A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: kado on 27 Jan 2010 04:22 On Jan 26, 3:36 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > It is unfortunate that Wheeler chose to use E for the mass-equivalence > value, instead of (say) M. > > You usage of it as a formula for energy is incorrect, along with many > other basic physics / logic / math mistakes. True. But it's not only Wheeler that made this mistake. Einstein originated it. So he (Einstein) converted the mathematical equations of energy as if these were mass equations, etc. and visa versa, to arrive at the (mistaken) notion that energy and mass are essentially alike. (That's why I stated that Einstein employed a convoluted and illogical means to arrive at E = mc^2 in an earlier post. This mistake is apparent in the title of the paper that contains Einstein's math equation of E = mc^2. The title is: Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content? The answer should have been in 1905, and must now be a flat NO (in capitals) from mainline science. A body exhibits inertia only when a force acts upon it to change its state of inertia (i.e., its momentum and/or moment of inertia). Furthermore, the 'energy content' (this is not even a correct concept of a dynamic quality of a body in motion) is immaterial to its inertia. (That is, the dynamic quality of a body moving in a straight line at a constant speed is momentum, not inertia!) In other words; Einstein's Special Relativity addresses only straight line motion at a constant speed (i.e., velocity, wherein there is no change of momentum) and the concept of inertia just flat does not apply. The acceptance of E = mc^2 just demonstrates that in addition mass, force, and time; most of mainline science does not truly understand inertia, and even momentum. (The latter most likely due to misconstruing Newton's Three Laws of Momentum. There is a whole lot of evidence that mainline science has the concept of Newtonian momentum all screwed up that are disclosed in my treatise, but to convince mainline science this is so will possibly take even longer than it took to try to explain the nonphysical, that I know not all of you accept.) D. Y. Kadoshima
From: artful on 27 Jan 2010 07:35 On Jan 27, 8:22 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 26, 3:36 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > It is unfortunate that Wheeler chose to use E for the mass-equivalence > > value, instead of (say) M. > > > You usage of it as a formula for energy is incorrect, along with many > > other basic physics / logic / math mistakes. > > True. > > But it's not only Wheeler that made this > mistake. > > Einstein originated it. As I understand, he didn't use 'E' as a symbol for mass, which was Wheeler 'mistake' > So he (Einstein) converted the mathematical > equations of energy as if these were mass > equations, etc. and visa versa, to arrive at > the (mistaken) notion that energy and mass > are essentially alike. Was that before or after he had derived that mass is equivalent to energy > (That's why I stated > that Einstein employed a convoluted and > illogical means to arrive at E = mc^2 in an > earlier post. > > This mistake is apparent in the title of the > paper that contains Einstein's math equation > of E = mc^2. The title is: > > Does the inertia of a body depend on its > energy content? If E = mc^2, then one can say that the energy equivalent of the rest mass is part of the total energy. > The answer should have been in 1905, and > must now be a flat NO (in capitals) from > mainline science. Why? > A body exhibits inertia only > when a force acts upon it to change its state > of inertia (i.e., its momentum and/or moment > of inertia). And that inertia is measured by its inertial mass, which has an energy equivalent. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that mass is the same as energy .. just as E = hf doesn't mean that energy is the same as frequency. > Furthermore, the 'energy content' (this is not > even a correct concept of a dynamic quality > of a body in motion) is immaterial to its > inertia. If the total energy content includes the energy equivalent to its mass, then it does > (That is, the dynamic quality of a body > moving in a straight line at a constant speed > is momentum, not inertia!) Indeed it is. But that distinction doesn't seem to help your argument. > In other words; Einstein's Special Relativity > addresses only straight line motion at a > constant speed (i.e., velocity, wherein there > is no change of momentum) and the concept > of inertia just flat does not apply. The concept of mass does, and that is very closely related to inertia > The acceptance of E = mc^2 just > demonstrates that in addition mass, force, > and time; most of mainline science does not > truly understand inertia, and even momentum. I don't think anyone does (mainline or not) .. perhaps we never will. We can measure it, we cna find relationship between them. But we don't *really* know what they are. > (The latter most likely due to misconstruing > Newton's Three Laws of Momentum. There is > a whole lot of evidence that mainline science > has the concept of Newtonian momentum all > screwed up that are disclosed in my treatise, > but to convince mainline science this is so will > possibly take even longer than it took to try to > explain the nonphysical, that I know not all of > you accept.) Yet Newtons laws, as mainstream science now understands/interprets them, work very well. If they are somewhat different to Newtons original notions, then does that necessarily mean they are wrong? Surely the proof is in how well they model nature .. not how well they were translated.
