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 29 Jan 2010 18:55 On Jan 30, 5:17 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. And you'll note, as explained, that the E there is a value for MASS .. not an energy value. His use of E there was poor to the point of being misleading and wrong. Sayins E = hf/c^2 is a valid formula for energy is INCORRECT. It would be like saying E = ma is a valid formula for energy. It is only a valid formula if you are using E as a symbol for force (not energy).
From: kado on 29 Jan 2010 20:55 On Jan 29, 3:55 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > And you'll note, as explained, that the E there is a value for MASS .. > not an energy value. His use of E there was poor to the point of > being misleading and wrong. > > Sayins E = hf/c^2 is a valid formula for energy is INCORRECT. > > It would be like saying E = ma is a valid formula for energy. It is > only a valid formula if you are using E as a symbol for force (not > energy). How right you are. The following information may assist in the understanding of this particular topic of the validity of E = hf/c^2, and the subject that I am pursuing, i.e., the even more basic validity of Einstein's proof of E = mc^2 on which your topic sits. Both Drs. Dicke and Wheeler were very brilliant theorists/scientists. Furthermore, both contributed greatly to physics. Moreover, both were at Princeton University at the same time on several occasions during their careers, notable near the end of their lives. Nevertheless, there seems to have been huge, unbridgeable philosophical gap between these two gentlemen. Dr. Wheeler was a firm believer of Descartes proposition that mathematics drives physics. This is evident in his ardent support of Einsteins Special and especially the General Theories of Relativity. (Now realize that Einsteins theories are all based on mathematics, with absolutely no empirical experiments, just thought experiments. So it is POSSIBLE that Wheeler did not even question whether Einsteins proof that E = mc^2 is correct or not, and just accepted as true on faith. Please note that the last sentence is just a supposition of mine, I have no evidence one way or the other.) Nevertheless, this notion that Wheeler was entrenched in the validity of mathematics is also evident by the paths taken by his students, some that in turned out to be eminent theorists and scientists in themselves, e.g., Dr. Richard Feynman (just about everything, but notably particle physics), Dr. Kip Thorne (String Theory), and Dr. Hugh Everett III (Multiple Universes, that was initially formulated as an alternative to Bohrs Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that he [Everett] considered pure BS), the last two solely based on mathematics, and Feynman very heavy on math. Whether or not Wheeler believed in the Philosophy of Idealism or not is not important. However it is crucial to accept that Descartes did, and his proposition that math drives physics is solely based on this philosophy. On the other hand, Dr. Dicke and his colleagues (e.g., Drs. David T. Wilkinson [for whom the Microwave Anisotropy Probe was renamed the WMAP), Peter Roll, and P.J.E. Peebles [who I mentioned before, and may not get the acclaim he deserves from mainline cosmology because he (Pebbles) speaks the truth], his students and the students of his colleagues (e.g., Dr. George Smoot, who discovered a lot about the CMBR and the nature of the universe) are not so bent on the truth of mathematical physics, and thought similar to, or exactly like Isaac Newton. So these gentleman placed great emphasis on the Natural Phenomena exhibited by Nature, and the Natural Phenomenon demonstrated during and at the conclusion of empirical experiments. These theorist/scientists certainly did employ a lot of mathematics, but used it as a tool, not the driving concept. So it may be possible that Wheeler simply accepted Einstein's E = mc^2 on faith, and also rejected Dickes findings on principle. So it all boils down to what side of the fence you stand on. It is impossible to logically straddle this philosophical fence, because if you do, all your ideas are then pure BS and you are an idiot. In other words; you can accept either the Philosophy of Idealism or that formulated by Isaac Newton. These two are mutual exclusive, its one or the other. I think its pretty clear where I stand. There is one more very important fact I would like to bring up at this time. I conducted an empirical experiment to determine if the mathematics of the prevailing idea of the Principle of the Conservation of Momentum is correct or not. Even this simple idea of mainline science is empirically demonstrated as wrong. You can read all about it if and/or when my copyrighted manuscript is published. D.Y. Kadoshima
From: cjcountess on 30 Jan 2010 07:10 D.K.Y Why should energy, momentum, and force, have different equations? (F=mv^2), is essentialy (E=mc^2) and (1/2KE=mv^2) and (p=mv) is (F=mv) as many equations are just the universal inverse square law, with just a change in the simbol to specify the application. And furthemore, the difference between (F=mv^2) (F=mv) and (KE=1/2mv^2) could be clearified to show their sameness and difference, and make equations more simply understood. I think that (E=mc^2) is a valid equation for the "energy/mass" equivalence, mainly because geometricaly, (c^2) exibits a backward spinning, standing sphererical wave, making two rotations at right angle to eachother, with (spin 1/2), and angular momentum (h/2pi/2) and (-1 charge). It follows the logicaly and historical steps of 2) Einstein discovered (E=mc^2) for electron's/matter 3) de'Broglie discovered (E=hf=mc^2), for electron of -1 charge, and that electron was also a wave. 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to circumference of circle, with angular momentum of a multiple integer of (h/2pi), making it twice reinforced. And, it is so simple, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and corresponds with empericaly varified evidence, that I think it is statisticaly very improbable that it is not correct. And if I say so myself, it is a beautiful symetrical theory. Furthermore, (E=mc^2) = (F=mc^2) geometricaly, and demonstrates that the same law that compresses energy into matter, from (E=hf) to (E=mc^2), pushes matter to gravitate togather, at (F=mv^2 = F=Gmm / r^2) As it is clearly demonstrated that (G) the grvity constant = to (L/ T^2) = (c^2) which is the ultimate (L/T^2), on the quantum level. And just as energy created by c^2 as a balence of centripital and centrifugal forces, can also be measured as (cx2pi) with angular momentum of (h/2pi), (h/2pi/2 if it makes two rotations), clearly just as (r or radius x 2pi = cicumfrence), (c = h = r) in this case, and even = (sqrt -1), concerning the electron. The evidence is overwealming and there is really no way around it. (c^2 = h/2pi = G) and (c = h = i = 2pi) as new Planck relations THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING = Conrad J Countess
From: kado on 30 Jan 2010 16:12 On Jan 30, 4:10 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Why should energy, momentum, and force, have different equations? > Because these are different qualities. I can see that you do not understand this, but you had better accept this as a truth or you will always have uncertainties, and/or conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your understanding of, as put by Einstein; "the mind of God". D.Y.K.
From: cjcountess on 30 Jan 2010 17:41
On Jan 30, 4:12 pm, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jan 30, 4:10 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, and force, have different equations? > > Because these are different qualities. > > I can see that you do not understand this, > but you had better accept this as a truth > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > "the mind of God". > > D.Y.K. You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins Big Idea", on PBS Nova, but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at c^2. This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound discovery. You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct yourself, if you can get over your pride. Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand their likeness also. Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to do that, you must first understand your own mind. Conrad J Countess P.S. see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit. He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made up of its mass times its velocity, squared. Also notice the very first sentence of second parragraph, Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it collided with another Did Newton himself, equate force and energy? |