Einstein's energy formula E=mc^2 is WRONG!
meda
for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
Q.E.D.
Androcles
"meda" <me...@topkale.net> wrote in message news:fbthqd$tv3$1...@aioe.org...
: Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong,
You are round the fucking twist.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
John Christiansen
"meda" <me...@topkale.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:fbthqd$tv3$1...@aioe.org...
Christian Schröder
> You are round the fucking twist.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
Nice try. By the way there's a little error in your "calculation". First
of all you have to define your m. Is it the rest mass or the
relativistiv mass? And then you have to distinguish between them.
Have fun!
Christian
Christian Schröder
> You are round the fucking twist.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
Nice try. By the way there's a little error in your "calculation". First
Martin Hogbin
> for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> 1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> 1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> 1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
No! This is wrong.
The correct relationships are:
Paper has more energy than stone.
Stone has more energy than metal.
Metal has more energy than paper.
--
Martin Hogbin
Androcles
"Christian Schröder" <mailfuer...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:fbtoh1$jou$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
: Androcles schrieb:
I don't have to do anything of the kind. By the way there's a little error
in your
"relativity". First of all you have to define your t. Is it the rest time
or the
relativistiv time? And then you have to distinguish between them.
Have fun!
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
Christian Schröder
the frame of reference) by the sentence: "[...] the projectiles fly
apart with equal and opposite momenta mv and -vm, each with KE = ½mv2.
[...]"
But therewith the relativistic energy-momentum equation (in usual
notation) is _not_ E² = m²c² + p²c² in general. (This equation holds
only for p = 0.)
And then I don't get your message.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Christian Schröder" <mailfuer...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:fbtrdq$t9o$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Perhaps have a look at Androcles contributions and MO at
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Enjoy!
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Christian Schröder" <mailfuerchrist...@gmx.de> wrote in messagenews:fbtrdq$t9o$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Moortel Moortel does the following discovery of Master Tom Roberts's
deserve a place among your fumbles?
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
Pentcho Valev
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1189247396.5...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Moortel Moortel does the following discovery of Master Tom Roberts's
> deserve a place among your fumbles?
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
> Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
> nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
> speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
> Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
> of applicability would be reduced)."
Yes, it absolutely deserves a place:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DeservePlace.html
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1189247396.5...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Moortel Moortel how about this:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ac686b4b365dee16?
Pentcho Valev: "CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?"
Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
Pentcho Valev
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1189249212.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Moortel Moortel how about this:
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ac686b4b365dee16?
> Pentcho Valev: "CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
> GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?"
> Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
> measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
> you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
> for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
> gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
>
> Pentcho Valev
We already have established that Pentcho Valev does not understand
and refuses to even try to understand the differences between:
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
Exercise for the interested reader (by definition excluding Poncho):
Which differences are ignored in this specific message?
Dirk Vdm
Jeckyl
news:ctsEi.58863$xp6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "meda" <me...@topkale.net> wrote in message news:fbthqd$tv3$1...@aioe.org...
> : Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong,
>
> You are round the fucking twist.
I don't usually agree with you .. but when you're right, you're right :)
Jeckyl
>Moortel Moortel does the following discovery of Master Tom Roberts's
>deserve a place among your fumbles?
>
>http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
>Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
>nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
>speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
>Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
>of applicability would be reduced)."
Oh no .. he's back with his Tom Roberts obsession. I thought we'd lost
Pencho .. guess that was too much to hope for.
Androcles
: Okay, I'm sorry. I just noticed that you actually did define your m (and
If you want to argue the "relativistic energy-momentum equation (in usual
notation) E² = m²c² + p²c² in general" then you'll have to take that up with
some idiots who claim it is, Christian, although what the point of
squaring energy is somewhat eludes me.
In the meantime calculate the total energy in this situation:
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
As to a message, the moron who claimed:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
and then built a crackpot theory on his ridiculous "definition" is
the only "relativistic" message you need.
PD
> Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
> for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> 1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> 1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> 1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
Interesting....
What experimental results tell you this?
>
> You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> Q.E.D.
And what exactly was it that you were trying to demonstrate here? You
certainly demonstrated something, I just am not sure if it is what you
intended.
Pmb
> for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
Since when? I can tell you that they have the same amount of energy. But I
bet you're thinking about the chemical energy released when you burn them.
Is that correct? If so that is not that E_0 = mc^2 means.
> 1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> 1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> 1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
Same with all of these. In each case E = mc^2
>
> You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> Q.E.D.
You have found no such error. Einstein's derivation is basically in the
following link
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
I simplified it. The simplification does not effect the results and it is
still a general result. If you were correct then you'd be able to find an
error in that derivationn. Please find this so-called "error."
Pete
Daryl McCullough
Don't they teach anything in school these days? The above
rules don't work for just *any* kind of metal, it has to
be formed into *scissors*.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Daryl McCullough
>
>Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
>for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
>1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
>1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
>1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
But what's heavier, a kilogram of iron, or a kilogram of feathers?
Vahagn
> for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> 1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> 1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> 1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
> You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> Q.E.D.
what you mean while saying 1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1
kg earth... ?
May be you mean burning? But Einstein formula doesn't describe
burning!!! It describes highest possible energy that you can obtain if
you separate it into light. Burning is chemical reaction. The
problem is that you don't distinguish chemical and physical energies.
Igor
If you had said that 1 kg of your brain has much less energy than 1 kg
of stone then you probably would have met with wide acceptance around
here.
Asp Explorer
AAAAAAAAAAAA ma gauche, Albert Einstein, prix nobel, découvreur de la
théorie de la relativité, à ma droite Pentcho Valev, cuistre, raté
notoire et ignorant patenté. Qui va remporter cette impitoyable joute de
l'esprit ? Le suspense est insoutenable, mais avant ça, le combat du
siècle entre Mike Tyson et Woody Allen !
--
C'est à l'heure du repas
qu'on voit les boules du chat
Henri Wilson
Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
energy.
The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that is....and
nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
Pmb
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:dbs6e39bcie7do3th...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:08:18 +0200, "meda" <me...@topkale.net> wrote:
>
>>Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
>>for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
>>1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
>>1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
>>1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>>
>>You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
>>Q.E.D.
>
> Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
> energy.
>
> The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that
> is....and
> nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
Says who? The accuracy has been measured by measuring nuclear reactions -
i.e. masses of nucleons before and comparing them with the final nucleon
masses and the resulting energy changes etc.
Pete
Dirk Van de moortel
"Asp Explorer" <lpxepsa_...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:46e2fc2e$0$6907$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net...
> Pentcho Valev a écrit : d'invraisemblables sornettes.
