100 Years of E=mc2
physics....@gmail.com
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation). In his 1905 paper Einstein did not
derive it mathematically but in true sense speculated it. Einstein
earlier derived L = mc2 (light energy mass conversion equation). Then
Einstein speculated that what is true for light energy (L) the same is
true for every energy (E). This speculation results in E=mc2, such a
significant equation must be based upon a specific mathematical
derivation and not on speculation.
3. Is Einstein's derivation of L =mc2 correct?
The derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or true in special conditions
only. Einstein took just handpicked parameters out of numerous
possible, to obtain the equation. Einstein was aware of the reality so
he left in midway after getting the desired result. If all valid
values of parameters are taken, then results are contradictory in
nature.
4. What are contradictory results?
Some UNDISCUSSED predictions of Einstein's 29 Sep. 1905 derivation
blatantly contradict Law of Conservation of Matter. I have
scientifically confirmed the same. No limitation can be bigger than
this in science.
5. Was E=mc2 or similar ideas existed before Einstein?
Yes, E=mc2 existed before Einstein. An Italian Olinto de Pretto
published E=mc2 in valid scientific journal Lettere ed Atti, Feb. 1904,
two years before Einstein. But Pretto died in 1921, before its
experimental confirmation in nuclear physics.
6. Einstein speculated E=mc2 from L=mc2. What is the problem here?
Firstly derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or under special conditions
only. Secondly Einstein originated E=mc2 on the basis of speculation
only without any conceptual and mathematical basis. Basically Einstein
replaced L by E in equation L=mc2 to get E=mc2.
7. Then how did you derive new equation, dE =Ac2dm (or DE = Ac2 DM )?
I have derived new equation between mass-energy conservation by simple
calculus method. In dE =Ac2dm, A is a co-efficient of proportionality
like numerous others in science. It is dimensionless variable.
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
8. How do you compare these two equations?
Firstly dE =Ac2dm is based upon a conceptual and mathematical
derivation. On the other hand E=mc2 is a speculation, it is bitter
truth. Secondly dE =Ac2dm is a general equation and E=mc2 is its
special case. Energy emitted by new equation can be less, equal to or
more than predicted by E=mc2.
9. How did you justify your equation experimentally?
In Nuclear Physics there are some anomalous results which cannot be
explained by E=mc2 . Like this there are some instances in
astrophysics where my equation is extremely useful.
10. Is your work recognized by international scientific community?
Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals.
11 Have you got any recognition certificate from the scientific
community?
The only way to get scientific recognition is that to get the work
published in peer review international journals and conferences. My
research papers are either published in international journals from
America, England and Canada or being published. I have got invitation
from at least 55 International Conferences to present my work. I have
presented my research in international conferences in USA, England,
Germany, Taiwan Ukraine etc. I have invitation from France and Italy
to present my work this year.
12. Can this work be introduced in Schools and colleges?
Yes my wok is scientifically approved in journal in USA, CANADA and
England. Hence it can be so done by any country. IT IS THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE WORK.
13. How do you counter the opposition of the people which has come in
you your way?
Science is the international language. For this, I take seriously the
logical conclusions of the critics. I completely ignore the
irresponsible critics, as they don't exist.
The critics when understand the things become my supporters.
14. What about your book, 100 Years of E=mc2?
This book is being published soon.
It will bring clear and unbiased picture of the facts. Science today
is not the same in 16th or 17th century. We should aim at 22nd or 23rd
century scientific scenarios.
Interviewer Rajesh Thakoor Email mc2....@gmail.com
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
Dirk Van de moortel
<physics....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157216392.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> 100 Years of E=mc2
> Book Link :
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
>
> 1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
>
> E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
> 1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
> upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
> energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
>
> 2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
> inconsistency?
>
> The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
> obtain a mathematical equation).
I'm sure you will sell a few copies of your book, and yes, perhaps
even infest an insignificant amount of insignificant crackpots.
Let me guess.... you're an engineer - right?
Right:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ajay+Sharma+engineer
Way to go ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
> 100 Years of E=mc2
E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:%WiKg.55200$o%7.90...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| <physics....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157216392.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > 100 Years of E=mc2
| > Book Link :
| >
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
| >
| > 1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
| >
| > E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
| > 1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
| > upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
| > energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
| >
| > 2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
| > inconsistency?
| >
| > The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
| > obtain a mathematical equation).
|
Never mind the math, check the physics.-- Dork Van de shithead.
Androcles
ajay2244
100 Years of E=mc2
Book Link : http://tinyurl.com/hbnv9
1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
Book Link : http://tinyurl.com/hbnv9
Book Link : http://tinyurl.com/hbnv9
--
ajay2244
PD
There is no Law of Conservation of Matter. I don't know where you got
the idea that there is. One can reject just about any current law of
physics based on conflict with the fundamental Law of Conservation of
Sevens, also, but it will get you just as far.
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157477696.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
Y.Porat
physics....@gmail.com wrote:
> 100 Years of E=mc2
> Book Link :
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
>
> 1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
>
> E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
> 1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
> upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
> energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
>
> 2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
> inconsistency?
>
> The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
> obtain a mathematical equation). In his 1905 paper Einstein did not
> derive it mathematically but in true sense speculated it. Einstein
> earlier derived L = mc2 (light energy mass conversion equation). Then
> Einstein speculated that what is true for light energy (L) the same is
> true for every energy (E). This speculation results in E=mc2, such a
> significant equation must be based upon a specific mathematical
> derivation and not on speculation.
here in your last sentence lies the dead dog!!
and it is a common mistake of peiple who cam to physics from
mathematics!!!!!
mathematics is only a tool - a machine
you get its output only from its imput
matheamtics can only present the imput just in another way
it cannot create new advance
as now there is no subsitue for the human creative immagination
no computer can do it and no mathematical manipulations !!
IT IS ONLY THE HUMAN CTREATIVE IMAGINATION AND GUESSES (YES GUESSES)
THAT CAN MAKE NEW BREAKTHROUGHS in physics
ater all the big pompous pose that moden physics presents
advance in scince is just a trial and error process!!
only by introducing new ideas new possibilities
and especialy while the existing situation is STUCK IN THE MUDD
then it is only new guesses that can pull the vagon outof the mudd
most of those guesses will be wrong may be thousands of them
but the thousand and one will do it
and that is exactly waht Einstien did
his curved space time is a failure
but his E=mc^2 is MOMENTOUS
so here you see again the
'trial and error reality' in advancing physics
and it cannot certainly be done by parrots !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
>
/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
Y.Porat
>
> Good one :-)
>
> But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
> Just watch him.
>
> Glad to see you're back, by the way.
>
> Dirk Vdm
to all the imbecil parrots
there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
enery i s mass in motion !1
got it imbecil Van der shamatte ??
do you have something behind your eys in your dumb skull
if yess just have a look at the famous formula
E=mc^2 do you see some m there imbecil ?
got is imbecill? so what is that m there ???!!!
no chance fo r a disturbed retard !!
----------------------
Y.P
-----------------------------
Eric Gisse
All that whining summarized:
Math is a human invention and thus cannot be used in any way because it
is inferior to human creativity.
