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: Bill Hobba on 14 Feb 2010 00:38 On 14/02/2010 1:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: > On Feb 13, 9:48 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 14/02/2010 9:01 AM, mpc755 wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Feb 13, 5:20 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On 14/02/2010 12:26 AM, mpc755 wrote: >> >>>>> On Feb 13, 9:17 am, "Dono."<sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Feb 13, 6:03 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> '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 effects of 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. >> >>>>>>> The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on >>>>>>> the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably >>>>>>> modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is >>>>>>> matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume >>>>>>> between matter and aether.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>>> Imbecile. Autistic. Autistic imbecile. >> >>>>> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the >>>>> surrounding matter and aether. >> >>>>> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the >>>>> matter 'converts' to energy? >> >>>> I suspect he thinks about it correctly - that matter is just a different >>>> form of energy like heat is another form. That this is so follows from >>>> the modern defintion of energy based on Noethers Theorem. Note E=MC'2 >>>> does not say mass and energy are the same thing or that energy has mass >>>> - simply that it is another form of energy. >> >>>>> What happened to the mass associated with >>>>> the matter? Did it disappear? >> >>>> Nope - it was simply converted to another form of energy like heat >>>> energy for example can be converted to EM energy. No mystery involved. >> >>> And this is exactly the misunderstanding of what energy is that I am >>> discussing. Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is not a form of >>> energy. >> >> That is incorrect. It follows immediately from the modern definition of >> energy based on Noethers theorem and the relativistic free particle >> Lagrangian. You cant really argue with a definition. >> > > > Not sure who you are referring to when you say 'Noethers theorem', but > if you are referring to Einstein then you don't even understand his > stance on aether: It has nothing to do with Einstein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > unthinkable" - Albert Einstein That has been posted here innumerable times. First it is taken out of context. And secondly relativity has moved on quite a bit since Einsteins time. Regardless of what Einstein may or may not have thought neither SR nor GR requires an aether. Indeed in either theory the existence of such would be an adhoc assumption with zero physical basis or consequence. > > >> I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like >> something you grasp with your hand. > > > Energy is the result of physical actions. The physical action of > matter expanding into aether is energy. That is not the modern defintion - simple as that. It is very interesting to see posters who dont underantd the modern defitition and want to create their own. Thanks Bill > > >> Its not like that. As Feynman has >> said no one really knows what it is. > > I know exactly what it is. It is the physical effects matter > transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. > > > Feynman was also famous for saying no one understood a double slit > experiment. Seems like Feynman was more interested in not > understanding nature than understanding it. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In > a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the associated aether > displacement waves enters and exits the available slits and creates > interference upon exiting the slits. The C-60 molecule enters and > exits a single slit and the direction it travels is altered by the > interference it encounters when exiting the slits. Placing detectors > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether > displacement wave (turns it into chop) and there is no interference. > > >> We can define it, and the modern >> definition based on Noethers beautiful theorem is simply wonderful, but >> physicists don't know what it is really. >> > > > I do. > > > >> Thanks >> Bill >> >>> The effect matter transitioning to aether has on the >>> neighboring matter and aether is energy. The effect mass transitioning >>> from a compressed to an uncompressed state has on the surrounding mass >>> is energy. When matter transitions to aether the physical effect the >>> increase in volume the mass associated with the transition undergoes >>> is energy. >> >>> Mass is associated with a material substance. Matter and aether are >>> different states of this material substance. Matter is compressed >>> aether and aether is uncompressed matter. >> >>> When matter transitions to aether the effect the increase in volume >>> the mass associated with the transition undergoes is energy. >> >>> Energy is the physical effects associated with mass transitioning from >>> matter to aether. >> >>> Where matter is 'created' in the universe is where the pressure is >>> great enough to compress aether into matter. >> >>>> Thanks >>>> Bill >> >>>>> And if you say matter 'becomes' energy >>>>> then you still have the same issue of what happened to the mass >>>>> because energy is mass-less. >> >>>>> So, in E=mc^2, what happens to the mass? >> >>>>> In nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, when energy is created, is >>>>> there more, less, or the same amount of mass in existence in the >>>>> universe? >> >> >
