Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 19:09 On May 8, 3:53 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > [snip 100 lines of rap] > > > Aether has mass. > > Aether is uncompressed mæther. > > Aether is a material. > > When mæther 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 Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Infinitely dense energy C squared is mass of a point particle of the infinitely small. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 8 May 2010 20:33 On May 8, 6:33 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Because matter expands when it decompresses. Think of: A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter as volume.
From: spudnik on 9 May 2010 00:40 you need to differentiate cause & effect, and I'm sure that you are able to. as it stands, your theory does nothing, at all. > When mæther decompresses the effect this has is energy. > You need to be able to differentiate between the cause and the effect. thus: it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and that is your only real problem. admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one that goes faster in denser media .-) more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, no mass, no momentum QED .-) > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed > the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. 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." so, compare Lanczos' biquaternions with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. anyway, "worldlines" 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: Gore *and* the UNIPCC got a Nobel; so, that was obviously because the energy companies *love* the Kyoto Protocol (and all other capNtrade schemes, Waxman's '91 bill on NOx and SO2 e.g.) whenthenat the Anthropocene, it is clear that human landscape changes are the greatest effects on the weather and CO2 concebtrations, less-so the use of Fossilized Fuels (TM; Obnoxico). as for the "holes in the ozonosphere," there is utterly no evidence that they never existed, before we launched a satellite (TOMS) to look at it; also, they are really just patterns of weather: how many "holes" are there in teh ozonosphere, at any given time? so, combine the two models, "global" warming and "holes" in the ozonosphere, and you've got a good, first-pass computerized simulacrum of a "glass house," which has been missing since Ahrrenius defined the term, and did *not* get the first Nobel for it. thus: "photons" are the only thing -- 0-dimensional massless particles, thought to exist til Kaluza and stringtheory -- that can "go" at c with no momentum, because they are not waves. in particular, they are not the "plane waves" of math-phys idealization, because they always have a curvature, no matter how far they "go" from the source. how is a wave (quantum) of light emitted from the whole surface (quantum) of a Sun? personally, I do not believe in Wikipedia or the googolplex, so that such an "event" makes no difference, at all. but, if you try to ignore dimensional analysis, you're being silly. thus: 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 9 May 2010 08:06
On May 9, 12:40 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > you need to differentiate cause & effect, and > I'm sure that you are able to. as it stands, > your theory does nothing, at all. > That is exactly what my theory is doing. Energy is not the cause. Energy is the effect of decompressing mæther. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. I named this material mæther. Aether is decompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. Anti-matter or anti-mæther are inadequate concepts. Think of an electron and positron as both consisting of mæther but being exact opposites (i.e. mirror images) of one another. When the electron and positron 'annihilate' one another the mæther which is both the electron and the positron converts to aether. The physical effects caused by the conversion is energy. The mass associated with both the electron and positron still exists, as aether. A more correct term would be opposite-matter or opposite-mæther, since a particle and its opposite both consist of mæther. Aether and energy are not the same. Aether is a state of mæther. Aether has mass. In terms of E=mc^2, the physical effects of mæther decompressing (i.e. matter converting to aether) is energy. Mæther decompressing is the cause. Energy is the effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power "The basic concept behind any fusion reaction is to bring two or more atoms close enough together so that the residual strong force (nuclear force) in their nuclei will pull them together into one larger atom. If two light nuclei fuse, they will generally form a single nucleus with a slightly smaller mass than the sum of their original masses. The difference in mass is released as energy according to Albert Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc^2." The released mass is decompressed mæther. The released mass is aether. Mass is conserved. > > When mæther decompresses the effect this has is energy. > > You need to be able to differentiate between the cause and the effect. > > thus: > it is too bad that U.Al cannot engage in debate, because > he certainly has a valid "point" about the duality, and > that is your only real problem. > > admittedly, it is more of a quandary with fullerenes, but > there is not even any "where," there, with the "photon" > -- unless you think that a Nobel is an adequate laurel, > to resurrect Sir Isaac's nutty corpuscle (the one > that goes faster in denser media .-) > > more precisely, E's neologism of "quantum > of light, I shall call, photon," does not neccesitate that > "the photon must be a particle (zero-dimensional, > no mass, no momentum QED .-) > > > I have the experimental evidence. Whenever an experiment is performed > > the particle is always detected exiting a single slit. > > 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." so, > compare Lanczos' biquaternions > with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure, > to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion. anyway, > "worldlines" 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: > Gore *and* the UNIPCC got a Nobel; so, that was obviously because > the energy companies *love* the Kyoto Protocol (and > all other capNtrade schemes, Waxman's '91 bill on NOx and SO2 e.g.) > > whenthenat the Anthropocene, it is clear that > human landscape changes are the greatest effects > on the weather and CO2 concebtrations, less-so the use > of Fossilized Fuels (TM; Obnoxico). > > as for the "holes in the ozonosphere," > there is utterly no evidence that they never existed, > before we launched a satellite (TOMS) to look at it; also, > they are really just patterns of weather: > how many "holes" are there in teh ozonosphere, > at any given time? > > so, combine the two models, "global" warming and > "holes" in the ozonosphere, and you've got a good, > first-pass computerized simulacrum of a "glass house," > which has been missing since Ahrrenius defined the term, and > did *not* get the first Nobel for it. > > thus: > "photons" are the only thing > -- 0-dimensional massless particles, > thought to exist til Kaluza and stringtheory -- > that can "go" at c with no momentum, because > they are not waves. in particular, > they are not the "plane waves" of math-phys idealization, because > they always have a curvature, no matter how far they "go" > from the source. > > how is a wave (quantum) of light emitted from the whole surface > (quantum) > of a Sun? > > personally, I do not believe in Wikipedia or the googolplex, so that > such an "event" makes no difference, at all. but, if > you try to ignore dimensional analysis, you're being silly. > > thus: > 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? |