>
> ater all the big pompous pose that moden physics presents
> advance in scince is just a trial and error process!!
> only by introducing new ideas new possibilities
> and especialy while the existing situation is STUCK IN THE MUDD
> then it is only new guesses that can pull the vagon outof the mudd
> most of those guesses will be wrong may be thousands of them
> but the thousand and one will do it
> and that is exactly waht Einstien did
You have no idea what Einstein did because you have no concept of
either physics, mathematics, or the history of either.
> his curved space time is a failure
Your inability to understand relativity is unrelated to the scientific
validity of the theory.
> but his E=mc^2 is MOMENTOUS
> so here you see again the
> 'trial and error reality' in advancing physics
> and it cannot certainly be done by parrots !!!
Since your concepts of physics are stuck in the 19th century, how can
you possibly justify saying E=mc^2 is MOMENTOUS? Especially since you
have proven time and again that you are incapable of applying special
relativity properly.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------
> >
> /product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
Y.Porat
who told you youunderstand SR betetr than me ??
2
the fact is that i understand the E=mc^2 bettert han you
and you ddint answer my question:
the E=mc^2 has only TWO physical entities in it
if it was only c^2 it was only light speed sqareed
but IT IS NOT ONLY LIGHT VELOCITY
so waht makes it something different if not that ***c****
so if it is so infuemcial than what the hel is that m
doing there l
is it just a decoration there
you see Gisse it i snot enough to understand jsut waht 'everybody'
explaines
you need sometimes some judgement of youself
so it seems that i am an ignorant in SR
but starngely enough i can understand it may be better than others
btw how old are you??
i know about SR about 55 years ago
how old where you 55 years ago ?? while i was thinking all laong that
time
anmd i dont stop doing it untill this moment is it as well for you
or is it just fun for you just a 'chaltura'
and for me physics was always the most interesting scince
where have you been at all these 55 years??
so after all m,y mumblings
waht is your answer to my question:
that is that m in the mc^2
sodont you think tha this m is *at least* one of the two most
important components of energy ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> >
> > Good one :-)
> >
> > But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
> > Just watch him.
> >
> > Glad to see you're back, by the way.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> -------------------------------------
> to all the imbecil parrots
>
> there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
> but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
No, actually, there's not.
Y.Porat
PD wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > >
> > > Good one :-)
> > >
> > > But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
> > > Just watch him.
> > >
> > > Glad to see you're back, by the way.
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> > -------------------------------------
> > to all the imbecil parrots
> >
> > there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
> > but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
>
> No, actually, there's not.
you ignored the rest of that post
in mc^2 =E
there are ONLY TWO PHYSICSL ENTITIES
one is m the other is c^2
if m is meaningless you have that th e most meaninful element in
mc^2
is the c^2 ??
so what is the roll; m there if it is nonexistat than you can
write
E=c^2 and thats all why bother etering there the negligable m ??
or something that you catuallt dont know what is its meaning ??
----------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
PD
I didn't say it didn't have any meaning. I said there is no such law as
conservation of mass.
If I take a look at low-speed KE = (1/2)mv^2, the v has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of velocity.
If I take a look at Newton's 2nd law F=ma, the a has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of acceleration.
Do not overassume what you cannot assume.
PD
Y.Porat
wow waht a quick answer
as if in live conversation
now
if m i s always in energy it means it is always there !!!
c is consatnt
E is conserved so ..---------...
m is conserved as well
dont you see that ??
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
PD
That's not what the equation says. E=mc^2 does NOT say:
"Where there is energy, there is also mass. And where there is mass
there is also energy."
This has been pointed out to before.
It is a relationship between *before* and *after* states.
If you have mass *before*, then this can be converted to energy
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also energy before and also
mass after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
If you have energy *before*, then this can be converted to mass
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also mass before and also
energy after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
And no, this does NOT mean that if E is conserved, then m is conserved
as well.
Why? Because E=mc^2 does not represent the *total* energy of a system.
Recall that there are many contributions to energy (electrostatic
potential, linear kinetic, stochastic kinetic, rotational kinetic,
etc...) and it is only the *sum* of all contributions to the energy
that is conserved. An individual contribution (such as conversion from
rest mass) is NOT individually conserved, any more than electrostatic
potential energy is individually conserved.
Fundamental misunderstandings of the conservation laws, Porat.
PD
Y.Porat
fundamental misundersytanding and over smatguying
allenergies can be described by mc^2
including the EM
it can be as well mv^2 but that is the same arguemnt there
even momentum is the same argument
you have p=mc
if p is conserves than m must be
it is a simple result iof the equation
the trouble with you that you never before thought about that argument
(nore me (:-) it was cooked jsut now before your eys ...)
so oplease save us the patronizing remarkes such as
' a total misunderstanding etc '
because it might come back to you as a boomerang
we are not here with psychologic war
we disscuss physics even if it is new orriginal and surpriosingly
simple ideas !!
simple does n tmake it less important !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Y.Porat
Y.Porat wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
> > > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Good one :-)
> > > > > > > >
supose a compleax process in which youhave particles in
and out energy and other particles
you can always tarsalte it all to mc^2 in both sides of in and out
paticles can be transtaled to the equivalent mc^2)
.
and you will get tha the altogether in mass is exactly as the
altogethjer out mass
using the E=mc^2
am i right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Eric Gisse
The voices in my head.
[...]
hanson
news:1157559427.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[Y.Porat to Gisse]
>> who told you you understand SR better than me ??
>
[Eric Gisse]
> The voices in my head.
>
these voices are the ones who you heard saying to you:
"DANCE, monkey, DANCE" . Eric it is time for you
to get administered to by the specialists at Ravencrag:
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Ravencrag
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/cobrajal.htm#Hanson
Thanks for the laughs, Eric.
ahahaha... ahahanson
PD
Unfortunately, Porat, your last two messages were so badly mangled in
the English that I can't make enough sense of them to respond.
PD
Sorcerer
|
| Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Need another fuckwit you hold your hand, punk?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
train in 1946. Still have the bag. My mind at that spacetime was in
its most creative stage. Now I depend on my memory Not to be to hard on
myself in 2003 I gave space a convex curve so that space expansion could
be explained. My "spin is in theory" came to be in 1999. I say not bad
for this old man.(yes?) I have had little or no formal education. My
lousy spelling and grammar shiows this to be reality. Sad but true I
like to think science Bert
Y.Porat
PD wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > >
it seems like a nice way to evade th e problem
actauly it might be some of my fault because it is new arguments
even for me
so let me try again:
1 ith ebase for my new claim that mass is conserved goe slkike this
if we look at the formula E=mc^2
there ar eonly TWO physical entities ther m and c
c by itself is certainly not energy
so ??
the second term there m is waht gives the 'c' the entity orf enery
actually we can fraze it in many ways
and even you could suggest how to fraze it but theidea and logic of it
is undemyable
we can say that both m and c are THE components of energy
(i refrain from saying my old claim that energy is mass inmotion
because you will imediately and authomatically willreject it (:-)
so you cant deny that c without m is not energy
so you cant dismiss the indespensible of m in that entity that i
scalled energy
thast is in general
do you accept that general abstract insight ??
later we can get into detailes
but fierst lets examine the above abstarct principle
2
the formula E=mc^2 is valid for photons as well
because it is an ** universal ** eqaution
right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
helloworld
in rlation to dark energy or, lets say, energies from matter available
in regions E > mc ^ 2 .This is relevent in two applications
(1)supra-dimensional energies.at superluminal velocities.and, (2) as a
possible region for the so called dark energies associated with dark
matter .I shall be thankful for your views .I havent been able to
copy the graph . ( perhaps I dont know the copying protocol or this
site do not permit it ) But its simple to visualise the graph of a
strightline equation and to follow the reasoning even without the
graph.
so here we go
these are my blog on dark energy / dark matter.