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 00:55 On Feb 14, 12:38 am, Bill Hobba <bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 14/02/2010 1:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 9:48 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 14/02/2010 9:01 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On Feb 13, 5:20 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On 14/02/2010 12:26 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>> On Feb 13, 9:17 am, "Dono."<sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Feb 13, 6:03 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> '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 effects of 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. > > >>>>>>> The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on > >>>>>>> the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably > >>>>>>> modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is > >>>>>>> matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume > >>>>>>> between matter and aether.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>>>> Imbecile. Autistic. Autistic imbecile. > > >>>>> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > >>>>> surrounding matter and aether. > > >>>>> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the > >>>>> matter 'converts' to energy? > > >>>> I suspect he thinks about it correctly - that matter is just a different > >>>> form of energy like heat is another form. That this is so follows from > >>>> the modern defintion of energy based on Noethers Theorem. Note E=MC'2 > >>>> does not say mass and energy are the same thing or that energy has mass > >>>> - simply that it is another form of energy. > > >>>>> What happened to the mass associated with > >>>>> the matter? Did it disappear? > > >>>> Nope - it was simply converted to another form of energy like heat > >>>> energy for example can be converted to EM energy. No mystery involved. > > >>> And this is exactly the misunderstanding of what energy is that I am > >>> discussing. Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is not a form of > >>> energy. > > >> That is incorrect. It follows immediately from the modern definition of > >> energy based on Noethers theorem and the relativistic free particle > >> Lagrangian. You cant really argue with a definition. > > > Not sure who you are referring to when you say 'Noethers theorem', but > > if you are referring to Einstein then you don't even understand his > > stance on aether: > > It has nothing to do with Einstein:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem > > > > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > > unthinkable" - Albert Einstein > > That has been posted here innumerable times. First it is taken out of > context. And secondly relativity has moved on quite a bit since > Einsteins time. Regardless of what Einstein may or may not have thought > neither SR nor GR requires an aether. Indeed in either theory the > existence of such would be an adhoc assumption with zero physical basis > or consequence. > It is not taken out of context at all. If you read carefully everything Einstein ever said about ether the above quote accurately reflects Einstein's understanding of GR. As far as Einstein is concerned, according to GR, the theory he is responsible for, space without ether is unthinkable. You assume it is adhoc because you do not understand Einstein's understanding of GR. > > > >> I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like > >> something you grasp with your hand. > > > Energy is the result of physical actions. The physical action of > > matter expanding into aether is energy. > > That is not the modern defintion - simple as that. It is very > interesting to see posters who dont underantd the modern defitition and > want to create their own. > In terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. > Thanks > Bill > > > > >> Its not like that. As Feynman has > >> said no one really knows what it is. > > > I know exactly what it is. It is the physical effects matter > > transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. > > > Feynman was also famous for saying no one understood a double slit > > experiment. Seems like Feynman was more interested in not > > understanding nature than understanding it. > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In > > a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the associated aether > > displacement waves enters and exits the available slits and creates > > interference upon exiting the slits. The C-60 molecule enters and > > exits a single slit and the direction it travels is altered by the > > interference it encounters when exiting the slits. Placing detectors > > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether > > displacement wave (turns it into chop) and there is no interference. > > >> We can define it, and the modern > >> definition based on Noethers beautiful theorem is simply wonderful, but > >> physicists don't know what it is really. > > > I do. > > >> Thanks > >> Bill > > >>> The effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > >>> neighboring matter and aether is energy. The effect mass transitioning > >>> from a compressed to an uncompressed state has on the surrounding mass > >>> is energy. When matter transitions to aether the physical effect the > >>> increase in volume the mass associated with the transition undergoes > >>> is energy. > > >>> Mass is associated with a material substance. Matter and aether are > >>> different states of this material substance. Matter is compressed > >>> aether and aether is uncompressed matter. > > >>> When matter transitions to aether the effect the increase in volume > >>> the mass associated with the transition undergoes is energy. > > >>> Energy is the physical effects associated with mass transitioning from > >>> matter to aether. > > >>> Where matter is 'created' in the universe is where the pressure is > >>> great enough to compress aether into matter. > > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Bill > > >>>>> And if you say matter 'becomes' energy > >>>>> then you still have the same issue of what happened to the mass > >>>>> because energy is mass-less. > > >>>>> So, in E=mc^2, what happens to the mass? > > >>>>> In nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, when energy is created, is > >>>>> there more, less, or the same amount of mass in existence in the > >>>>> universe? > >