From: cjcountess on 27 Jan 2010 07:54 Sure there are alot of things in my work that need clerifing, for it is a very comprehensive and revolutionary idea, that goes against the grain of lots of preconcieved postulates, like conservation of mass and energy, and dimensional analisis, vector addition, the square root of -1 is only imaginary number, uncertainty principle, and so on. As such, I must be either very sure of this, and see it very clearly in my own mind, or am very foolish to propose something so revolutionary, thats goes against so much of the grain of modern physics, I assure you, it is the former. I see this very clearly and geometricaly, and it is only a matter of time before it is clearly seen by others as well. But geometry reveals more than mere linier equations, and I even collaborate with otheres who use geometry to explain, (sqrt-1) and (uncertainty principle) geometricaly, and I use geometry to show that (c^2 = c^circled), and that (c^2), is a frequency/wavelength, where energy turns to and equals matter, because it takes on a circular and or spherical rotation, when "c", in liniear direction, equals and balences "c", in 90 degree angular direction, to create a 90 degree arc, which if constant creates a circle, and balence of centripital and centrifugal forces, and circular motion. "c", as a natural unit 1, pointing straight up along vertical axis, which gives rise to 90 degree arc counterclockwise rotation, (the foundation for the circle which it creates if constant), also represents (sqrt-1), in the geometrical sense, mentioned in book, An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1 by Paul J. Nahin But I carry it further to show that (cxc or c^2), actualy leads to a "standing spherical wave", making two rotations, in order to complete one wave, cycle (spin1/2), spins backwaed counter to its trajectory, (-1charge) and has angular momentum of (h/2pi/2). All of this coincides with measurements of electron, and emperical evidence, even the latest on utube, of electron, which seems to be a "standing spherical wave orbiting about 2 axis" Latest Evidence Latest evidence on geometrical structure of electron from site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related entitled: Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time. It resembles a elongated standing spherical wave, rotating about two axis, fitting description which I have geometrically demonstrated, as opposed to a point particle or probability wave. Conrad J Countess P.S. As for (E=hf/c^2), being wrong, its good to know that I am in good company, "Wheeler and Einstein". And as I said before, I realy don't need it to prove my idea, as there is just so much evidence, that fits together so seamlessly, to form such a clear and complete picture, backed by emperical evidence, that it seems statisticaly very improbable, that it is wrong.
From: kado on 27 Jan 2010 16:30 On Jan 26, 3:36 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > I've found a copy of the book and the relevant section. > If you would, I would very much appreciate if you would post the date this book was published and if Wheeler used the kilogram or the gram as the fundamental unit of measure for mass. These may seem trivial, but these have a bearing on how I try to clarify your next post. Thanking you in advance. D.Y.K.
From: artful on 27 Jan 2010 17:11
On Jan 28, 8:30 am, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 26, 3:36 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I've found a copy of the book and the relevant section. > > If you would, I would very much appreciate if you > would post the date this book was published and if > Wheeler used the kilogram or the gram as the > fundamental unit of measure for mass. > > These may seem trivial, but these have a bearing on > how I try to clarify your next post. > > Thanking you in advance. > > D.Y.K. There are two issues of his book. I was looking in the earlier one, though I think the same occurs in both (perhaps differently worded) The units make no difference whatsoever, I would assume he used standard SI units. He may use natural units in some places .. that he explicitly put in c^2 would imply SI units. Most of the time the actual units used make no difference at all unless one is doing some worked example with specific values. |