Thought that you may be an interested party .
.
I wrote this down in the order in which it came to my mind.
please tolerate some repititions
>From elementary considerations,
There are the following three regions in the linear graph associated
with the relationship, e=mc^2 ; 'c' being constant vel of light in
vacuum.and, is taken as =186,000 miles per sec,in 4-D space-time.
(1). e > mc ^ 2 (2). e < mc ^ 2 and, (3). e = mc ^ 2, which
demarcates the boundary between regions (1) & (2).
Area (1) exists,even in the first quadrant ,because c ^ 2 (ie, 186000 ^
2),is NOT infinity. Its [ atan(infinity)] ie, (inverse- tan infinity)
which is 90 degrees.Hence, [atan( 186000 ^ 2)], is < 90 degrees.If
space is continious, then, the space between e-axis and the line e=mc ^
2 exists, even if it be less than planck length. ( Planck length is
applicable only where we can consider space existing as lumps of
discontinous quanta).
[As the slope of the line e=mc ^ 2 is,[taninverse (3.4566 x 10^10)] =
tan inverse (1,86,000^2) = 89.99999.....9s recurring ad
infinitum....... degrees,or, say,(90-$) degrees, where,$>0.(angle $
could be called Planck angle, but the point made is still valid)] .
This implies that, for events in this region where e > mc ^ 2,'C'
cannot be taken as a constant but has to be greater than 186,000. An
element of this 'slice' of an area in the graph,is associated with
every mass 'm'.For negative masses and for negative energies,(ie,for
non-electromagnetic masses and energies) represented in the third
quadrant ,this area in the graph above the line e=mc ^ 2 dominates and
is much more significant too .
The fact that the equation e=mc ^ 2 has no existence in the fourth and
second quadrant of the cartesan graph may be interpreted as equivalent
to the physical fact that there is no positive energies associated with
negative EM mass and no negative energies associated with positive EM
mass. This is the limitation of energies whose source is EM mass and
not the limitation of universes that are not based on EM mass and EM
energies.
Therefore, this forms the basis of our postulation that there exists
velocities C*, much higher than that of light . This is the basis of
postulating negative mass and negative energy too. We further postulate
that C* will not be a constant.C* will be a variable quantity.
Not only that, we postulate that C* varies as the dimensions of the
universe in which certain events occur. C* is a function of the
dimension of a universe.
One value of C* is 'c' which remains constant in a 3-D universe like
that of ours.
Any velocity 'v' less than 'c' or, any velocity C*, more than 'c',
cannot remain a constant , unless forced by 'external' forces to do
so. 'c' is the only possible velocity that is independent of "time'
.'c' is the limiting velocity in 3-D Electromagnetic space.
For the propogation of EM waves we need all of the three orthogonal
dimensions. That forms the basis and rationale of our electromagnetic
space being of 3 dimensions.'Time'is just an artificial man-made
mathematical artifact to take measurements of changes .Its just an
artificial virtual backdrop.
The evolution of space in a 'sequential' order with a constant velocity
is taken as 'time'.This sequence is applicable only to the
electromagnetic beings which constitute our universe.That is why energy
in this universe is a linear function of lumpen mass( or,rest mass)
alone. On either side of our universe,be it at the level of microcosm
or of the macrocosm, only multiverses and multidimensionalities can
exist, in which velocities ( ie, changes in space measured with respect
to time) vary chaotically and, non-linearity reigns.
When 'm' is small, this area e > mc ^ 2 tends to be zero in the first
quadrant , until 'm' becomes negative.When 'm' becomes negative (
energies will also become negative), most of the occurances will have
to acquire velocities greater than C. because the area e>mc ^ 2 opens
up and expands vastly in the third quadrant. Events will vanish out of
our 3 dimensional universe into universes of varying superluminal
velocities.The nearest to a mass-less medium that we can imagine is
our own mind and, may be, the heightened awareness of a cosmic
consciousness.
But when 'm' becomes large and assumes the 'mass'of a family of
galaxies or of the entire "Electromagnetic matter" in the universe,the
energies associated with 'm' in the regions (1),in the first quadrant
itself, will also tend to be substantial. In region (1) it is C* that
is applicable and not'c'
Now it has become obvious that dark energgy or dark matter exists in
the region (1) ,where C* is applicable.
What should then be the power to which C* ought to be raised ?( we have
hazarded a suggestion , later in the recapitulation stage.).
Now, C*, is a variable quantity of the order of say,10^100 to 10 ^1000
which is the speed of that entity which has superluminal varying
velocities.
The max limit of 'v' is 'c',whereas 'c'is the minimum limit of C* .No
max limit for C* is postulated .We can assign C* those values that
suits the experimental measurements or calcuated values of the 'Dark
energy'. This is the basis of the fact that the effects of dark energy
being discernible when we consider events at the level of the
formation and motion of clusters of galaxies only and not at the level
of single galaxies .
The analogy of the straightline graph reveals also that at the level
of the microcosm, ie when 'm'is non-negligibly small, the events can
occur only very close to the speed of 'c' .
In the regions where e > mc ^ 2 energies are NOT conserved, much like
in the quantum worlds where energies can be spontaneously created and
destroyed too.
Of course 'matter' or 'energies ' at this range and scale are obviously
beyond the pale of 4-D space-time and hence Dark Matter to us in the
dimensions in which we operate.
e=mc ^ 2 is the maximum electromagnetic energy available in 3-D space
from electromagnetic mass. Energies which are beyond electromagnetic
range will manifest in 4-D as effects without revealing its source and
hence remain for ever "dark' to us.
To recaptulate, In the linear graph, in the cartesan plane, of the eqn
e = mc^2, or, of ,y= x.1860000 ^ 2 sketched .as green dotted line,
below
in regions 2,where e < mc^2
-------------
the energies extractable from mass 'm' at velocities 'v' less than 'c'
is rather given by the relationship e = 1/2 mv^2.where 'v' is a
variable velocity. To extract the maximum energy from mass 'm' it
has to be speeded near to the velocity 'c'.In a gravitational field
you may like to add 'mgh' too for the potential energy component.
where, 'v' < 'c', But at velocities ='c' gravitational potential plays
no role as matter ( in its rest mass format) gets converted to
massless ( inertia-less), radiating energy waves.
In region 3,
------------
since 'c' is constant,the equality e = mc^2 holds. This energy is the
maximum (ELECTORMAGNETIC) energy that could be eked out of a mass
'm'and is always greater than any
[mgh + 1/2 mv^2], where v < 'c'.
