Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 7 May 2010 01:11 On May 6, 2:52 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > hey, you used Einstein's original formulation, > A=mcc; cool, and that really explains every thing. > > thank you for your gold-plated theory, > aether is maether times teh second power of the speed of light! > Aether is equivalent to matter. Both aether and matter are different states of mæther. Conceptually, at least, aether is matter times the second power of the speed of light.
From: spudnik on 8 May 2010 17:01 yeah, OK; so what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?" what is the shape of the wave of light? > Conceptually, at least, aether is matter times the second power of the > speed of light. thus: spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra," meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces of the other, and vise versa. thus: the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone. thus: how about this: show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then, tackle the remaining primes. thus: NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, this is just the original "vectors." compare Lanczos' biquaternions with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability (of dimensionality !-) thus: try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or "go" to wlym.com. > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987, thus: the problem appears to be, "some observers measure the angle to the marker, relative to the other observers," which would not give you the distance *on a plane*, because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, triangulatin' that contested area .-) thus: notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. thus: sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may have read in an article about his retirement. > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > capNtrade e.g.). > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They can ?!?" * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; so?
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 18:09 On May 8, 5:01 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, OK; > so what is the difference between "energy" and "aether?" > Aether has mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther. Aether is a material. When mæther decompresses the effect this has is energy. You need to be able to differentiate between the cause and the effect. The transition of matter to aether is what physically occurs. The effects of this physical occurrence is energy. > what is the shape of the wave of light? > This is my preferred concept of a photon: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif Where the 'particle' moves within the wave similar to: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif What the image above is is the 'particle'. It occupies a very small region of the associated aether wave. > > Conceptually, at least, aether is matter times the second power of the > > speed of light. > > thus: > spatially, there are "mutually inscribed tetrahedra," > meaning that the vertices of one lie on the faces > of the other, and vise versa. > > thus: > the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if > one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect > (and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing, and > the calculus-launch problemma of the brachistochrone. > > thus: > how about this: > show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then, > tackle the remaining primes. > > thus: > NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_ > for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and > "three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but, > this is just the original "vectors." > > compare Lanczos' biquaternions > with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, > to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. > > "wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants," > totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism -- > time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability > (of dimensionality !-) > > thus: > try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or > "go" to wlym.com. > > > This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha, 1987, > > thus: > the problem appears to be, > "some observers measure the angle to the marker, > relative to the other observers," > which would not give you the distance *on a plane*, > because of similar trigona. Gauss meaasured the curvature > of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure > of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine, > triangulatin' that contested area .-) > > thus: > notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and > the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway, > I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy, > who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind. > > thus: > sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but > later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may > have read in an article about his retirement. > > > I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but > > I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," > > once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and > > others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, > > capNtrade e.g.). > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > --Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]: > "Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They > can ?!?" > * His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain; > so?
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 18:33 On May 6, 10:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 2:52 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > hey, you used Einstein's original formulation, > > A=mcc; cool, and that really explains every thing. > > > thank you for your gold-plated theory, > > aether is maether times teh second power of the speed of light! > > Aether is equivalent to matter. Both aether and matter are different > states of mæther. > > Conceptually, at least, aether is matter times the second power of the > speed of light. I see you have hijacked E=mc Squared. If not energy then why does aether relate to the square of the universal speed limit? Mitch Raemsch
From: Uncle Al on 8 May 2010 18:53
mpc755 wrote: [snip 100 lines of rap] > Aether has mass. > Aether is uncompressed m�ther. > Aether is a material. > When m�ther decompresses the effect this has is energy. idiot http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> No aether http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 No Lorentz violation idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |