly, to see something only means that you have inferred some phenomena via what you have detected. That could be, for instance the electric current or a magnetic flux and so on. You don't need to see the phenomena directly, the movement of a needle on a detector of some sort maybe all you see with your eyes. (Today it is usually more computerised that this, but you get the idea.)
Yes actually I do..
0
If pi ratio " was" squared and = 9.8 m/s/s how would this change the whole of science?
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
When I sated I was a retard, I had no idea "YOU ALL WOULD USE THAT" as a justified excuse to call me ignorant A NIGGER termed where I come from.
I see now why gays, and lesbian never disclose their information....
YOU ARE EVIL DARK AND WICKEND!
When I stated I was a retard, I had no idea "YOU ALL WOULD USE THAT" as a justified excuse to call me ignorant.
I see now why gays, and lesbian never disclose their information....
YOU ARE EVIL DARK AND WICKEND!
The moderators have allowed this abuse.
LIKE I SAID ITS MAKES THE FORUM LOOK BAD..