In region 1 above,where e > mc^2
-----------
the velocity c* of mass'm' is always greater than 'c', and, c* is
variable too ,
In this super region,the energy mass conversion formulae can even be of
the form e= mc*^(d-1) where 'd' is a function of the dimensions of the
universe under consideration .
For d=3 for example, c*=c and d=3.yeilding the eqn e=mc^2 for the
universe with dimension 3.Here we take 'c' as a constant velocity of EM
waves ,as observed from experimental results such as the total heat,
light and radiation and residual mass energy outputs as measured when
an atomic particle is split .Whenever we calculate 'c' backwards from
any of these experiments we get a constant value for 'c',if the
dimensions of the universe in which we take the measurements is 3.
for dimension 10 universe , for example, the "dark"energy asociated
with each bit of the rest mass'm' ( as observed in our 3-D universe)
would be e= mc*^9, the variable value of C* in the superluminal
velocity region is assigned to tally with the observational results
gathered. Alternately, here we have a method of determinating the
dimension of the universe in which we have to account for the
darkmatter which we find experimentally, or by calcuation.
With this postulate, for region 1, we can account for the mass-energy
of dark matter . Dark energy is not conserved as the energies in the
two regions 2 & 3.
Depending on experimental observational facts , we can now account for
any amount of dark energy discerened ('measured'indirectly , of course)
in any part of the universe,because, we can assign any arbitrary value
for the superluminal velocities raging in that region where e > mc^2 .
>From the values used to obtain the results of calculation to agree with
that of 'observation',we can determine the dimensionality of the space
or the scale at which the event, whose tell-tale signs we 'measured'
in our universe , actually occurred.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these are my blog on dark energy / dark matter.
Thought that you may be an interested party .
About the concept of Dark matter ;quotng from Wikepedia
.(U May skip this 2 paras of quotation, as you know all that)..
after that, its all my 'original" thinking.
The two paras from wikepedia :
"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred
from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and
galaxies. Dark matter explains several anomalous astronomical
observations, such as anomalies in the rotational speed of galaxies
(the galaxy rotation problem). Estimates of the amount of matter
present in galaxies, based on gravitational effects, consistently
suggest that there is far more matter than is directly observable".
again from WP: "The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe . At present, the density of
ordinary baryons and radiation in the universe is estimated to be
equivalent to about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter of space. Only
about 4% of the total energy density in the universe (as inferred from
gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 22% is thought to
be composed of dark matter. The remaining 74% is thought to consist of
dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in
space. Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter (see baryonic dark matter)
makes a contribution to dark matter, but constitutes only a small
portion. Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the
most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. Its
urgency is underlined by David B. Cline in a 2003 article in
Scientific American, in which he writes: "The terms . . . 'dark matter'
and 'dark energy,' serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance"
Now on, its all me :
We can enlighten our ignorance to some extend by the following lines
of thought.
>From elementary considerations,
There are the following three regions in the linear graph associated
with the relationship, e=mc ^ 2 ; 'c' being constant vel of light
in vacuum.and, is taken as =186,000 miles per sec,in 4-D space-time.
(1). e > mc ^ 2
(2). e < mc ^ 2 and,
(3). e = mc ^ 2, which demarcates the boundary between regions (1) &
(2).
Area (1) exists,even in the first quadrant ,because c ^ 2 (ie, 186000 ^
2),is NOT infinity. Its [ atan(infinity)] ie, (inverse - tan infinity)
which is 90 degrees.Hence, [atan( 186000 ^ 2)], is < 90 degrees.If
space is continious, then, the space between e-axis and the line e=mc
^ 2 exists, even if it be less than planck length ,when mas is
subatomic.. ( Planck length is applicable only where we can consider
space existing as lumps of discontinous quanta).
[As the slope of the line e=mc ^ 2 is,[taninverse (3.4566 x 10 ^ 10)]=
tan inverse (1,86,000^2) = 89.99999.....9s recurring ad
infinitum....... degrees,or, say,(90-$) degrees, where,$>0.(angle $
could be called Planck angle for microcosmic mass, but the point made
is still valid)] .
This implies that, for events in this region where e > mc ^ 2,'C'
cannot be taken as a constant but has to be greater than 186,000. An
element of this 'slice' of an area in the graph,is associated with
every mass 'm'.For negative masses and for negative energies,(ie,for
non-electromagnetic masses and non-electromagnetic energies)
represented in the third quadrant ,this area in the graph above the
line e=mc ^ 2 dominates and is much more significant too .
This accounts for the possibility of dark matter at the extreme levels
of both MACHOs and WIMPS ( ie, Brayonc and non-baryonic ; or
Electromagnetic and non-electromagnetic ranges of mass / energy).The
region of the MACHOs could be the first qudrant area above e=mc ^ 2
,in the region e>mc ^ 2 and, of WIMPS is in the third quadrant space
in the area e>mc ^ 2 above the line e=mc ^ 2.
The fact that the equation e=mc ^ 2 has no existence in the fourth and
second quadrant of the cartesan graph may be interpreted as equivalent
to the physical fact that there is no positive energies associated
with negative EM mass and no negative energies associated with
positive EM mass. This is the limitation of energies whose source is
EM mass and not the limitation of universes not based on EM mass and
EM energies.
Therefore, this forms the basis of our postulation that there exists
velocities C*, much higher than that of light . This is the basis of
postulating negative mass and negative energy too. We further
postulate that C* will not be a constant.C* will be a variable
quantity.
Not only that, we postulate that C* varies as the dimensions of the
universe in which certain events occur.
C* is a function of the dimension of a universe.
One value of C* is 'c' which remains constant in a 3-D universe like
that of ours.
Any velocity 'v' less than 'c' or, any velocity C*, more than 'c',
cannot remain a constant , unless forced by 'external' forces to do
so. 'c' is the only possible velocity that is independent of "time'
in a 3 dimensional universe..'c' is the limiting velocity of 3-D
Electromagnetic space..
For the propogation of EM waves we need all of the three orthogonal
dimensions. no more , no less. That forms the basis and rationale of
our electromagnetic space being of 3 dimensions.'Time'is just an
artificial man-made mathematical artifact to take measurements of
changes .Its just an artificial virtual backdrop.
The evolution of space in a 'sequential' order with a constant velocity
is taken as ' time' in 3 dimensional universe..'Time' is just like one
of the qualities of our universe.This sequence is applicable only to
the electromagnetic beings and entities which are the constitutuents
of our universe.
In an open system, which the cosmos is, there is nothing absolute
about this quality ,we call 'time'. The term 'Cosmos", we use here,
to embrace all types of universes , multiverses mathematically real,
physically existing in 3 dimensions, and mathematically imaginary too.
That is why energy in our 3dimensional universe, is a linear function
of lumpen mass( or,rest mass) alone. On either side of our
universe,be it at the level of microcosm or of the macrocosm, only
multiverses and multidimensionalities can exist, in which velocities (
ie, changes in space measured with time) vary chaotically and,
non-linearity reigns.
