A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
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.
From: kado on 28 Jan 2010 23:55 E = mOn Jan 27, 4:35 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 8:22 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > 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' > This is what I wish to find out. That is, was it Einstein or Wheeler who made the mistake. > > Was that before or after he had derived that mass is equivalent to > energy > You are supposing that Einstein DID derive that mass is the equivalent to energy. Anyway, this is what Im trying to find out > > If E = mc^2, then one can say that the energy equivalent of the rest > mass is part of the total energy. > This is circular thinking, and IS not permitted in either physics or mathematics. That is: If you had enough money, you could buy a burger. If you had a burger, this means you had enough money. Nevertheless, you have not positively demonstrated that you actually DO in fact have enough money or a burger. Until you can empirically demonstrate that you do have enough money or a burger, its JUST WISHFUL THINKING! > > 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. > This is again a supposition made by relativists. The concept of inertial mass was empirically demonstrated as a fallacy by Dr. Dicke in the 1970s. However this was long after Einstein formulated his notion that E = mc^2. So one cannot fault Einstein for this error. Nevertheless, the notion that the inertial mass (of 1905 Einstein) has an energy equivalent is also circular thinking. > > If the total energy content includes the energy equivalent to its > mass, then it does > Can you see that this is again based on the supposition derived by the wishful thinking of E = mc^2? > > > 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 > This is true. Nevertheless, you, like a lot of others have this somewhat backwards. In other words; the way you stated the second part, you imply that the inertia is the cause and mass is the effect. Inertia is a property of mass. Do not mistake the effect with the cause! > > 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. > This is a very true statement. This is why I suppose, backed with a lot good information that: Einsteins E = mc^2 is a fallacy, and that this idea that existed before Einstein attempted to solve it is yet to be verified. snip > > 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. Be very careful what you attribute to Newton. I believe you can accept that the Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science differs greatly from the mechanics presented within Principia by Newton. In other words; I think that I successfully demonstrated what Newton presented in Principia are the Three Laws of Momentum, not the 3 laws of motion. But this was exposed to mainline science only in the last month, and only in this thread. In other words; the vast majority of mainline science is most probably ignorant of this information. So to reply to the balance of this paragraph: The tenets of Classical Newtonian Mechanics are generally ignored by the applied scientists and engineers. They employ all the knowledge gained from empirical experiments, tests, etc., AND also very important- FAILURES (i.e., what doesnt work). If what they supposed should work, but does not, they usually do not go back to examine their original suppositions, but commonly use the pragmatic approach, and tweek, and continually tweek the possible weak points in their work (even if these are opposite of what the text books maintain) until it works. If it still does not work as hoped after a reasonable number of failures (and this is a subjective matter, that differs due to different priorities of the vastly different tasks), then and only then do they go back and examine their original concepts and ideas of what should work within the boundaries set by higher ups (i.e., managers). So it cannot be said that it is Newtons laws as these are understood that makes the world turn. In other words; these applied scientists and engineers seldom go all the back, and try to amend the Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science, but just add to, amend, or adjust the documents etc., within their area of expertise with what they learned. So it is important for you to accept that the Classical Newtonian Mechanics found in all the text and reference books are very wrong, and that all this BS does not for the most part, correctly model Nature at all. This is crucial to the rocket scientists and engineers within the different space activities and also to the studies of cosmology and astrophysics. I well not dwell deeply into this area, except to write a true statement made by Professor P.J.E. Peebles of Princeton University. Dr. Peebles was (not is) an associate of the late Dr. Robert H. Dicke (I dont want to give the impression that Dr. Peebles passed away, but it was Dr. Dicke that did). This is the same Dicke that conducted the Eotvos Experiment that forced post Einsteinian Relativity to abandon Einsteins notion of relativistic mass and replace it with the concept of invariant mass (that is no different in principle from the mass defined by Newton in Principia). Dr. Peebles was on the team led by Dicke that correctly identified the enigmatic noise found by Penzias and Wilson of Bell Labs, because this team was already looking for the CMBR, but with inadequate apparatus. (Their budget at Princeton was not very generous, so they had to use a lot of surplus and/or left over stuff from other past experiments and/or scrounged stuff, whereas Bell Labs had a humungous horn antenna left over from WW II experiments.) Anyway, Dr. Peebles stated to the discomfort of most cosmologists that: Science is