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAA ma gauche, Albert Einstein, prix nobel, découvreur de la théorie de la relativité, à ma droite Pentcho Valev,
> cuistre, raté notoire et ignorant patenté. Qui va remporter cette impitoyable joute de l'esprit ? Le suspense est insoutenable,
> mais avant ça, le combat du siècle entre Mike Tyson et Woody Allen !
Remplace par Woody Woodpecker.
Dirk Vdm
NoEinstein
Guys: If a mass-any mass-could be 100% converted to energy, the
quantity would most likely be identical, regardless of the material.
I said, "most likely", because this agrees with my own reasoning, not
because anyone has ever tested stone vs. gray matter.
Einstein's GR equation says nothing about the amount of energy (what
unit, etc.), only that there is "a lot" of energy. The first atom
bomb test made Einstein say, "See, I was right!" But his SR equation
is wrong. There is zero mass increase due to velocity below .9c.
Above .9c, there can be a mass increase in some particles, but this
is due to the particle banging into the ether-even inside a perfect
vacuum. Take away the ether-impact mass increase, and there is zero
mass increase due to any velocity, even at 100c [which my research
shows is the velocity that humans may one day traverse the universe-no
worm holes or warped space-time required.]
Einstein didn't know the difference between "seems like" and "is".
Since a high speed mass impacts harder than a slow one, he said (ha,
ha) that high speed masses are more massive. His theory would create
matter from-thin-air, just by making it go very fast. Would his
matter be steel, or gray matter.? Probably not the latter, because as
hard as he tried, Einstein was never able to increase the size of his
own brain just by calling himself a scientist. Those of you who keep
defending the man aren't increasing your gray matter either-just not
putting it to very good use. - NoEinstein -
Randy Poe
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:08:18 +0200, "meda" <m...@topkale.net> wrote:
> >Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
> >for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> >1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> >1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> >1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>
> >You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> >Q.E.D.
>
> Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
> energy.
>
> The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that is....and
> nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
You mean there's never been a creation or annihilation experiment,
an experiment in which photons combine to particle-antiparticle pairs,
an experiment in which pairs annihilate to create photons?
Are you sure?
- Randy
Henri Wilson
That's right... In nuclear transitions, it is only the release of 'binding
energy' that shows up as a mass change.
>Pete
Henri Wilson
Pretty sure.
For example, when a gamma particle decays into a +/- pair, the energy of the
gamma is calculated from the behavior of end products....similarly when gammas
are produced with an associated mass loss.
I doubt if the exact energy and MASS of the gamma can be assessed in any other
way.
> - Randy
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Christian Schröder" <mailfuer...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>news:fbtrdq$t9o$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>: Okay, I'm sorry. I just noticed that you actually did define your m (and
>: the frame of reference) by the sentence: "[...] the projectiles fly
>: apart with equal and opposite momenta mv and -vm, each with KE = ½mv2.
>: [...]"
>:
>: But therewith the relativistic energy-momentum equation (in usual
>: notation) is _not_ E² = m²c² + p²c² in general. (This equation holds
>: only for p = 0.)
>:
>: And then I don't get your message.
>:
>: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>If you want to argue the "relativistic energy-momentum equation (in usual
>notation) E² = m²c² + p²c² in general" then you'll have to take that up with
>some idiots who claim it is, Christian, although what the point of
>squaring energy is somewhat eludes me.
>
>In the meantime calculate the total energy in this situation:
> http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
>
>As to a message, the moron who claimed:
>'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
>light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
>to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
>agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
>dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Drop it, A.
Einstein knew this was right because his friend Ritz convinced him it was.
...and according to BaTh, IT IS RIGHT...as YOU of all people should know...
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
>
>and then built a crackpot theory on his ridiculous "definition" is
>the only "relativistic" message you need.
Einstein actually got this right BUT for the wrong reasons.
He did it to make the aether redundant even though he firmly believed it
existed.
Eric Gisse
>On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:32:33 -0700, Randy Poe <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 9, 12:11 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:08:18 +0200, "meda" <m...@topkale.net> wrote:
>>> >Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
>>> >for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
>>> >1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
>>> >1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
>>> >1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>>>
>>> >You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
>>> >Q.E.D.
>>>
>>> Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
>>> energy.
>>>
>>> The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that is....and
>>> nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
>>
>>You mean there's never been a creation or annihilation experiment,
>>an experiment in which photons combine to particle-antiparticle pairs,
>>an experiment in which pairs annihilate to create photons?
>>
>>Are you sure?
>
>Pretty sure.
Another tragic case of saying something stupid that could have been
averted by spending ten minutes in a library..
Randy Poe
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:54:12 GMT, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 9, 12:11 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:08:18 +0200, "meda" <m...@topkale.net> wrote:
> >>> >Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
> >>> >for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> >>> >1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> >>> >1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> >>> >1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>
> >>> >You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> >>> >Q.E.D.
>
> >>> Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
> >>> energy.
>
> >>> The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that is....and
> >>> nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
>
> >>You mean there's never been a creation or annihilation experiment,
> >>an experiment in which photons combine to particle-antiparticle pairs,
> >>an experiment in which pairs annihilate to create photons?
>
> >>Are you sure?
>
> >Pretty sure.
>
> Another tragic case of saying something stupid that could have been
> averted by spending ten minutes in a library..
Or 10 seconds on Google, using the key words I dropped.
- Randy
Y.Porat
> Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
> for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> 1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> 1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> 1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>
> You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> Q.E.D.
---------------
your above assuption is wrong
because E=mc^2 is right
ONLY IF YOU EXAUSTED ALL THE ENERGY
FROM THE MASS!!
it is not the case in burning coal
and you didnt make an experiment
of exausting all the mass to energy
of iron or sand
the most you dis is extarcting only
A PART OF THAT MASSS - TO ENERGY !!
so untill now
E=mc^2
is th emost important fromula of the 20 th century!
and probably will be forever
(i have many doubts about the dominant common physics
but not as far as denying the momentous formula
E=mc^2 !!!)
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 04:42:17 -0400, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> >news:dbs6e39bcie7do3th...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
> >>>for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> >>>1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> >>>1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> >>>1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>
> >>>You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> >>>Q.E.D.
>
> >> Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
> >> energy.
>
> >> The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that
> >> is....and
> >> nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
>
> >Says who? The accuracy has been measured by measuring nuclear reactions -
> >i.e. masses of nucleons before and comparing them with the final nucleon
> >masses and the resulting energy changes etc.
>
> That's right... In nuclear transitions, it is only the release of 'binding
> energy' that shows up as a mass change.
>
Really? How about electron-positron annihilation into photons and
there to J/psi or B-Bbar production?