When 'm' is small, this area e > mc ^ 2 tends to be zero,until 'm'
becomes negative. When 'm' becomes negative ( energies will also
become negative), most of the occurances will have to acquire
velocities greater than C. because the area e > mc ^ 2 opens up and
expands vastly. Events will vanish out of our 3 dimensional universe
into universes of varying superluminal velocities. The nearest to a
mass-less medium that we can imagine is our own mind and, may be, the
heightened awareness of a cosmic consciousness.
But when 'm' becomes large and assumes the 'mass'of a family of
galaxies or of the entire "Electromagnetic matter" in the universe,the
energies associated with 'm' in the regions (1),(2) and (3),in the
first quadrant itself, will also tend to be substantial.
In region (1) it is C* that is applicable and not'c'.In region(2) it
is 'v' that is applicable and not 'c'. Nearer to region (2) ie,nearer
to the boundary-line separaing regions 1 and 3 , is when 'c' is
applicable. The maximum EM-energy extractable from lumpen mass'm'in a
three dimensional universe is equal to mc ^ 2.
Now, it has become obvious that dark energgy or dark matter exists in
the region (1) ,where C* is applicable.
What should then be the power to which C* ought to be raised to get
the rate of exchange between mass and energy , in this region ?
Now, C*, is a variable quantity of the order of say,10 ^ 100 to 10 ^
1000 , which is the speed of that entity which has superluminal
varying velocities. But in this time-less , space-less and mass-less,
so to say, " Cosmic Consciousness Region" of energies and heightened
"awareness" only , we have to redefine the term meaning of 'speed'
itself .We may have to invent new mathematics language and processes
that have no analogies in our 3dimensional universe..Thats a different
excercise altogether and not covered in this discussion.
The max limit of 'v', in the region e < mc ^ 2 is 'c', whereas 'c'is
the minimum limit of C* .No max limit for C* is postulated .We can
assign C* those values that suits the experimental measurements or
calcuated values of the 'Dark energy'. This is the basis of the fact
that the effects of dark energy being discernible to us only when we
consider events at the level of the formation and motion of clusters
of galaxies and, not at the level of even single galaxies .
The analogy of the straightline graph reveals also that at the level
of the microcosm, ie when 'm' is negligibly small, the events can
occur only very close to the speed of 'c' ; as at the subatomic ranges
theres no sufficient space possible ( see the graph below) in the
region, e < mc ^ 2.
In the regions where e > mc ^ 2, energies are NOT conserved, much
like in the quantum worlds where energies can be spontaneously created
and destroyed too.
Of course 'matter' or 'energies ' at this range and scale are obviously
beyond the pale of 4-D space-time and hence Dark Matter to us in the
dimensions in which we operate.
e=mc ^ 2 is the maximum electromagnetic energy available in 3-D space
from electromagnetic mass. Energies which are beyond electromagnetic
range will manifest in 4-D as effects without revealing its source and
hence remain for ever "dark' to us.
To recaptulate, ( AT THE COST OF SOME REPITITIONs ) In the linear
graph in the cartesan plane of the eqn e = mc ^ 2, or, of ,y= x .
1860000^2 , sketched .as a green broken line, below;
('x' axis showing mass and ,'y' axis showing energy. slope of the
broken line in green, in degrees , is = [tan-inverse(186000^2)]. Note
" there is plenty f area for higher forms of non-EM energies to exist
in the region e > mc ^ 2 and, hardly any area when mass is subatomic
nearer zero in the region e < mc ^ 2.
Note: In the plotted graph below , the point ( 2.9 , 1x10 ^11 ) ,
shown by the intersection of the two dotted black vertical and
horizontal lines is, almost exact to the calcuated value (using e=mc ^
2), for a mass of 2.9 gms, the maximum extractable energy is 1.02x10^11
energy-units. The unextractable non-electromagnetic energy equivalent,
lying above it ,for the same mass is much more.
And, it is this energy thats a likely candidate for "Dark Energy".
The quantity of DARK ENERGY associated with a mass of 2.9 units, in
universes of various dimensions can also be calculated ( read out from
this graph )..
the same graph of y = x.(3.4566x10 ^ 10), in log scale is as below.
in regions 2,where e < mc ^ 2
the energies extractable from mass 'm' at velocities 'v' less than 'c'
is rather given by the relationship e = 1/2 mv^2.where 'v' is a
variable velocity. To extract the maximum energy from mass 'm' it
has to be speeded near to the velocity 'c'. In a gravitational
field you may like to add 'mgh' too for the potential energy
component. where, 'v' < 'c'. But at velocities ='c' gravitational
potential plays no role as matter ( in its rest mass format) gets
converted to massless ( inertia-less), radiating energy waves.
In region 3, where = mc ^ 2
since 'c' is constant,the equality e = mc^2 holds. This energy is the
maximum energy that could be eked out of a mass 'm'and is always
greater than any
[mgh + 1/2 mv^2], where v < 'c'.
In region 1 above, where e > mc ^ 2
In this region, the velocity C* of mass 'm' is always greater than 'c',
and, C* is variable too ,
In this super region,the energy mass conversion formulae can still be
of the form e = m C* ^ 2 , where C * = [c ^ ( K D-1) / 2] where 'k' is
the scaling factor charcteristic to the dimensions of the universe
under consideration. The value of 'K' is to be determined from
experimental observations. . 'D' is the dimensions of the universe
under consideration . For 3 dimensional universe k=unity. the value of
the scaling factor k coud be a complex number too . Dimensions of '
higher ' universes could be fractional or imaginary Also, K could
approx be given the value, ( C / C* ).,
For example, from the graph above, we find that for a mass of 2.9 mass
units , one of the corresponding energy reading is, 2 x (10 ^ 11)
energy units .
Note that the maximum energy derivable from a mass of 2.9 units is
only 1 X (10 ^ 11) enrgy units.in a 3 dimensional Electromagnetic
universe, when we calcuate using the mass-energy exchange rate .mc ^ 2
Therefore , the dark energy component associated with a mass of 2,9
mass units = [.2 x (10 ^ 11) energy units ,minus 1 X (10 ^ 11.energy
units ]
= (1 X 10 ^ 11 ) energy units.
The speed element C* here in this higher universe, works out to be
2,62,612.87 mps ( from the approximate relationship, 2 x 10 ^11 = 2.9
(C*) ^ 2.)..
We have now a way of calculating the dimensions f the universe, in
which this much dark energy is generated by this much of mass. .
For lack of observational data at this range of C*, we assume that the
charcteristic constant of proportioanlity ' k' =1 ( or nearly unity, as
the region under cnsideration is not far away from the line e =mc ^ 2
applicable for 3dimensions.where we take k=unity). Then we can
calculate the dimension where this energy 2x(10 ^11) could be extracted
from 2.9 mass units. We get that such a dimension, D, is near to 3.057
( a fractal higher dimension higher than 3).,from the relationship e =
m X ( C* ^ 2) where C* =C ^ [ (D-1) /2 ] ^2.