From: Bill Hobba on 14 Feb 2010 03:03 On 14/02/2010 3:55 PM, mpc755 wrote: > On Feb 14, 12:38 am, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 14/02/2010 1:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Feb 13, 9:48 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On 14/02/2010 9:01 AM, mpc755 wrote: >> >>>>> On Feb 13, 5:20 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 14/02/2010 12:26 AM, mpc755 wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 9:17 am, "Dono."<sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 6:03 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> '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 effects of 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. >> >>>>>>>>> The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on >>>>>>>>> the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably >>>>>>>>> modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is >>>>>>>>> matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume >>>>>>>>> between matter and aether.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>> Imbecile. Autistic. Autistic imbecile. >> >>>>>>> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the >>>>>>> surrounding matter and aether. >> >>>>>>> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the >>>>>>> matter 'converts' to energy? >> >>>>>> I suspect he thinks about it correctly - that matter is just a different >>>>>> form of energy like heat is another form. That this is so follows from >>>>>> the modern defintion of energy based on Noethers Theorem. Note E=MC'2 >>>>>> does not say mass and energy are the same thing or that energy has mass >>>>>> - simply that it is another form of energy. >> >>>>>>> What happened to the mass associated with >>>>>>> the matter? Did it disappear? >> >>>>>> Nope - it was simply converted to another form of energy like heat >>>>>> energy for example can be converted to EM energy. No mystery involved. >> >>>>> And this is exactly the misunderstanding of what energy is that I am >>>>> discussing. Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is not a form of >>>>> energy. >> >>>> That is incorrect. It follows immediately from the modern definition of >>>> energy based on Noethers theorem and the relativistic free particle >>>> Lagrangian. You cant really argue with a definition. >> >>> Not sure who you are referring to when you say 'Noethers theorem', but >>> if you are referring to Einstein then you don't even understand his >>> stance on aether: >> >> It has nothing to do with Einstein:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem >> >> >> >>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is >>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein >> >> That has been posted here innumerable times. First it is taken out of >> context. And secondly relativity has moved on quite a bit since >> Einsteins time. Regardless of what Einstein may or may not have thought >> neither SR nor GR requires an aether. Indeed in either theory the >> existence of such would be an adhoc assumption with zero physical basis >> or consequence. >> > > > It is not taken out of context at all. If you read carefully > everything Einstein ever said about ether the above quote accurately > reflects Einstein's understanding of GR. > > As far as Einstein is concerned, according to GR, the theory he is > responsible for, space without ether is unthinkable. > > You assume it is adhoc because you do not understand Einstein's > understanding of GR. That is simply incorrect. In his original SR paper he stated the aether was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. This issue has been discussed here innumerable times. Fortunately John Baez has laid the facts out bare: 'Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense, to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of "aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since, by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is an aether theory". Here's a typical claim of this sort: ...the aether is restored in General Relativity see Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether". Einstein recanted on his 1905 rejection of the aether since the mutable curved space-geometry is a dynamical object (with shift and lapse fields in ADM formulation), hence an aether. This claim is misleading, to say the least. What Einstein really meant was that the aether which had been overthrown by str (and thus was incompatible with gtr, which incorporates str) involved a a specific "preferred frame of reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the field equation of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean geometry of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries), much less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does not quite say there is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will be gravitational waves running about, and these carry (very tiny) amounts of energy, which gravitate. So in this sense, a very different kind of "aether" in the very weak sense of there being "something there" in a vacuum (namely nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric properties of "space" in a 3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to enter into gtr. In modern quantum field theories, of course, there are still more "things which are there" in a vacuum, but again these do not constitute an "aether" in the nineteenth century sense in which this word was used as a technical term. Einstein was criticizing people who claimed, in effect, that the classical notion of the aether was such nonsense that people like Maxwell should have known better. He was saying that the problem with the classical aether was not ontological, merely that it is inconsistent with observation and experiment; hence the need for str. Many years ago, Andrei Sakharov (yes, that Sakharov!) proposed to interpret gtr in terms of something like "stresses" on spacetime as something like a material. This is discussed in Chapter 17 of MTW, but here too, ill-informed readers of that theory have badly misunderstood the meaning of Sakharov's work.' While I am not a student of Einsteins work I have read his papers on relativity. And my reading indicates he did not believe in an aether in the sense you mean it - if at all. He certainly did not believe