following the snake-oil approach to cosmology. So to continue with the topic under discussion, not all empirical information is valid when trying to fix (formulate) a theoretical idea. All the Natural Phenomenon demonstrated by Nature are conditional/relative truths. That is, these are true only under the specific conditions, particular point of view, and even the exact time that these are demonstrated. For example: Mainline oceanography and scientists maintained that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, and as the seas of the earth at the side facing the moon are closer to the moon than the center of the earth, the gravity of the moon pulls these seas harder that it does the earth. So results in the high tide at the side of the earth facing the moon. In a like manner, the seas at the far side of the earth from the moon are farther than is the center of the of the earth, so the earth is pulled away from these seas to cause the high tides at these places. So this explains the high tide at the side of the earth facing the moon and also the high tide at the far side of the earth from the moon. This concept was in place for a very long time until I introduced the notion that the tides at the far side from the moon are the to the effects of inertia due to the earth revolving about the barycenter of the earth-moon pair almost 15 years ago on this very newsgroup. Note that I did not state HIGH tides at the far side from the moon, but just tides. Many reference books and encyclopedias accepted this new (at this time) idea and revised their text when these where reprinted. I derived this concept when I discovered that mainline science grossly misconstrues what Newton wrote by a whole lot of inductive/deductive and logical thinking, not by experimentation. However I did live near the seas when I worked in California, Florida, and New Jersey, and I now do live not far from salt water. Furthermore, I did go salt water fishing many times, and used the tide tables to determine when it is best to go clam digging. So I am also empirically aware of the tides. Now I see that many sites on the internet have reverted back to the idea that the high tides at the far side from moon are caused by the gravitation of moon. So lets conduct a thought experiment, or an empirical experiment if you wish, to find the truth. So: Suppose that you are at, or actually go to Halifax, Nova Scotia in Canada, and suppose you send a scientist, or actually send one to Perth, Australia, and also suppose you send another, or actually send this other to Mount Young, Australia (that is situated on the south-western shore of the Gulf of Carpentaria that is in northern Australia. Now suppose you, or you actually to the shore of the Atlantic Ocean when the tide tables predict a high tide when you know that the moon will be overhead. At the time that the tide tables predicts the high tide, the moon will be at its highest point (or very near highest point) in the sky. Suppose you immediately, or actually immediately contact both associates of the experiment and ask about the nature of the tides where they are at. Both will answer that the place that they are at is experiencing a LOW tide, not a high tide. This is also verified by the data in the tide tables for these places. So those that claim that the high tide at the far side from the moon are only due to the gravitation of the moon are full of Bullshit, because their thinking cannot explain the diurnal tides wherein there is only one high tide and only one low tide during any single tidal cycle. So you dont have to conduct empirical experiments, but whenever one employs deductive/inductive logic, you better be sure that you got all the facts and particulars right, and that the truths you have do not conflict with the truths of Nature. Theres a lot more about the tides that are explained in greater detail and maybe clearer text in my manuscript. Furthermore, please do not interpret this bit about the tides as a vanity episode, but I do take a lot of pride in this matter, because I spent a lot of time thinking about it, and feel that this time was not ill spent when it was widely accepted by people that may very well be a lot smarter that me. D. Y. Kadoshima
From: artful on 29 Jan 2010 00:42 On Jan 29, 3:55 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > E = mOn Jan 27, 4:35 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 8:22 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > > 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' > > This is what I wish to find out. That is, was it > Einstein or Wheeler who made the mistake. Wheeler did, he used E as a symbol for mass. It is a poor chose of symbol for something in units of mass. Einstein didn't do that. > > Was that before or after he had derived that mass is equivalent to > > energy > > You are supposing that Einstein DID derive that > mass is the equivalent to energy. Anyway, this > is what Im trying to find out Surely that is a matter of historical record? There may be a number of others who also derived it (or similar), but Einstein certainly did provide a derivation for it > > If E = mc^2, then one can say that the energy equivalent of the rest > > mass is part of the total energy. > > This is circular thinking, No .. it is not. If one can derive E = mc^2 (as was done) then one can say that the energy equivalent of the rest mass is part of the total energy. > and IS not permitted in either > physics or mathematics. That is: > > If you had enough money, you could buy a burger. > If you had a burger, this means you had enough > money. That is not the form of argument I used. > Nevertheless, you have not positively demonstrated > that you actually DO in fact have enough money or > a burger. > Until you can empirically