Physical Explanation for E=mc^2
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
Next: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely youcan't be serious.
From: BURT on 14 Feb 2010 20:25 On Feb 14, 1:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In [Einstein's] original SR paper he stated the aether > > was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. > > Albert Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: > > http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf > > Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an > absolutely stationary space was superfluous: > > http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel... > > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place." > > This is completely consistent with every other statement Einstein made > about the aether. Including but not limited to, "the state of the > [ether] is at every place determined by the connections with the > matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places". > > It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to > understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can > continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but > I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. > > DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. > Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear > fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to > aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I > understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit > experiment. He got rid of the aether because it was unneeded for computation in SR. But he brought it back later in his life and said that it was absolutely neccesary. There is more than one aether together. And primary space aether does not move. Evidently if your qoute is right he recongnised another moving aether but didn't know the difference. Space aether doesn't move but is a pushing aether to matter. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 14 Feb 2010 20:28 On Feb 14, 5:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 1:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > In [Einstein's] original SR paper he stated the aether > > > was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. > > > Albert Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: > > >http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf > > > Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an > > absolutely stationary space was superfluous: > > >http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel... > > > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be > > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, > > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > > electromagnetic processes take place." > > > This is completely consistent with every other statement Einstein made > > about the aether. Including but not limited to, "the state of the > > [ether] is at every place determined by the connections with the > > matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places". > > > It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to > > understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can > > continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but > > I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. > > > DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > and matter is energy. > > > The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. > > Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear > > fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to > > aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > > I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I > > understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit > > experiment. > > He got rid of the aether because it was unneeded for computation in > SR. But he brought it back later in his life and said that it was > absolutely neccesary. > > There is more than one aether together. And primary space aether does > not move. > Evidently if your qoute is right he recongnised another moving aether > but didn't know the difference. Space aether doesn't move but is a > pushing aether to matter. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But time aether pushes light and not matter. Light is the Unified force. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 20:28 > And that is saying an ether is superfluous - which is the general view > he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is - > this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His > injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally > different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments > want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare. Why is John Baez interpretation of Einstein more accurate then Einstein's own words? It's not. Einstein's words speak for themselves. I guess I will have to keep posting Einstein's own words to reflect Einstein's thoughts on ether and you can keep posting John Baez's. And what about this 'first paper' of Einstein's? Are you just going to deny its existence? Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf Einstein's definition of the aether as not being an absolutely stationary space is the following: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Here are more Einstein statements, in his own words, in support of ether. "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether" "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity." "But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. Obviously, you are going to choose to remain in the Feynman camp and choose to remain ignorant of what occurs physically in E=mc^2 and what occurs physically in a double slit experiment. I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 20:32 > And that is saying an ether is superfluous - which is the general view > he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is - > this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His > injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally > different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments > want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare. Why is John Baez interpretation of Einstein more accurate then Einstein's own words? It's not. Einstein's words speak for themselves. I guess I will have to keep posting Einstein's own words to reflect Einstein's thoughts on ether and you can keep posting John Baez's. And what about this 'first paper' of Einstein's? Are you just going to deny its existence? Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf Einstein's definition of the aether as not being an absolutely stationary space is the following: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Here are more Einstein statements, in his own words, in support of ether. "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether" "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity." "But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. Obviously, you are going to choose to remain in the Feynman camp and choose to remain ignorant of what occurs physically in E=mc^2 and what occurs physically in a double slit experiment. I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: BURT on 14 Feb 2010 21:48
On Feb 14, 5:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > And that is saying an ether is superfluous - which is the general view > > he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is - > > this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His > > injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally > > different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments > > want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare. > > Why is John Baez interpretation of Einstein more accurate then > Einstein's own words? It's not. Einstein's words speak for themselves. > > I guess I will have to keep posting Einstein's own words to reflect > Einstein's thoughts on ether and you can keep posting John Baez's. > > And what about this 'first paper' of Einstein's? Are you just going to > deny its existence? Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: > > http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf > > Einstein's definition of the aether as not being an absolutely > stationary space is the following: > > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > Here are more Einstein statements, in his own words, in support of > ether. > > "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory > of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the > existence of an ether" > > "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of > ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > relativity." > > "But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in > favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to > assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation > of light" > > It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to > understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can > continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but > I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. > > DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. > Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear > fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to > aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > Obviously, you are going to choose to remain in the Feynman camp and > choose to remain ignorant of what occurs physically in E=mc^2 and what > occurs physically in a double slit experiment. I understand what > occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I understand what occurs > physically in nature in a double slit experiment. I am remaining in no man's camp. Aether is one and the design is in flow and push. Mitch Raemsch |