in anything that even remotely resembles what you write. > > >> >> >>>> I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like >>>> something you grasp with your hand. >> >>> Energy is the result of physical actions. The physical action of >>> matter expanding into aether is energy. >> >> That is not the modern defintion - simple as that. It is very >> interesting to see posters who dont underantd the modern defitition and >> want to create their own. >> > > > In terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect matter transitioning to > aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. It is obvious you don't even understand the modern definition of energy. But let us leave this aside for the moment. What is your detailed reasoning for the above statement? Thanks Bill > > >> Thanks >> Bill >> >> >> >>>> Its not like that. As Feynman has >>>> said no one really knows what it is. >> >>> I know exactly what it is. It is the physical effects matter >>> transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. >> >>> Feynman was also famous for saying no one understood a double slit >>> experiment. Seems like Feynman was more interested in not >>> understanding nature than understanding it. >> >>> A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In >>> a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the associated aether >>> displacement waves enters and exits the available slits and creates >>> interference upon exiting the slits. The C-60 molecule enters and >>> exits a single slit and the direction it travels is altered by the >>> interference it encounters when exiting the slits. Placing detectors >>> at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether >>> displacement wave (turns it into chop) and there is no interference. >> >>>> We can define it, and the modern >>>> definition based on Noethers beautiful theorem is simply wonderful, but >>>> physicists don't know what it is really. >> >>> I do. >> >>>> Thanks >>>> Bill >> >>>>> The effect matter transitioning to aether has on the >>>>> neighboring matter and aether is energy. The effect mass transitioning >>>>> from a compressed to an uncompressed state has on the surrounding mass >>>>> is energy. When matter transitions to aether the physical effect the >>>>> increase in volume the mass associated with the transition undergoes >>>>> is energy. >> >>>>> Mass is associated with a material substance. Matter and aether are >>>>> different states of this material substance. Matter is compressed >>>>> aether and aether is uncompressed matter. >> >>>>> When matter transitions to aether the effect the increase in volume >>>>> the mass associated with the transition undergoes is energy. >> >>>>> Energy is the physical effects associated with mass transitioning from >>>>> matter to aether. >> >>>>> Where matter is 'created' in the universe is where the pressure is >>>>> great enough to compress aether into matter. >> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Bill >> >>>>>>> And if you say matter 'becomes' energy >>>>>>> then you still have the same issue of what happened to the mass >>>>>>> because energy is mass-less. >> >>>>>>> So, in E=mc^2, what happens to the mass? >> >>>>>>> In nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, when energy is created, is >>>>>>> there more, less, or the same amount of mass in existence in the >>>>>>> universe? >> >> >
From: Androcles on 14 Feb 2010 03:30 "Bill Hobba" <bhobba(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4b77ae52$0$67823$c30e37c6(a)pit-reader.telstra.net... > On 14/02/2010 3:55 PM, mpc755 wrote: >> On Feb 14, 12:38 am, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 14/02/2010 1:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 13, 9:48 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On 14/02/2010 9:01 AM, mpc755 wrote: >>> >>>>>> On Feb 13, 5:20 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/02/2010 12:26 AM, mpc755 wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 9:17 am, "Dono."<sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 6:03 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> '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 effects of 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. >>> >>>>>>>>>> The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether >>>>>>>>>> has on >>>>>>>>>> the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could >>>>>>>>>> probably >>>>>>>>>> modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is >>>>>>>>>> matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in >>>>>>>>>> volume >>>>>>>>>> between matter and aether.- Hide quoted text - >>> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>> >>>>>>>>> Imbecile. Autistic. Autistic imbecile. >>> >>>>>>>> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the >>>>>>>> surrounding matter and aether. >>> >>>>>>>> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the >>>>>>>> matter 'converts' to energy? >>> >>>>>>> I suspect he thinks about it correctly - that matter is just a >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> form of energy like heat is another form. That this is so follows >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> the modern defintion of energy based on Noethers Theorem. Note >>>>>>> E=MC'2 >>>>>>> does not say mass and energy are the same thing or that energy has >>>>>>> mass >>>>>>> - simply that it is another form of energy. >>> >>>>>>>> What happened to the mass associated with >>>>>>>> the matter? Did it disappear? >>> >>>>>>> Nope - it was simply converted to another form of energy like heat >>>>>>> energy for example can be converted to EM energy. No mystery >>>>>>> involved. >>> >>>>>> And this is exactly the misunderstanding of what energy is that I am >>>>>> discussing. Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is not a form of >>>>>> energy. >>> >>>>> That is incorrect. It follows immediately from the modern definition >>>>> of >>>>> energy based on Noethers theorem and the relativistic free particle >>>>> Lagrangian. You cant really argue with a definition. >>> >>>> Not sure who you are referring to when you say 'Noethers theorem', but >>>> if you are referring to Einstein then you don't even understand his >>>> stance on aether: >>> >>> It has nothing to do with >>> Einstein:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem >>> >>> >>> >>>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is >>>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein >>> >>> That has been posted here innumerable times. First it is taken out of >>> context. And secondly relativity has moved on quite a bit since >>> Einsteins time. Regardless of what Einstein may or may not have thought >>> neither SR nor GR requires an aether. Indeed in either theory the >>> existence of such would be an adhoc assumption with zero physical basis >>> or consequence. >>> >> >> >> It is not taken out of context at all. If you read carefully >> everything Einstein ever said about ether the above quote accurately >> reflects Einstein's understanding of GR. >> >> As far as Einstein is concerned, according to GR, the theory he is >> responsible for, space without ether is unthinkable. >> >> You assume it is adhoc because you do not understand Einstein's >> understanding of GR. > > That is simply incorrect. In his original SR paper he stated the aether > was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. This > issue has been discussed here innumerable times. Fortunately John Baez has > laid the facts out bare: > > 'Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some injudicious > comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said to ascribe > physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense, to involve a > kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of "aether" which had > been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century, but his > remarks have been seized upon ever since, by various cranks and other > ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is an aether theory". Here's a > typical claim of this sort: > > ...the aether is restored in General Relativity see Einstein's 1924 > essay "On the Aether". Einstein recanted on his 1905 rejection of the > aether since the mutable curved space-geometry is a dynamical object (with > shift and lapse fields in ADM formulation), hence an aether. > > This claim is misleading, to say the least. What Einstein really meant > was that the aether which had been overthrown by str (and thus was > incompatible with gtr, which incorporates str) involved a a specific > "preferred frame of reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the > field equation of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean > geometry of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries), > much less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does not quite say there > is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will be gravitational > waves running about, and these carry (very tiny) amounts of energy, which > gravitate. So in this sense, a very different kind of "aether" in the very > weak sense of there being "something there" in a vacuum (namely > nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric properties of "space" in > a 3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to enter into gtr. In modern > quantum field theories, of course, there are still more "things which are > there" in a vacuum, but again these do not constitute an "aether" in the > nineteenth century sense in which this word was used as a technical term. > > Einstein was criticizing people who claimed, in effect, that the > classical notion of the aether was such nonsense that people like Maxwell > should have known better. He was saying that the problem with the > classical aether was not ontological, merely that it is inconsistent with > observation and experiment; hence the need for str. > > Many years ago, Andrei Sakharov (yes, that Sakharov!) proposed to > interpret gtr in terms of something like "stresses" on spacetime as > something like a material. This is discussed in Chapter 17 of MTW, but > here too, ill-informed readers of that theory have badly misunderstood the > meaning of Sakharov's work.' > > While I am not a student of Einsteins work I have read his papers on > relativity. And my reading indicates he did not believe in an aether in > the sense you mean it - if at all. He certainly did not believe in > anything that even remotely resembles what you write. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like >>>>> something you grasp with your hand. >>> >>>> Energy is the result of physical actions. The physical action of >>>> matter expanding into aether is energy. >>> >>> That is not the modern defintion - simple as that. It is very >>> interesting to see posters who dont underantd the modern defitition and >>> want to create their own. >>> >> >> >> In terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect matter transitioning to >> aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. > > It is obvious you don't even understand the modern definition of energy. > But let us leave this aside for the moment. What is your detailed > reasoning for the above statement? > > Thanks > Bill > >> >> >>> Thanks >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Its not like that. As Feynman has >>>>> said no one really knows what it is. >>> >>>> I know exactly what it is. It is the physical effects matter >>>> transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. >>> >>>> Feynman was also famous for saying no one understood a double slit >>>> experiment. Seems like Feynman was more interested in not >>>> understanding nature than understanding it. >>> >>>> A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In >>>> a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the associated aether >>>> displacement waves enters and exits the available slits and creates >>>> interference upon exiting the slits. The C-60 molecule enters and >>>> exits a single slit and the direction it travels is altered by the >>>> interference it encounters when exiting the slits. Placing detectors >>>> at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether >>>> displacement wave (turns it into chop) and there is no interference. >>> >>>>> We can define it, and the modern >>>>> definition based on Noethers beautiful theorem is simply wonderful, >>>>> but >>>>> physicists don't know what it is really. >>> >>>> I do. >>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Bill >>> >>>>>> The effect matter transitioning to aether has on the >>>>>> neighboring matter and aether is energy. The effect mass >>>>>> transitioning >>>>>> from a compressed to an uncompressed state has on the surrounding >>>>>> mass >>>>>> is energy. When matter transitions to aether the physical effect the >>>>>> increase in volume the mass associated with the transition undergoes >>>>>> is energy. >>> >>>>>> Mass is associated with a material substance. Matter and aether are >>>>>> different states of this material substance. Matter is compressed >>>>>> aether and aether is uncompressed matter. >>> >>>>>> When matter transitions to aether the effect the increase in volume >>>>>> the mass associated with the transition undergoes is energy. >>> >>>>>> Energy is the physical effects associated with mass transitioning >>>>>> from >>>>>> matter to aether. >>> >>>>>> Where matter is 'created' in the universe is where the pressure is >>>>>> great enough to compress aether into matter. >>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Bill >>> >>>>>>>> And if you say matter 'becomes' energy >>>>>>>> then you still have the same issue of what happened to the mass >>>>>>>> because energy is mass-less. >>> >>>>>>>> So, in E=mc^2, what happens to the mass? >>> >>>>>>>> In nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, when energy is created, is >>>>>>>> there more, less, or the same amount of mass in existence in the >>>>>>>> universe? >>> >>> >> > Still the same old stupid ignorant bigot you always were, Hobba... *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill- filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been restored to the list. I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 08:26
On Feb 14, 3:03 am, Bill Hobba <bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 14/02/2010 3:55 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Feb 14, 12:38 am, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 14/02/2010 1:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On Feb 13, 9:48 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On 14/02/2010 9:01 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>> On Feb 13, 5:20 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 14/02/2010 12:26 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 9:17 am, "Dono."<sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 6:03 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> '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 effects of 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. > > >>>>>>>>> The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on > >>>>>>>>> the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably > >>>>>>>>> modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is > >>>>>>>>> matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume > >>>>>>>>> between matter and aether.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>>>>>> Imbecile. Autistic. Autistic imbecile. > > >>>>>>> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > >>>>>>> surrounding matter and aether. > > >>>>>>> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the > >>>>>>> matter 'converts' to energy? > > >>>>>> I suspect he thinks about it correctly - that matter is just a different > >>>>>> form of energy like heat is another form. That this is so follows from > >>>>>> the modern defintion of energy based on Noethers Theorem. Note E=MC'2 > >>>>>> does not say mass and energy are the same thing or that energy has mass > >>>>>> - simply that it is another form of energy. > > >>>>>>> What happened to the mass associated with > >>>>>>> the matter? Did it disappear? > > >>>>>> Nope - it was simply converted to another form of energy like heat > >>>>>> energy for example can be converted to EM energy. No mystery involved. > > >>>>> And this is exactly the misunderstanding of what energy is that I am > >>>>> discussing. Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is not a form of > >>>>> energy. > > >>>> That is incorrect. It follows immediately from the modern definition of > >>>> energy based on Noethers theorem and the relativistic free particle > >>>> Lagrangian. You cant really argue with a definition. > > >>> Not sure who you are referring to when you say 'Noethers theorem', but > >>> if you are referring to Einstein then you don't even understand his > >>> stance on aether: > > >> It has nothing to do with Einstein:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem > > >>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > >>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein > > >> That has been posted here innumerable times. First it is taken out of > >> context. And secondly relativity has moved on quite a bit since > >> Einsteins time. Regardless of what Einstein may or may not have thought > >> neither SR nor GR requires an aether. Indeed in either theory the > >> existence of such would be an adhoc assumption with zero physical basis > >> or consequence. > > > It is not taken out of context at all. If you read carefully > > everything Einstein ever said about ether the above quote accurately > > reflects Einstein's understanding of GR. > > > As far as Einstein is concerned, according to GR, the theory he is > > responsible for, space without ether is unthinkable. > > > You assume it is adhoc because you do not understand Einstein's > > understanding of GR. > > That is simply incorrect. In his original SR paper he stated the aether > was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. 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.htm "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. 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. It is obvious you are going to choose to remain ignorant and not understand the above and that is fine if that is what you choose. But you can't expect me to not understand something I understand. I choose not to belong to the Feynman camp. I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment. |