Alternately, we can say that for a mass of 2.9 mass units, the energy
associated with it up to ( 1 X 10 ^ 11) energy unts could be extracted
in 3 dimensional space .But almost an equal amt of energy is associated
with the same amount of mass in 3.057 dimensions .In hogher dimensions
than that the energy available from the same mass of 2.9 units
increases exponentially the effects of which would leave their
tell-tale marks in our 3 dimensional universe also..It could even be
possible that , "measured " Dark Energy may pertain to energies
associated with non-fractal higher dimensions, only..Energies
associated with fractal dimensions may not have effects on universes
with integral dimensions at all.
All of the possible enrgy-states beyond (1 x 10 ^ 11) energy units
just in the one case of a mass of 2.9 units is actually missed out by
us. But, If we THINK that we are missing out only 96 % of the total
energy density ( see wikepaedia quote above) then we can easily see
that we can only be aware of universes of .D.. dimensions and not
beyond that or, that perhaps gravitational energy range is only from
universes of that many dimensions; Beyond of those dimensions we can
get no clue whatsoever regarding energy ;atleast that of the
gravitational denomination.
D imension "D" at that range for a mass of 2.9 units can be calculated
.as follows :
If , 4 % of the max ' visible ' energy extractable from a mass of
2.9 units is = (1 X 10 ^ 11 ) energy units, then 100 % energy ( incl
dark energy ) available from the same mass of 2.9 mass units is , (
25 X 10 ^ 11 ) energy units.
First calculate C* from the relationship e = m C* ^ 2 { therfore, 25 X
(10 ^ 11) = 2.9 X (C* ) ^ 2 }. . hence,we work out C* = 2.936 X 10 ^
5.5 mps
Now use the relationship C* = c ^ {(Dk-1) / 2} where , K = C / C* ie,
(1.86 X 10 ^ 5 ) / (2.936 X 10 ^ 5.5) = 1/ 4. 999 approx = 1/ 5 say.
hence we work out , D = 16.310
Now, the physical interpretation of this is, that gravity from a
dimension not higher than about 16 dimensions only can have any
effect on the
" measured " density of dark matter associated with a 2.9 units of
mass units , in our universe..
Note :The value of C* is postulated as a constant for a particular
dimension of the universe .For example, for dimension 10, the value of
C* = c ^ (10k-1)/2 , where 'c' is the applicable velocity to our 3-D
universe. Note again that C* here is a constant for the 'D'
dimensional universe, ie, C* = constant value [c ^ {(kD-1) / 2 }]. If,
D=10.then the energy exchange rate for the 10 dimensional universe
is,a constant [{c ^ { (10k-1) / 2} ] ^ 2 ie, for ten dimensional
universe , e ( the maximum extractable energy from a mass 'm') = m(C*)
^ 2 where,. C* being the characteristic constant for any
ten-dimensional unverse.
For D=3 for example, C* = c and d=3;yeilding the eqn e=mc ^ 2 for the
universe with dimension 3.Here we take 'c' as a constant velocity of
EM waves ,as observed from experimental results such as the total
heat, light,sound, and radiation and residual mass energy outputs as
measured when an atomic particle is split,in our 3-D universe.
.Whenever we calculate 'c' backwards from any of these experiments we
get a constant value for 'c',if the dimensions of the universe in
which we take the measurements is 3.
for dimension 10 universe , for example, the "dark"energy asociated
with each bit of the rest mass'm' ( as observed in our 3-D universe)
would be e= m C* ^ 9, the variable value of C* in the superluminal
velocity region is assigned to tally with the observational results
gathered. Alternately, here we have a method of determinating the
dimension of the universe in which we have to account for the
darkmatter which we find experimentally, or by calcuation.
With this postulate, for region 1, we can account for the mass-energy
of dark matter . Dark energy is not a conserved quantity, if we take
atonce all types of universe in all dimensions into account.But dark
energy ( just like normal electromagnetic energy) is conserved for a
universe of any specific dimension, within the bounds of those
dimensions.
Depending on experimental observational facts , we can now account for
any amount of dark energy discerened ('measured'indirectly , of
course) in any part of the universe,because, we can assign any
arbitrary value for the scaling factor, 'k', for the superluminal
velocity regions , where e > mc ^ 2 .
>From the values used to obtain the results of calculation to agree with
that of 'observation',we can determine the dimensionality of the
space or the scale at which the event, whose tell-tale signs we
'measured' in our universe , actually occurred.
I hope I have given you some food for thought .
Dark matter expresses in 3 dimensional Electromagnetic universe thru
its effect on gravitational phenomena. Now, what exactly is
'gravitational energy' , which is certainly not derivable from
Electromagnetic energies ( as is evident from the types of radiating
energies emenating from an atom smashing process indicating that no
gravitational energy can emenate from atom smashing ),is the subject
of my next blog, which I will send you later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gravitational energies or potentials and probabilites.
Just as an indicator of that, i postulate here itself that the
dimension in which 'gravitational energies' operate
'instantaneously', are wide and varied. Gravitational energies are
independent of space-time or even a medium for it to'traverse'.It
doesnt traverse .it is already there pre-existing in the structure of
all dimensions.This means that Gravitational energies are transcedental
to space-time.Their source and origin are not in the 3-D universe at
all.
Gravitational energy shapes both space-time and matter simultaneously
in a tri- symmetric manner, which appears as Space-time curvature (
ie, mass shaping space and, space giving mass its inertia), to the
electromagnetc energies like that of light .This is just the
characteristic effect of gravitational energy applicable to a 3-D
universe as ours, only.The effects of Gravitational energy ( to be
nomenclatured differently for other dimensions) in other dimensions
would certainly be different.
there has to be a single entity which manifests itself as
,'dimensions'; 'gravitational energies or, some other "probabilities
and 'potentialities" which manifests as "electromagnetic waves and
matter"and, even as 'life forms' at suitable conditions.
OR, should there be ? Why cant there be infinite repititions of one
and the same fractal pattern made up of a multiplicity of origins and
forms and strands of varying energies coursing, vibrating and lashing
thru quantum vaccuum that spontaneously ( ie, without the need for any
cause for it to occur; events that transcends causality) manifest
differently in different dimensions yet stringing all of them together
offering networks of instantaneous communications ( instantaneous= that
which requires no time or, time-independent transcedental ) , as if
there is a common origin or source when looked at from
macro-dimensions? Single source and multilitude of sources are the same
and not diffreent except when viewed at diffrent scales.. Isnt zero and
infinity the same , only seemingly different depending on the scale at
which you 'observe'.?
Gravitational potentials could well be one such quantum-strand weaving
itself thru a multiplicity of universes / multiverses existing in
different dimensions .
Now, thats enough food for thought for the day .
PD
No. One cannot look at an equation and say that the left hand side is
composed of the things on the right hand side. That's NOT what an
equation is intended to tell you. For example, Newton's second law is
sometimes written as F = ma. But in no way are you to take from this
that force is *composed* somehow of mass and acceleration. It is not.
The force *causes* acceleration, and the relationship between *how
much* force and *how much* acceleration is given by that relation in
the equation.
If you read equations like X = Y*Z to mean "X is made of Y and Z", then
this is part of your fundamental misunderstanding.
>
> thast is in general
> do you accept that general abstract insight ??
> later we can get into detailes
> but fierst lets examine the above abstarct principle
>
> 2
> the formula E=mc^2 is valid for photons as well
> because it is an ** universal ** eqaution
> right ??
