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: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 21:57 > 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 15 Feb 2010 18:08
On Feb 14, 6:57 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. Heat is a form of subatomic kinetic energy that can be radiated. It can cause the quantum jump. Mitch Raemsch |