PD
PD
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:32:33 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 9, 12:11 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:08:18 +0200, "meda" <m...@topkale.net> wrote:
> >> >Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
> >> >for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> >> >1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> >> >1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> >> >1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>
> >> >You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> >> >Q.E.D.
>
> >> Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
> >> energy.
>
> >> The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that is....and
> >> nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
>
> >You mean there's never been a creation or annihilation experiment,
> >an experiment in which photons combine to particle-antiparticle pairs,
> >an experiment in which pairs annihilate to create photons?
>
> >Are you sure?
>
> Pretty sure.
> For example, when a gamma particle decays into a +/- pair, the energy of the
> gamma is calculated from the behavior of end products....similarly when gammas
> are produced with an associated mass loss.
>
> I doubt if the exact energy and MASS of the gamma can be assessed in any other
> way.
>
Then your doubts stem from simple ignorance.
Henri Wilson
Really! How about you find out how the energy is balanced on both sides of the
equation....
>PD
Henri Wilson
OK smartarse, if you know so much, tell us how the energy of a gamma particle
is measured...
Henri Wilson
You morons know nothing......that's why you are suckers for Einsteiniana....
Randy Poe
Well, one keyword that will tell you a lot via google is "gamma ray
spectrometer". The moon was surveyed with such an instrument, which
used the abundance of different energies of gamma rays to determine
what radioisotopes are present in what quantities.
So along those lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Ray_Spectrometer
The second titled "How GRS works" describes several different
technologies for measuring gamma ray energy.
Here's a detector sent to Mars:
http://grs.lpl.arizona.edu/content/about/gamma
The first paragraph describes the energy measurement.
Here's a commercial portable GRS you can buy and
play with yourself.
http://www.picoenvirotec.com/html/portable_spectrometer.html#PortableSpecTop
Time to locate these links: the time it took to type "gamma
ray spectrometer" into Google.
- Randy
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----------------
you must do not only the energy baalnce
between the two sides of the equations
but
**to add to it the mass balance as well **
and if you do that
E=mc^2 is superbly right !!
ATB
Y.Porar
---------------------
PD
You're the one that doesn't know how to measure the energy of a gamma
other than daughter particle reconstruction.
Paul B. Andersen
Displaying your ignorance and stupidity again, Henri? :-)
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/public/bigbang/file9.html
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/nytimes.html
Paul
Pmb
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 04:42:17 -0400, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:dbs6e39bcie7do3th...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:08:18 +0200, "meda" <me...@topkale.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
>>>>for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
>>>>1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
>>>>1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
>>>>1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>>>>
>>>>You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
>>>>Q.E.D.
>>>
>>> Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
>>> energy.
>>>
>>> The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that
>>> is....and
>>> nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
>>
>>Says who? The accuracy has been measured by measuring nuclear reactions -
>>i.e. masses of nucleons before and comparing them with the final nucleon
>>masses and the resulting energy changes etc.
>
> That's right... In nuclear transitions, it is only the release of 'binding
> energy' that shows up as a mass change.
But you're claiming that it *only* applies to binding energy. It applies to
all forms of energy except potential energy of position. That it works for
all bodies whose energy changes is demonstrated in the derivation of that
relation. For example: If you charge a capacitor then the energy of the
capacitor increases but the number of electrons, protons etc remain the
same. But the mass will increase because energy is added.
Pete
Pmb
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Pair production and annihilation are observed phenomena, i.e. the process
has been observed in laboratory experiments.
Pete
NoEinstein
Dear Y.Porat: "Einstein's" formula is actually copied from the 1830
equation of Coriolis, KE = 1/2mv^2 (Einstein dropped the 1/2 to
disguise his plagiarism.). I have disproved Coriolis's equation. The
correct formula is: F = (a/g)m + (v/32.174)m. This is a linear rate
of energy increase with respect to velocity--not a parabolic
increase. - NoEinstein -
Y.Porat
> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>
> news:v8q8e3h2iri1bvuna...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 04:42:17 -0400, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> >>news:dbs6e39bcie7do3th...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>Einstein's (rest) energy formula E=mc^2 is wrong, because
> >>>>for example: 1 kg coal has definitely more energy than 1 kg paper...
> >>>>1 kg iron has definitely more energy than 1 kg earth...
> >>>>1 kg steel has definitely more energy than 1 kg stone...
> >>>>1 kg gold has definitely more energy than 1 kg glass
>
> >>>>You see, we have found another error of this §$!& Einstein!... :-)
> >>>>Q.E.D.
>
> >>> Actually, nobody has ever proved that ALL matter can be turned into mc^2
> >>> energy.
>
> >>> The formula is only known to apply to 'bonding energy', whatever that
> >>> is....and
> >>> nobody has ever proved that it is accurate, even there.
>
> >>Says who? The accuracy has been measured by measuring nuclear reactions -
> >>i.e. masses of nucleons before and comparing them with the final nucleon
> >>masses and the resulting energy changes etc.
>
> > That's right... In nuclear transitions, it is only the release of 'binding
> > energy' that shows up as a mass change.
>
> But you're claiming that it *only* applies to binding energy. It applies to
> all forms of energy except potential energy of position. That it works for
> all bodies whose energy changes is demonstrated in the derivation of that
> relation. For example: If you charge a capacitor then the energy of the
> capacitor increases but the number of electrons, protons etc remain the
> same. But the mass will increase because energy is added.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
----------
right
so energy has mass!!
and there is only one kind of mass
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Jeckyl
news:1189586516.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> right
> so energy has mass!!
For an object at rest
E = mc^2
Where E is the rest energy. and m is the invariant (or rest)mass
> and there is only one kind of mass
If by 'mass' you mean something with units of mass (kilograms in SI) .. then
the invariant mass is not the only mass you can calculate for a system.
But if you mean what is meant by the word 'mass' (on its own) and the symbol
'm' , then yes, there is only one thing meant by that be convention, and
that is the invariant (or proper, or rest) mass.
Pmb
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:13efkfs...@corp.supernews.com...
I've posted three derivations on E=mc^2. For those interested in reading
them they are at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0308039
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/einsteins_box.htm
I'll upload some papers on the derivation of E=mc^2 and its meaning. It
should be up later this afternoon.
Pete
gu...@hotmail.com
> "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13efkfs...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:1189586516.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> >> right
> >> so energy has mass!!
>
> > For an object at rest
>
> > E = mc^2
>
> > Where E is the rest energy. and m is the invariant (or rest)mass
>
> >> and there is only one kind of mass
>
> > If by 'mass' you mean something with units of mass (kilograms in SI) ..