It most certainly is not. I don't know where you got the impression
that it is universal.
PD
Y.Porat
PD wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > PD wrote:
that i sth e misunderstanding of **yourse*
th emost you can sy is that energy might have some other presentatins
BUT YOU CANNOT DENY THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE PRESENTATIONS IS THAT
ENERGY IS Mc^2!!
A and realy yo cant seperate in that case mass fome c^2
but at th esame tine you cannot IGNORE THE m in that formula
and say it deos not existe there as a component !!
mc^ i smore detailes than E!!!
so mc^2 presentation
is the moere ADNAVCED AND LESS ABSTARCT PRESENTATION (of just E)
it took hundreds of years tomove FORWARDS from just E to E=mc^2
!!!!!!!
if you diont undesrant that golearn mor ephysics
but not as a pompous partronazing parrot but as a physicist !!
------------------------
> > do you accept that general abstract insight ??
> > later we can get into detailes
> > but fierst lets examine the above abstarct principle
> >
> > 2
> > the formula E=mc^2 is valid for photons as well
> > because it is an ** universal ** eqaution
> > right ??
>
> It most certainly is not. I don't know where you got the impression
> that it is universal.
---------------
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
>
> PD
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
> so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
> (where is it wrong ??)
When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]
When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
only applies locally]
Or any combination thereof.
Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
actually understand physics.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
> >
> > PD
Y.Porat
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
> > (where is it wrong ??)
>
> When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
so ???
> When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]-
imbecil !!
that doe snot underdtand hoew a fiormula is built andwaht is its
meaning
----------
> When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
> only applies locally]
that is another profe idiot imbecil that th ephoton has mass
2 it means tha t youdont know what is happening in a strong
gravitational field
-----------
>
> Or any combination thereof.
what do you know abou tthose combinations crook ??be more spsecifi
Nazi shit
it is not good enough jsut to hand wave !!!
do you think shitty that you are impersing anyone by your
demagogic systems ??
do you think it will make you a less zero scintist parrot ??
waht is your day job??
waht is your innovation to physics ?
wHat is your unprecedented contributiuons to Nazi demagogue
no one gives apiss at you.
----------
>
> Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
--------------
who the fuck nominated you here to be thge super supervisor of that
ng??
waht is you qualification for that
waht is your AOUTHORITY FOR THAT
beside your being a nazi shit ::!!!
did anyone beside a rude idiot like you ever demanded
someone else toleave that ng?
not to mensin tha tyou are an idiot parrot phjysicist!!
-------------
>
> If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
> else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
> engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
> actually understand physics.
---------------
let human being to reply !!!
i was not adressing nazi animals
and no one nominated a fucher shitter like you to be
go fuck youself with Golsed Boare that apprently is one of your many
schitzo names disturbed animal .
Y.P
---------------------------
Golden Boar
You're the fucking schitzo, fool.
Why would you think that I am Eric Gisse?
Is it because we both disagree with you?
Is it because we both think you are a retard?
Maybe it will help to clear up your confusion, if you do a google
groups search for the following title, "Another look at Coulomb's Force
law".
Read that thread, then come back and say I am Eric Gisse you paranoid,
senile old fool.
Y.Porat
Hi shitzo:
just hepl your twin felow to prove that
the E=mc^2
- is wrong- in a gravitational field
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Golden Boar
Unfortunately, I can't, since I do not know the mathematics of GR.
The only thing I know about GR is that the spacetime curvature is due
to the stress-energy tensor, and I suspect you know even less than me.
So what do you know about GR, that makes you think E=m.c^2 is valid in
a strong gravitational field?
You have consistently proven yourself to be an idiot with a total lack
of understanding about physics or maths (for example, photons have rest
mas, h has mass, and the fact that you rearrange an equation and think
that you have redefined physics).
You call everyone who disagrees with you 'a nazi imbecile crook', and
then think that everyone who disagrees with you must actually be the
same person, thereby showing that you have no ability for logic either.
Why should anyone bother trying to prove something you say is wrong,
when you will just ignore the evidence and insist you are right,
without providing any evidence for your claims.
Y.Porat
Golden Boar wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------
,
> > > senile old fool.
> > -------------------------------
> > Hi shitzo:
> >
> > just hepl your twin felow to prove that
> > the E=mc^2
> > - is wrong- in a gravitational field
> >
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------
>
> Unfortunately, I can't, since I do not know the mathematics of GR.
> The only thing I know about GR is that the spacetime curvature is due
> to the stress-energy tensor, and I suspect you know even less than me.
so why do you stick your fucken idiotc head in trhing tha tyou dont
know??
just your primitiver instinct top be against me?
no one realy knows waht is gravity
it is all poor guesses
now
Mr genius that claimes that the photon has an infnit mass
do you remember
socan a fucker idiot like you educate me on anything in physics ??
now piss of and let the other genius lier
to prove that Emc^2
is invakid in a strong gravitational filed
do you say that i have toprove the opposit idiot crook?
why sould i prove the oposite while noone and the other crook are the
one
who claim that cheating claim that no one before claimed?
E=mc^2 is valid everywhere unless soemone proves otherwise
got it idiot lier that has not even th e basics of logic in science
9and not least th ebasic of decency !!
did you ever heare about honesty ??
so let the other crook Gisse prove his claim
and you just piss of and let him answer
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
The Ghost In The Machine
<jow...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 10 Sep 2006 02:40:51 -0700
<1157881250.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Y.Porat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
>> (where is it wrong ??)
>
> When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
As an amplification: the true formula is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2.
This formula is, as far as I know, *right* for photons, with m = 0.
However,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0306245
suggests that something may be interfering with the measurement,
and it depends on whether one is "measuring for large scale" or
"measuring for small scale". (How does one tell the diff??)
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
> > > (where is it wrong ??)
> >
> > When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
>
> so ???
You asked me where E=mc^2 is wrong, idiot.
>
> > When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]-
>
> imbecil !!
> that doe snot underdtand hoew a fiormula is built andwaht is its
> meaning
Since you have no education in physics and have proven you do not
understand SR, I consider that a very bold position to take.
>
> ----------
> > When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
> > only applies locally]
>
> that is another profe idiot imbecil that th ephoton has mass
Who was talking about photons, moron? I wasn't.
>
> 2 it means tha t youdont know what is happening in a strong
> gravitational field
I know a hell of a lot more about it than you. This is the subject I am
studying in a university setting, and it is the subject I want to spend
a long time learning about.
You say you were an engineer. No engineering program has any reason to
teach general or even special relativity to engineers. Go ahead, tell
me where you learned GR and SR. Do you even know?
> -----------
> >
> > Or any combination thereof.
>
> what do you know abou tthose combinations crook ??be more spsecifi
> Nazi shit
Weee!
> it is not good enough jsut to hand wave !!!
> do you think shitty that you are impersing anyone by your
> demagogic systems ??
> do you think it will make you a less zero scintist parrot ??
It is spelled "scientist", you ineducable fuck. How many goddamn times
will it take for you to learn it is spelled SCIENTIST? You can't even
grasp the spelling of a common 9 letter English word, what makes you
think you can argue relativity?
>
> waht is your day job??
