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 09:10 On Feb 14, 3:03 am, Bill Hobba <bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. 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.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. 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. 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.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 13:08 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. > 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.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. 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.
From: BURT on 14 Feb 2010 14:14 On Feb 13, 1:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 4:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 3:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 13, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 7:41 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 certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*. > > > > > > > > Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to > > > > > > > measure it with. > > > > > > > Ah, so you CHOOSE to believe that mass is conserved, even though > > > > > > measurement says otherwise, and you CHOOSE to believe that the mass > > > > > > that appears missing has been hidden somewhere where it can't be > > > > > > measured. You can't confirm that with experimental measurement, but > > > > > > you CHOOSE to believe it anyway. > > > > > > You do confirm the mass still exists because of the energy. > > > > > Energy is not mass. The measured mass is changed. > > > > > > Mass is > > > > > conserved in nature. > > > > > No, it's not. There's not a lick of experimental evidence that says > > > > that mass is conserved. > > > > You believe it is anyway, but you want to hide it somewhere where it > > > > can't be measured. > > > > > > In E=mc^2, the energy is the effect the matter > > > > > transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether. > > > > > > You CHOOSE to believe the mass 'becomes' energy. > > > > > I CHOOSE to believe the physical transformation of matter to energy is > > > > > energy. > > > > If you existed in water and could not detect the water directly and an > > > ice cube melted does the mass associated with the ice cube still > > > exist? > > > You mean if I hypothetically supposed something about not being able > > to detect something I can detect, and then I hypothetically supposed > > this undetectable water existed anyway, would I be able to > > hypothetically surmise that the hypothetically conserved mass was > > associated with the hypothetically supposed water that I > > hypothetically cannot detect? > > You detect the water still exists because of the energy created. The > energy created is the measurable physical effect of ice transitioning > to liquid water. > > The water consists of many particles of ice. When one of the ice > particles melts, the effect this transition of the ice has on the > neighboring ice and water is energy. There are physical effects > occurring. The physical effects of the ice transitioning to liquid > water is energy. > > The aether consists of particles of matter. When the matter > transitions to aether, the effect this transition of matter to aether > has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. There are physical > effects occurring. The physical effects of the matter transitioning to > aether is energy. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you believe in invisible gremlins too? > > > > > > > > As Einstein said, all we can do is measure the state > > > > > > > of the aether and the state of the aether is determined by its > > > > > > > connections to the matter and the state of the matter in neighboring > > > > > > > places. > > > > > > > > When a body gives off energy and its mass diminishes the overall mass > > > > > > > in existence in the universe remains constant. > > > > > > > > > Do you need a place to hide matter so that it escapes measurement but > > > > > > > > where you can still choose to believe it still exists? > > > > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy has two states. One is infinitely concentrated and the other is finite. Aether rate effects energy but not the other way around. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 14:47 > > In [Einsgtein'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.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 14:49
> 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. |