> > then the invariant mass is not the only mass you can calculate for a
> > system.
>
> > But if you mean what is meant by the word 'mass' (on its own) and the
> > symbol 'm' , then yes, there is only one thing meant by that be
> > convention, and that is the invariant (or proper, or rest) mass.
>
> I've posted three derivations on E=mc^2. For those interested in reading
> them they are at
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0308039http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/einsteins_box.htm
>
Not bad. Plagerism is when you take someone else "radiation" emission
and redemonstrate it using a different "radiation" in a box example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
In the paper of 1900 Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical
object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction, as
predicted by Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. He remarked that the
stream of radiation appeared to act like a "fictitious fluid" with a
mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other
words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2.
> I'll upload some papers on the derivation of E=mc^2 and its meaning. It
> should be up later this afternoon.
>
PD
Heh heh heh
> (Einstein dropped the 1/2 to
> disguise his plagiarism.).
Hee hee ha ha heh heh heh
> I have disproved Coriolis's equation.
Ha Ha Ha ha hee hee hee hee
> The
> correct formula is: F = (a/g)m + (v/32.174)m.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
> This is a linear rate
> of energy increase with respect to velocity--not a parabolic
> increase.
Which is counter to the experimental evidence supplied in driver's
education classes given to 14-year-olds -- see stopping distance as a
function of speed.
PD
Pmb
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189603057.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 7:56 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13efkfs...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1189586516.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> >> right
> >> so energy has mass!!
>
> > For an object at rest
>
> > E = mc^2
>
> > Where E is the rest energy. and m is the invariant (or rest)mass
>
> >> and there is only one kind of mass
>
> > If by 'mass' you mean something with units of mass (kilograms in SI) ..
> > then the invariant mass is not the only mass you can calculate for a
> > system.
>
> > But if you mean what is meant by the word 'mass' (on its own) and the
> > symbol 'm' , then yes, there is only one thing meant by that be
> > convention, and that is the invariant (or proper, or rest) mass.
>
> I've posted three derivations on E=mc^2. For those interested in reading
> them they are at
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0308039http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/einsteins_box.htm
>
>Not bad. Plagerism is when you take someone else "radiation" emission
>and redemonstrate it using a different "radiation" in a box example.
What a load of crap. IT is implied that Einstein derived the equation first.
Any fool can tell you that. The second link is actuall *called* einsteins
_box.htm
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
>In the paper of 1900 Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical
>object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction, as
>predicted by Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. He remarked that the
>stream of radiation appeared to act like a "fictitious fluid" with a
>mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other
>words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2.
That's a well know fact. What of it? Einstein didn't copy that, that's for
sure. His first derivation had a totally different meaning than this.
Einstein's box appears to be similar but you'd have to produce both articles
in English so they can be analyzed side by side. At worst Einstein was
unaware of it, but only a crackpot would claim anyone plagerized here.
You're not even clear on whom you are claiming plagerized someone. Are you
claiming I plagerized Einstein or that Einstein plagerized someone else? If
so where's the proof that he intentionally did so. Otherwise, at least to
me, its not plagerism
Pete
Henri Wilson
Don't be silly. The gamma's energy is calculated from the equation on the
assumption that the E= mc^2 is correct.
>ATB
>Y.Porar
>---------------------
Henri Wilson
That's the theory...but nobody has ever measured such a change.
Henri Wilson
These are generally based on absorption rates through a medium. They measure an
average and don't know how many gammas are originally involved nor their
individual energies.
Henri Wilson
All full of assumptions and theories....
>Paul
Henri Wilson
that's what I'm saying.
Gamma energy is inferred as the sum of that of the produced particles.
>Pete
Pmb
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
That doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
Nobody has ever seen a neuron in your brain. But I think its safe to say
that they're there, right?
Pete
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD: I get the last laugh, because I have proved my equation
experimentally. Such correctly predicts the height from which a metal
clevis pin must be dropped so that its KE matches the inertia of a
larger pin. Then, the small pen stays in contact long enough that the
sound goes "clunk". [Please see my earlier post: Where Angels Fear to
Fall.]
Your car stopping distance may be "close" to E = 1/2mv^2, but such
measures both the KE, AND the velocity-influenced pavement friction.
Having TWO variables influenced by velocity causes the results to be
parabolically distributed.
Since laughter is the best medicine, you should be more healthy
because of me! - NoEinstein -
Eric Gisse
You have got to be joking.
PD
Then publish it. Be sure to note that the relationship E=1/2mv^2 works
in 2,349,742 applications, and you've demonstrated that yours (maybe)
works in one.
Oh, and have you demonstrated that conservation of energy does NOT
work in your experimental setup? Be sure to publish that as well.
This may be the point where reviewer comments might be useful to you.
> Such correctly predicts the height from which a metal
> clevis pin must be dropped so that its KE matches the inertia of a
> larger pin. Then, the small pen stays in contact long enough that the
> sound goes "clunk". [Please see my earlier post: Where Angels Fear to
> Fall.]
>
> Your car stopping distance may be "close" to E = 1/2mv^2, but such
> measures both the KE, AND the velocity-influenced pavement friction.
> Having TWO variables influenced by velocity causes the results to be
> parabolically distributed.
>
> Since laughter is the best medicine, you should be more healthy
> because of me! - NoEinstein -- Hide quoted text -
Pmb
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1189646252....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>Dear PD: I get the last laugh, because I have proved my equation
>experimentally.
What experiment is it that you claim to have done and what is this equation
you're referring to?
>Since laughter is the best medicine, you should be more healthy
>because of me! - NoEinstein -
Its nice to laugh and it is good for the health. But crazy people laugh too.
Laughter doesn't tell us you're right. It often tells us that the person
can't see beyond his own nose. That's a general rule. I don't know you well
enough to determine if it applies to you. But I'm pretty tired of people
laughing at each other. Its rude.
Pete
Pmb
"Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:euadnY8OWrl3Tnrb...@comcast.com...
I have uploaded the files. They are at
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ under the section labeled
"Interesting Articles on Mass".
If anyone would like to read any of the articles under the section labeled
"Debate on "Proper Mass" vs. "Relativistic Mass"
Then please let me know. I took them out to save space but I no longer have
a need for that space so I can upload them again. But it seems a waste of
time if there's nobody who wants to read them.
Best regards
Pete.
gu...@hotmail.com
> <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189603057.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 7:56 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:13efkfs...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1189586516.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > >> right
> > >> so energy has mass!!
>
> > > For an object at rest
>
> > > E = mc^2
>
> > > Where E is the rest energy. and m is the invariant (or rest)mass
>
> > >> and there is only one kind of mass
>
> > > If by 'mass' you mean something with units of mass (kilograms in SI) ..