demonstrate that you do > have enough money or a burger, its JUST > WISHFUL THINKING! E = mc^2 has been empirically demonstrated as well as derived mathematically. > > > 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. > > This is again a supposition made by relativists. No .. a derivation from what SR says. It is a consequence of SR > The concept of inertial mass was empirically > demonstrated as a fallacy by Dr. Dicke in the > 1970s. How can it be possible a fallacy? That is like saying velocity is a fallacy. Please cite a reference. > However this was long after Einstein > formulated his notion that E = mc^2. So one cannot > fault Einstein for this error. m is just mass in that formula > Nevertheless, > the notion that the inertial mass (of 1905 Einstein) > has an energy equivalent is also circular thinking. Nothing circular about it. > > If the total energy content includes the energy equivalent to its > > mass, then it does > > Can you see that this is again based on the > supposition derived by the wishful thinking of > E = mc^2? You mean the formula that is a consequence of SR ? And has been demonstrated experimentally? > > > 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 > > This is true. Nevertheless, you, like a lot of > others have this somewhat backwards. In other words; > the way you stated the second part, you imply that > the inertia is the cause and mass is the effect. No .. I do nothing of the kind > Inertia is a property of mass. It is a property of matter. It may simply be a manifestation of whatever mass is. > Do not mistake the effect with the cause! I didn't. We don't know enough about what mass or inertia *really* are to say which causes which (or if something else causes both). However, we do know a great deal about how things with mass and inertia behave and how to express those behaviors mathematically. Doing so does not require us to know what they really are. > > > 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. > > This is a very true statement. Indeed it is > This is why I > suppose, backed with a lot good information > that: > > Einsteins E = mc^2 is a fallacy, Except it is shown to be a valid relationship experimentally. So there is no logical argument to reject it as a fallacy > and that this > idea that existed before Einstein attempted to > solve it is yet to be verified. Which idea? > snip > > > > > 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. > > Be very careful what you attribute to Newton. It is simply a name for the 'laws'. Who discovered them doesn't alter their validity, which is really the only thing with which physics needs to concern itself. > I > believe you can accept that the Classical Newtonian > Mechanics of mainline science differs greatly from > the mechanics presented within Principia by Newton. Yes .. as I said above. > In other words; I think that I successfully > demonstrated what Newton presented in Principia are > the Three Laws of Momentum, not the 3 laws of motion. Which, of course, if true, is really only a matter for history. What matters for physics is whether the laws we use now are valid. > But this was exposed to mainline science only in the > last month, and only in this thread. In other words; > the vast majority of mainline science is most > probably ignorant of this information. > > So to reply to the balance of this paragraph: The > tenets of Classical Newtonian Mechanics are generally > ignored by the applied scientists and engineers. They do not provide any new or useful information for physicists. They are more usefully expressed as they are in modern physics. > They > employ all the knowledge gained from empirical > experiments, tests, etc., AND also very important- > FAILURES (i.e., what doesnt work). > If what they supposed should work, but does not, they > usually do not go back to examine their original > suppositions, but commonly use the pragmatic > approach, and tweek, and continually tweek the > possible weak points in their work (even if these are > opposite of what the text books maintain) until it > works. If it still does not work as hoped after a > reasonable number of failures (and this is a subjective > matter, that differs due to different priorities of the > vastly different tasks), then and only then do they go > back and examine their original concepts and ideas of > what should work within the boundaries set by higher > ups (i.e., managers). > So it cannot be said that it is Newtons laws as these > are understood that makes the world turn. In other > words; these applied scientists and engineers seldom > go all the back, and try to amend the Classical > Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science, but just add > to, amend, or adjust the documents etc., within their > area of expertise with what they learned. > > So it is important for you to accept that the > Classical Newtonian Mechanics found in all the text > and reference books are very wrong, No .. they are correct. But they are different to how it was originally presented by Newton .. physics has advanced since then > and that all this > BS does not for the most part, correctly model Nature > at all. No .. the physics we have now models nature far better than what was presented by Newton > This is crucial to the rocket scientists and > engineers within the different space activities and > also to the studies of cosmology and astrophysics. I > well not dwell deeply into this area, except to write > a true statement made by Professor P.J.E. Peebles of > Princeton University. Dr. Peebles was (not is) an > associate of the late Dr. Robert H. Dicke (I dont > want to give the impression that Dr. Peebles passed > away, but it was Dr. Dicke that did). This is the > same Dicke that conducted the Eotvos Experiment