> > > then the invariant mass is not the only mass you can calculate for a
> > > system.
>
> > > But if you mean what is meant by the word 'mass' (on its own) and the
> > > symbol 'm' , then yes, there is only one thing meant by that be
> > > convention, and that is the invariant (or proper, or rest) mass.
>
> > I've posted three derivations on E=mc^2. For those interested in reading
> > them they are at
>
>
> >Not bad. Plagerism is when you take someone else "radiation" emission
> >and redemonstrate it using a different "radiation" in a box example.
>
> What a load of crap. IT is implied that Einstein derived the equation first.
> Any fool can tell you that. The second link is actuall *called* einsteins
> _box.htm
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
> >In the paper of 1900 Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical
> >object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction, as
> >predicted by Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. He remarked that the
> >stream of radiation appeared to act like a "fictitious fluid" with a
> >mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other
> >words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2.
>
> That's a well know fact. What of it? Einstein didn't copy that, that's for
> sure. His first derivation had a totally different meaning than this.
> Einstein's box appears to be similar but you'd have to produce both articles
> in English so they can be analyzed side by side. At worst Einstein was
> unaware of it, but only a crackpot would claim anyone plagerized here.
> You're not even clear on whom you are claiming plagerized someone. Are you
> claiming I plagerized Einstein or that Einstein plagerized someone else? If
> so where's the proof that he intentionally did so. Otherwise, at least to
> me, its not plagerism
>
Einstein E = Mc^2 using radiation in a box model. That's the plagarism
not you.
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:90sge3d38sukd7upq...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:08:24 -0400, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>But you're claiming that it *only* applies to binding energy. It applies
>>>to
>>>all forms of energy except potential energy of position. That it works for
>>>all bodies whose energy changes is demonstrated in the derivation of that
>>>relation. For example: If you charge a capacitor then the energy of the
>>>capacitor increases but the number of electrons, protons etc remain the
>>>same. But the mass will increase because energy is added.
>>
>> That's the theory...but nobody has ever measured such a change.
>
>That doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
It means YOUR above statement doesn't mean a heck of a lot.....
In the absence of proof, a 'theory' is nothing but a postulate or a guess.
>Nobody has ever seen a neuron in your brain. But I think its safe to say
>that they're there, right?
>
>Pete
>
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
PD
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:58:31 -0400, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> >news:90sge3d38sukd7upq...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>But you're claiming that it *only* applies to binding energy. It applies
> >>>to
> >>>all forms of energy except potential energy of position. That it works for
> >>>all bodies whose energy changes is demonstrated in the derivation of that
> >>>relation. For example: If you charge a capacitor then the energy of the
> >>>capacitor increases but the number of electrons, protons etc remain the
> >>>same. But the mass will increase because energy is added.
>
> >> That's the theory...but nobody has ever measured such a change.
>
> >That doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
>
> It means YOUR above statement doesn't mean a heck of a lot.....
>
> In the absence of proof, a 'theory' is nothing but a postulate or a guess.
>
Then you're visiting the wrong group. You may want sci.math or
sci.logic, where there are proofs. There are no proofs of theories in
science -- any science. There are only theories supported by evidence,
and those which are discarded because they are in conflict with
evidence. For the latter you have, for example, BaTh. If you expect
physics to provide you PROOF of theories, then it's time to go back to
an introductory science book -- say one for 7th graders.
PD
Jeckyl
news:1189721966.9...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Only if he copied it. Not if he devloped it himself. The only thing being
'plagiarised' is reality .. both of them 'copie'd what reality showed them.
Pmb
In those days there was a paper shortage due to WW-I and Einstein did not
have a lot of access to the literature. Its more likely than not that he
never saw it. There's a ton of stuff published in science every month. Even
back then I'd wager that it was impossible to even peruse all physics
journals every month.
Pete
Pmb
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:58:31 -0400, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:90sge3d38sukd7upq...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:08:24 -0400, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>But you're claiming that it *only* applies to binding energy. It applies
>>>>to
>>>>all forms of energy except potential energy of position. That it works
>>>>for
>>>>all bodies whose energy changes is demonstrated in the derivation of
>>>>that
>>>>relation. For example: If you charge a capacitor then the energy of the
>>>>capacitor increases but the number of electrons, protons etc remain the
>>>>same. But the mass will increase because energy is added.
>>>
>>> That's the theory...but nobody has ever measured such a change.
>>
>>That doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
>
> It means YOUR above statement doesn't mean a heck of a lot.....
Why is that? Do you really believe that the acceptance of a postulate
depends on all possible experiments regarding that postulte be carried out?
If so then I recommend that you read more about the philosophy of science.
When all experiments that have been done are consistent with the result E_0
= mc^2 (m = proper mass) then that theory gains more and more acceptance
with every experiment. With the great number of experiments that have been
done which are consistent with that formular then it is a fair statement
that it will hold in the general case under which the equation was derived.
> In the absence of proof, a 'theory' is nothing but a postulate or a guess.
If you believe that anything can be proved, expecially in science, then you
don't really understand the scientific method. Nothing can be proved in
physics, *nothing*! So why should this be any different?
>
>>Nobody has ever seen a neuron in your brain. But I think its safe to say
>>that they're there, right?
Why didn't you answer this question? It was not a rhetorical question but a
question that required a response.
Pete
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------
you can put it another way
to be more specific:
***there is no 'relativistic mass'***!!
relativistic mass was a misinterpretation
of some formula
and if there is no relativistic mass
E= hf
has mass !! (:-)
(provided yo u are not short sighted (mentally )
or not a parrot !!)
Y.P
-------------------------------
Jeckyl
> On Sep 12, 2:48 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189586516.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > right
>> > so energy has mass!!
>>
>> For an object at rest
>>
>> E = mc^2
>>
>> Where E is the rest energy. and m is the invariant (or rest)mass
>>
>> > and there is only one kind of mass
>>
>> If by 'mass' you mean something with units of mass (kilograms in SI) ..
>> then
>> the invariant mass is not the only mass you can calculate for a system.
>>
>> But if you mean what is meant by the word 'mass' (on its own) and the
>> symbol
>> 'm' , then yes, there is only one thing meant by that be convention, and
>> that is the invariant (or proper, or rest) mass.
>
> --------------
> you can put it another way
> to be more specific:
>
> ***there is no 'relativistic mass'***!!
There is ..its just not terribly useful
> relativistic mass was a misinterpretation
> of some formula
Not really. Of course, you do realise that the vast majority of what
physcis deals with is claculations and models .. eg speed is something we
calcualte from different measurements of position and time .. speed is not
something directly measureable in reality .. its a concept.
Relativstic mass is similarly a concept. It is the equiavlaent or apparent
mass and object has when moving .. it is the amount of mass that would give
rise to the momentum, energy etcthat we observe
> and if there is no relativistic mass
>
> E= hf
> has mass !! (:-)
No .. just the opposite really. It is BECAUSE there is suc ha concept as
realtivistic mass (or at least relativistic momenum) that there are mass
units there. The formula has a constant and a frequency and energy, and
there are units (or dimensions) of mass in those .. but there is no 'm=rest
mass of a photon' anywhere in that formula. Any interpreation of a mass
dimension there comes from the mass dimension in the E .. and the value for
that unit comse from the relativistic momentum in E = pc .. and if one does
want ot consider the relativistic/inertial/apparent/mass, you can say that
that in turn comes from the relativistic mass (M) in p = Mc, and the E =
Mc^2.
So basically, your noticing mass dimensions in the energy there is dueto the
very relativistic mass of a photon you keep saying doesn't exist .. not the
zero value for rest/invariant/proper mass of a photon.
> (provided yo u are not short sighted (mentally )
> or not a parrot !!)
Like you? .. no, thankfully I have a brain and tend to use it. It's not in
retirement like yours.
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
-------------------
a parrot will always remain a parrot!
and more a lawyer than a physicist
in
E=hf
for all cases in which E and F are not zero
there is nothing to multiply trhe mass dimansion
by zero
even not by a stupid idoot croock and leech like you
Y.P
---------------------
Jeckyl
And you'll remain an idiot
> and more a lawyer than a physicist
> in
> E=hf
> for all cases in which E and F are not zero
> there is nothing to multiply trhe mass dimansion
> by zero
That does not mean that (rest) mass of a photon is no zero .. the mass of a
photon does not appear anywhere in that equation. There is energy and
frequency and a constant.
The (rest) mass does appear in
E = gamma m c^2
But the zero mass and the infinite gamma mean that you can't do anything
with that to work out the energry of a photon, because any non-negative
value for energy will work there.
However, E = hf DOES give us the energy of a photon for a given frequency,
From that you can use E = pc to get the momemtum
And you can use p = gamma.m.c to work out what value (gamma.m) is.
None of that means the rest mass is non-zero .. indeed, the whole thing
fails if the rest mass WAS non-zero. It has to be zero for photons to
travel at c.
It's really quite simple really
> even not by a stupid idoot croock and leech like you
I know you love me.
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------
imbecil idiot parrot!
if E=hf has in it the 1.0000 kilogram mass--
mul;tiplyed by 6.6 ^-34
it is a nonzero figure
go learn once and for aalll
how a physics formula is built and used
so at last youhave no chouice but to admit at least
that the energy of the photon HAS MASS
th eonly thing an idiot like you
(and others actually do it)
is to say
Oh yess it mas mass
'but it is 'relativistic mass'!!
now since even idiot seralized that there is jsut one kind of mass
therefore it cant be nothing but 'invariant mass'
or any name youwill call it
but still it will be the one kind of mass !!
if you invent another kind of mass
it is your private physics
no ne alowed you to uinvent new kinds of mass
(based on idiotic understandings of
physical formulas
so now
change your fake name again
and come back witha new name
and a new sane nonparoting personality
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Jeckyl
Typical porat response when he can't argue with the physics.
> if E=hf has in it the 1.0000 kilogram mass--
It doens't
> mul;tiplyed by 6.6 ^-34
> it is a nonzero figure
> go learn once and for aalll
> how a physics formula is built and used
> so at last youhave no chouice but to admit at least
> that the energy of the photon HAS MASS
Whatever you think, uneducated cretin. there is no point in talking physics
with the likes of you .. you just don't have the mental capacity to
understand it.
[snip more crap from the shit heap porat uses from a brain]
PD
> On Sep 14, 11:38 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> ------------
> imbecil idiot parrot!
>
> if E=hf has in it the 1.0000 kilogram mass--
> mul;tiplyed by 6.6 ^-34
> it is a nonzero figure
You mean to tell me that the energy of a photon is related to a
platinum-iridium cylinder kept in a vault in France? What did the
photon do for energy before the cylinder was made?
PD
Al in Dallas
wrote:
What a horror show! I can't imagine the hell he put his subordinates
through--unless he hid his nuttiness.
--
Al in St. Lou
PD
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:32:22 -0000, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>
It's not clear to me that, even though he is now retired, Porat ever
had subordinates. In fact, his intense need to leave behind a legacy
in an area where he has no training or aptitude (see his frequent
claims on copyrights to ideas, unaware that an idea cannot be
copyrighted) would suggest that his influence in his work-a-day life
was on the limited side.
PD
Henri Wilson
idiot...
>
>PD
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:h8gje3dor48hh0dfv...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:58:31 -0400, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>relation. For example: If you charge a capacitor then the energy of the
>>>>>capacitor increases but the number of electrons, protons etc remain the
>>>>>same. But the mass will increase because energy is added.
>>>>
>>>> That's the theory...but nobody has ever measured such a change.
>>>
>>>That doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
>>
>> It means YOUR above statement doesn't mean a heck of a lot.....
>
>Why is that? Do you really believe that the acceptance of a postulate
>depends on all possible experiments regarding that postulte be carried out?
The complete acceptance, yes, more or less...
>If so then I recommend that you read more about the philosophy of science.
>When all experiments that have been done are consistent with the result E_0
>= mc^2 (m = proper mass) then that theory gains more and more acceptance
>with every experiment. With the great number of experiments that have been
>done which are consistent with that formular then it is a fair statement
>that it will hold in the general case under which the equation was derived.
..but like I said, this is generally limited only to bonding energy...
Not many experments involve the complete conversion of mass to energy or vice
versa...that's my point.
Mc^2 applies for instance when Uranium decays to lead...but nobody has turned a
whole gram of lead into energy....
>> In the absence of proof, a 'theory' is nothing but a postulate or a guess.
>
>If you believe that anything can be proved, expecially in science, then you
>don't really understand the scientific method. Nothing can be proved in
>physics, *nothing*! So why should this be any different?
This is nonsense. I don't know where you people keep on getting these strange
ideas.
As said to bz, do you stil think thunder follows a lightning strike because the
gods are angry?
I would say the theory that thunder follows lightning is 100% correct for
reasons 100% understood, wouldn't you?
>>>Nobody has ever seen a neuron in your brain. But I think its safe to say
>>>that they're there, right?
>
>Why didn't you answer this question? It was not a rhetorical question but a
>question that required a response.
I would say the term 'neuron' is too ill-defined to be considered as a theory.
Pmb
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:36:31 -0400, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:h8gje3dor48hh0dfv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:58:31 -0400, "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>relation. For example: If you charge a capacitor then the energy of
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>capacitor increases but the number of electrons, protons etc remain
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>same. But the mass will increase because energy is added.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the theory...but nobody has ever measured such a change.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
>>>
>>> It means YOUR above statement doesn't mean a heck of a lot.....
>>
>>Why is that? Do you really believe that the acceptance of a postulate
>>depends on all possible experiments regarding that postulte be carried
>>out?
>
> The complete acceptance, yes, more or less...
Of course you're entitled to your opinion but your opinion is in
disagreement with all of science. It is impossible to carry out all possible
experiments. That's one of the reasons that science is unble to prove
anything. A true scientist would know that. The only proof that I'm aware of
that science can give is to start with the assumption that certain
postulates are true and then use them to derive a result.
>>If so then I recommend that you read more about the philosophy of science.
>>When all experiments that have been done are consistent with the result
>>E_0
>>= mc^2 (m = proper mass) then that theory gains more and more acceptance
>>with every experiment. With the great number of experiments that have been
>>done which are consistent with that formular then it is a fair statement
>>that it will hold in the general case under which the equation was
>>derived.
>
> ..but like I said, this is generally limited only to bonding energy...
You can make any claim you want. But if you're going to stick to this claim
which I hold to be invalid then you'll have to demonstrate this with a proof
(i.e. a derivation of a theorem from basic postulates). The proof Einstein
gave is in a web page I created to demonstrate this. My derivation is a bit
different than Einstein's. My derivation is exact where Einstein's was an
approximation. They both yield the exact results of course (that's a story
in itself). Have you ever followed a derivation of the mass-energy
relation??
Here is Einstein's first and second derivations
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/einsteins_box.htm
> Not many experments involve the complete conversion of mass to energy or
> vice
> versa...that's my point.
So what? Einstein's equation refers to mass whether it is the entire mass of
an object or only part of the mass of an object. Einstein's derivations were
only done for changes in mass as you can see from the above web pages. Since
it is true for any given amount of mass it is also true in the limit where
all the mass is converted. An example of total mass-energy conversion is
seen when an electron annihilates a positron. An exaple of partial
mass-energy transformation is when a capacitor discharges.
> Mc^2 applies for instance when Uranium decays to lead...but nobody has
> turned a
> whole gram of lead into energy....
You can let that bother you if you'd like. But I believe you're the only one
it bothers.
>
>>> In the absence of proof, a 'theory' is nothing but a postulate or a
>>> guess.
>>
>>If you believe that anything can be proved, expecially in science, then
>>you
>>don't really understand the scientific method. Nothing can be proved in
>>physics, *nothing*! So why should this be any different?
>
> This is nonsense. I don't know where you people keep on getting these
> strange
> ideas.
It comes from decades of learning about science. These things are rarely
discussed in physics texts. You mostly run across it in something like a
text on the philosophy of science. If you never learned this then you have a
major gap in your understanding of science. There is an excellant treatment
of this point in a text by Fritz Rohrlich which is on my web site at
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/rohrlich_ch_01.pdf. The chapter is
called "Philosophy and Loic of Physical Theory". I recommend that you read
it.
> As said to bz, do you stil think thunder follows a lightning strike
> because the
> gods are angry?
I don't have time for silly questions. People who post too many of those I
block. Please don't post like this, okay? I'd rather not block you.
>
>>>>Nobody has ever seen a neuron in your brain. But I think its safe to say
>>>>that they're there, right?
>>
>>Why didn't you answer this question? It was not a rhetorical question but
>>a
>>question that required a response.
>
> I would say the term 'neuron' is too ill-defined to be considered as a
> theory.
A neuron is not a theory. It is an object and is very well defined. Look it
up.
Pete
Al in Dallas
wrote:
I find his copyright claims to be confusing. He spouts a bunch of
nonsense, and then behaves as if he's afraid someone will "steal" his
nonsense. It's actually pathological. It's ironic that he uses that
word in attempts to discredit others.
Al in Dallas
Thanks for the sig! I was wondering who you were.
gu...@hotmail.com
Poincare was too well reknown including the above. And his research
was in-line with Lorentz, Maxwell, Lamor, etc.... Anyone who read
Lorentz research at that time, read Poincare. In fact Einstein worked
with him on some research.
In 1900 Henri Poincaré studied the conflict between the action/
reaction principle and Lorentz ether theory. Einstein read all past
theories on Lorentz and light to which he used to formulate his
relativity theory in 1905.
VERY IMPORTANT CONTRAVORSY:
QUOTE:
"Einstein's first paper on relativity was published three months after
Poincaré's short paper...... It relied on the principle of relativity
to derive the Lorentz transformations and used the *******same clock
synchronization******* procedure that Poincaré (1900) had described,
but was remarkable in that it contained *****no references**** at
all."
NO REMARKABILITY that makes TWO coincidences
= P.L.A.G.I.R.I.S.M.
Only when I meet Einstein in Heaven will he concede to his former
Companion.
PD
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:24:50 -0000, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 6:03 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> >> In the absence of proof, a 'theory' is nothing but a postulate or a guess.
>
> >Then you're visiting the wrong group. You may want sci.math or
> >sci.logic, where there are proofs. There are no proofs of theories in
> >science -- any science. There are only theories supported by evidence,
> >and those which are discarded because they are in conflict with
> >evidence. For the latter you have, for example, BaTh. If you expect
> >physics to provide you PROOF of theories, then it's time to go back to
> >an introductory science book -- say one for 7th graders.
>
> idiot...
>
I take it that you, born as you were with a scientific mind as you
say, find my remark surprising.
PD
PD
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:36:31 -0400, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> >news:h8gje3dor48hh0dfv...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>relation. For example: If you charge a capacitor then the energy of the
> >>>>>capacitor increases but the number of electrons, protons etc remain the
> >>>>>same. But the mass will increase because energy is added.
>
> >>>> That's the theory...but nobody has ever measured such a change.
>
> >>>That doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
>
> >> It means YOUR above statement doesn't mean a heck of a lot.....
>
> >Why is that? Do you really believe that the acceptance of a postulate
> >depends on all possible experiments regarding that postulte be carried out?
>
> The complete acceptance, yes, more or less...
Science never affords complete acceptance of anything, only
provisional acceptance always.
>
> >If so then I recommend that you read more about the philosophy of science.
> >When all experiments that have been done are consistent with the result E_0
> >= mc^2 (m = proper mass) then that theory gains more and more acceptance
> >with every experiment. With the great number of experiments that have been
> >done which are consistent with that formular then it is a fair statement
> >that it will hold in the general case under which the equation was derived.
>
> ..but like I said, this is generally limited only to bonding energy...
> Not many experments involve the complete conversion of mass to energy or vice
> versa...that's my point.
> Mc^2 applies for instance when Uranium decays to lead...but nobody has turned a
> whole gram of lead into energy....
>
There are plenty of experiments that involve the complete conversion
of a matter-antimatter collision which results in *complete*
conversion to energy and then the conversion of at least some of that
energy back into matter and antimatter. None of the original matter
and antimatter is left in the final state.
PD
Pmb
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189971068....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Its incorrect to think of mass changing into energy. Both (relativistic)
mass and energy are conserved quantities. Annihilation changes matter into
radiation. But its incorrect to think of radiation as energy itself or "pure
energy" either. The mass-energy relation means that if a body emits
radiation, or does work on its environment, or transfers heat to its
environment etc. then the original mass of the body will decrease.
Pete
Henri Wilson
Draper, when you turn some lead into 100% energy, I will believe you.
>PD
Henri Wilson
It should bother all physicists...
>>>> In the absence of proof, a 'theory' is nothing but a postulate or a
>>>> guess.
>>>
>>>If you believe that anything can be proved, expecially in science, then
>>>you
>>>don't really understand the scientific method. Nothing can be proved in
>>>physics, *nothing*! So why should this be any different?
>>
>> This is nonsense. I don't know where you people keep on getting these
>> strange
>> ideas.
>
>It comes from decades of learning about science. These things are rarely
>discussed in physics texts. You mostly run across it in something like a
>text on the philosophy of science. If you never learned this then you have a
>major gap in your understanding of science. There is an excellant treatment
>of this point in a text by Fritz Rohrlich which is on my web site at
>http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/rohrlich_ch_01.pdf. The chapter is
>called "Philosophy and Loic of Physical Theory". I recommend that you read
>it.
>
>> As said to bz, do you stil think thunder follows a lightning strike
>> because the
>> gods are angry?
>
>I don't have time for silly questions. People who post too many of those I
>block. Please don't post like this, okay? I'd rather not block you.
See, you run for cover and resort to abuse as soon as I point out the
stupidity of your argument. Typical relativist arrogance....
>>>>>Nobody has ever seen a neuron in your brain. But I think its safe to say
>>>>>that they're there, right?
>>>
>>>Why didn't you answer this question? It was not a rhetorical question but
>>>a
>>>question that required a response.
>>
>> I would say the term 'neuron' is too ill-defined to be considered as a
>> theory.
>
>A neuron is not a theory. It is an object and is very well defined. Look it
>up.
>
>
>Pete
>
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Randy Poe
> Draper, when you turn some lead into 100% energy, I will believe you.
What property of lead causes you to believe that its subatomic
particles are immune to the annihilation seen in particle-
antiparticle collisions?
Do you have some reason for suggesting lead? Is there something
special about the protons in lead? What?
- Randy
Pmb
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Nope. I just don't want to waste my time will silly nonsense. Since you seem
to want to keep making false accusations and insults then I'm afraid that
you will be placed in my kill file. Note that this is your desire, not mine.
I simply asked you not to post crap like
--------------------------------------------
As said to bz, do you stil think thunder follows a lightning strike because
the gods are angry?
--------------------------------------------
That has nothing to do with the validity of my explainations, which you
clearly are unable to understand. Please read a good SR book before you make
all these nonsense claims of yours.
And as you wanted - Plonk!
Henri Wilson
When you turn some lead into mc^2 energy, I will answer you.
> - Randy
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:rckre3dvh5k76fptn...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>I don't have time for silly questions. People who post too many of those I
>>>block. Please don't post like this, okay? I'd rather not block you.
>>
>> See, you run for cover and resort to abuse as soon as I point out the
>> stupidity of your argument. Typical relativist arrogance....
>
>Nope. I just don't want to waste my time will silly nonsense. Since you seem
>to want to keep making false accusations and insults then I'm afraid that
>you will be placed in my kill file. Note that this is your desire, not mine.
>I simply asked you not to post crap like
>--------------------------------------------
>As said to bz, do you stil think thunder follows a lightning strike because
>the gods are angry?
>--------------------------------------------
>That has nothing to do with the validity of my explainations, which you
>clearly are unable to understand. Please read a good SR book before you make
>all these nonsense claims of yours.
>
>And as you wanted - Plonk!
Both you and bz made the ill-informed claim that physics does not attempt to
explain WHY.
I merely made a mockery of that claim by pointing out that physics certainly
DOES explain things like ""why thunder follows a lighning strike""....
Do you burst into temper every time you are shown to be wrong?
Why don't you throw a brick at your screen...get it right out of your system...
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I didn't say mass changing to energy. I said *matter* (fermions, if
you like) turning to energy. The *mass* of the system remains
invariant, as long as you're using a sensible definition of mass --
"mass" being a property of matter not being a sensible definition.
PD
PD
Actually, RHIC collides lead ions into lead ions with very similar
results. Do catch up.
PD
It might not have occured to you that getting you to believe is not
the objective.
Randy Poe
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:16:25 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 16, 9:00 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> Draper, when you turn some lead into 100% energy, I will believe you.
>
> >What property of lead causes you to believe that its subatomic
> >particles are immune to the annihilation seen in particle-
> >antiparticle collisions?
>
> >Do you have some reason for suggesting lead? Is there something
> >special about the protons in lead? What?
>
> When you turn some lead into mc^2 energy, I will answer you.
And I'm just curious why, when you hear that protons and antiprotons
annihilate, something in you says "yeah, but not in lead."
- Randy
Pmb
Sorry. My bad.
> I said *matter* (fermions, if you like) turning to energy.
But that doesn't work either. You;d have to think of light as pure energy
and that is a bad misconception. Electromagnetic energy, according to
Einstein, is considered as being matter just like other particles. You can
find him stating this in his 1916 article on GR.
> The *mass* of the system remains invariant, as long as you're using a
> sensible definition of mass --
Actually any of the two definitions (i.e., relativistic mass or proper/rest
mass) will do. If one uses proper mass then the proper mass of a closed
system of particles is the magnitude of the total 4-momentum of the
particles in this closed system. This will mean that not only will the mass
be invariant it will aslo be conserved! ")
> "mass" being a property of matter not being a sensible definition.
I'd rather not get into that discussion so let me say this. I agree to
disagree on this point. I assume that will be okay with you? :)
Pete