that > forced post Einsteinian Relativity to abandon > Einsteins notion of relativistic mass and replace it > with the concept of invariant mass (that is no > different in principle from the mass defined by Newton > in Principia). Einstein used invariant mass. > Dr. Peebles was on the team led by Dicke that > correctly identified the enigmatic noise found by > Penzias and Wilson of Bell Labs, because this team was > already looking for the CMBR, but with inadequate > apparatus. (Their budget at Princeton was not very > generous, so they had to use a lot of surplus and/or > left over stuff from other past experiments and/or > scrounged stuff, whereas Bell Labs had a humungous > horn antenna left over from WW II experiments.) > Anyway, Dr. Peebles stated to the discomfort of most > cosmologists that: > > Science is following the snake-oil approach to > cosmology. > > So to continue with the topic under discussion, > not all empirical information is valid when > trying to fix (formulate) a theoretical idea. All the > Natural Phenomenon demonstrated by Nature are > conditional/relative truths. That is, these are true > only under the specific conditions, particular point > of view, and even the exact time that these are > demonstrated. For example: > > Mainline oceanography and scientists maintained that > the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, and > as the seas of the earth at the side facing the moon > are closer to the moon than the center of the earth, > the gravity of the moon pulls these seas harder that > it does the earth. So results in the high tide at the > side of the earth facing the moon. In a like manner, > the seas at the far side of the earth from the moon > are farther than is the center of the of the earth, > so the earth is pulled away from these seas to cause > the high tides at these places. > So this explains the high tide at the side of the > earth facing the moon and also the high tide at the > far side of the earth from the moon. > > This concept was in place for a very long time until > I introduced the notion that the tides at the far > side from the moon are the to the effects of inertia > due to the earth revolving about the barycenter of > the earth-moon pair almost 15 years ago on this very > newsgroup. Note that I did not state HIGH tides at > the far side from the moon, but just tides. Many > reference books and encyclopedias accepted this new > (at this time) idea and revised their text when > these where reprinted. > > I derived this concept when I discovered that > mainline science grossly misconstrues what Newton > wrote by a whole lot of inductive/deductive and > logical thinking, not by experimentation. No .. it has simply improved on what Newton discovered. Science advances. > However > I did live near the seas when I worked in California, > Florida, and New Jersey, and I now do live not far > from salt water. Furthermore, I did go salt water > fishing many times, and used the tide tables to > determine when it is best to go clam digging. So I > am also empirically aware of the tides. > > Now I see that many sites on the internet have > reverted back to the idea that the high tides at the > far side from moon are caused by the gravitation of > moon. > > So lets conduct a thought experiment, or an > empirical experiment if you wish, to find the truth. > So: > > Suppose that you are at, or actually go to Halifax, > Nova Scotia in Canada, and suppose you send a > scientist, or actually send one to Perth, Australia, > and also suppose you send another, or actually send > this other to Mount Young, Australia (that is > situated on the south-western shore of the Gulf of > Carpentaria that is in northern Australia. > > Now suppose you, or you actually to the shore of > the Atlantic Ocean when the tide tables predict a > high tide when you know that the moon will be > overhead. At the time that the tide tables predicts > the high tide, the moon will be at its highest point > (or very near highest point) in the sky. Suppose you > immediately, or actually immediately contact both > associates of...
From: cjcountess on 29 Jan 2010 10:37 D. Y. Kadoshima From my understanding of your post, you do not believe that (E=mc^2) or that (inertia mass = gravitational mass), and consequently that the inertia of a body does not depend on its energy content, because they do not influence each other, or at least they are not equivalent, is that correct interpretation? Conrad J Countess P.S. could you give direct link to Dr. Robert H. Dicke's collaborative evidence? I am curious because you sound so confident. Not that I want to debate you, but when people are as confident as yourself, they usually have good evidence and reason for it.
From: glird on 29 Jan 2010 13:17
On Jan 25, 10:27 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 9:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > cj: Even John Archibald Wheeler agrees with me, that E=hf/c^2 is a valid equation. ... and I have taken it out of the imaginary realm, into the real realm of natural units. ... You even deny that John Archibald Wheeler, uses the equation E=hf/ c^2, in a book, when it is right before your eyes. > > > > Show a link to the actual text. Because it is NOT a valid equation ... even a fool like Porat could see that. > > > > > Are you still in denial that E=hf/c^2 is a valid equation that even John A Wheeler uses? > > > Here is the link again,http://books.google.com > /books?id=PDA8YcvMc_QC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=e... I looked and found this, by Wheeler: "In conventional units, E_conv = hf ... . Divide by c^2 to convert to units of mass: E = hf/c^2." Accordingly, although Wheeler might not understand his own equations, he DID write this one, as Countess said. glird |