> waht is your innovation to physics ?
> wHat is your unprecedented contributiuons to Nazi demagogue
I'm a student, you worthless human being.
I'm taking 18 credit hours this semester. I spend 21 hours a week *just
in class*, and approximately that much doing homework and studying.
When was the last time YOU were in university? Was it more or less than
50 years ago?
>
> no one gives apiss at you.
> ----------
>
>
> >
> > Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
> --------------
> who the fuck nominated you here to be thge super supervisor of that
> ng??
> waht is you qualification for that
> waht is your AOUTHORITY FOR THAT
> beside your being a nazi shit ::!!!
>
>
> did anyone beside a rude idiot like you ever demanded
> someone else toleave that ng?
> not to mensin tha tyou are an idiot parrot phjysicist!!
An "idiot parrot physicist" is still more of a physicist than you will
ever be, at this point.
Your English is atrocious. You are incapable of spelling a word larger
than 4 letters correctly.
> -------------
> >
> > If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
> > else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
> > engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
> > actually understand physics.
> ---------------
> let human being to reply !!!
>
> i was not adressing nazi animals
>
> and no one nominated a fucher shitter like you to be
> go fuck youself with Golsed Boare that apprently is one of your many
> schitzo names disturbed animal .
Sorry Porat, you are not worth the effort. I don't need to use
different names to annoy you, all I have to do is point out that you
were never a physicist and are incapable of even learning simple
English to make you mad.
Gosh, isn't that sad? You pretend to be an authority on all things in
physics yet you have no education to show for it, and your mind is so
porous that even simple things like the spelling of the word "photon"
go right through one ear and out the other.
>
> Y.P
> ---------------------------
Y.Porat
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
You asked me where E=mc^2 is wrong, idiot.
> > >
> >
> Sorry Porat, you are not worth the effort. I don't need to use
> different names to annoy you, all I have to do is point out that you
> were never a physicist and are incapable of even learning simple
> English to make you mad.
>
> Gosh, isn't that sad? You pretend to be an authority on all things in
> physics yet you have no education to show for it, and your mind is so
> porous that even simple things like the spelling of the word "photon"
> go right through one ear and out the other.
disturbed Josef Goebeless
if you realy are just a student than you are the limit a nazi
shit can be
ie the symbol of animal behaviour of a zero scientist
a zero human being with such a big impertinance
now just bring other evidence than your own (disturbed nazi shit)
evidence
that E=mc^2
IS NOT VALID IN A GRAVITATIONALFIELD
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Y.Porat
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics, Eric Gisse
> <jow...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on 10 Sep 2006 02:40:51 -0700
> <1157881250.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
> >> (where is it wrong ??)
> >
> > When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
>
> As an amplification: the true formula is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2.
> This formula is, as far as I know, *right* for photons, with m = 0.
>
> However,
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0306245
>
> suggests that something may be interfering with the measurement,
> and it depends on whether one is "measuring for large scale" or
> "measuring for small scale". (How does one tell the diff??)
>
> [rest snipped]
so why should that contradict E=mc^2
it only proved we dont know how to cope with it in gravitation
because we know too little about gravitation!!
now to the formula
E^2 = c^4m^2 + pc)^2
even thaat formul;a is based on E=mc^2
so it has nothing to do with it in gravitation contradicting E=mc^2
and again
if some measurments do not fit
it is only because we dont know the real effect of gravity
and how graviry workes
i would like to see PDs aswer who was the first one
i addressed my question
where is E=mc^2 not valid
and not to hide behind the backs of others
(like the young disturbed shameless crook Gisse )
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Eric Gisse
Special relativity isn't valid in a gravitational field, you fuckwit.
If you actually had an education in physics you wouldn't have to have
this explained to you.
>
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Y.Porat
Hi fuckwit stident of 22 years old
E=mc^2 every where got it imbecil??
do you know waht i sgravity enough to say
it is not valid there little Nazi shit??
no one realy knows what is gravity
so how can you tell that E=mc^2 is not valid there ??
just because youare a litle 22 years Josef Goebeless ??
go make your student homework instead of siting like a bump
parasite mext to the computer all day !!
Y.P
---------------------------
>
hanson
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3952-450...@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net...
> My ego made me throw that in. Bert
>
[hanson]
ahahaha.... ahahahaha.... AHAHA...Herbie Herbie, Herbie
that may all sound very profound in your own mind, but why
is it that you, who praises and adores Israel into high heaven,
are NOT able or willing to give an even simple answer to the
question re: Israel, and instead you do scream more 'Heil Zion',
usually accompanied by your seeding and fomenting of more
Anti-Semitism with your nasty and extremely bigoted comments
instead of answering the simple question:
== What good or benefit has come in return to the American
taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that came off the
tables from poor American families?"
== "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ?
------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert -----
PS: in one of your recent nasties, instead of you answering
the above, you said: "Why don't you go to Iran and protect
bin Larden." ... But Herbie, a much more pertinent comment
by you would have been why it is that that one of the "Ten most
Wanted" on the FBI list happens to be a TERRORIST JEW by
name of Adam Pearlman from Riverside, California, aka
Adam Yahiye Gadahn who is Al Qaida's #3 chieftain. This Jew
turned Muslim threatened that LA and Melbourne will be the
next target of terrorist attacks and "much less compassionate"
then the London & Spain massacres were.. see: 09-12-05
abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/ 102904_nw_american_alQaeda.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/31400b26f8948943
Raymond Yohros
hanson ha escrito:
Normaly i will not spend a second of my time talking to
someone like you but you have cross the line with youre
bullshit and this is not a newsgroup for discusing politics.
you have no idea what it is to be a minority strugling for
survivor in a world where true inteligence has become
almost complitely gone or hide by people with personal
agendas, and politicians (like youreself) who really dont
give a ___ about the world and the only thing they do care
is using G-d name in vain for division, pain and destruction
of every single great achivment that true man of science has
given with love and dedication to the world.
go with youre crap somewhere else.
here we care about science.
Sorcerer
"Raymond Yohros" <b...@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1158343652.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Good! Don't! Fuck off, illiterate moron.
Androcles
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Bert
hanson
"Raymond Yohros" <b...@birdband.net> a ding-bat with bird brain w/i
news:1158343652.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c8efb382e9bfba30
>
[Salami Zionist]
> you have no idea what it is to be a minority strugling for
> survivor in a world where true inteligence has become
> almost complitely gone
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/729ca8be2a4bd373
AHAHAHA... hey, Salami, there is absolutely nothing intelligent
whatsoever in your classical oye-weh whining, except that it
is overt, typical Jew self-aggrandisation, but not even being
as clever as the bigot's "oye-weh-Zionist Glaser's is who said:
::B:: "I do know how every thing works,
::B:: and pass this information on"
::B:: "Why.. am I not loved by all?" Bert :: "G=EMC^2 Glazier":
Therefore, Salami, you who insinuates to be of a minority WITH
true intelligence could come forward to the rescue of oye-weh-Bert
who claims to know everything but does not show it, by you stepping
up to the Wall and instead of wailing and YOU could give an answer
to the simple question:
== What good or benefit has come in return to the American
taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that came off the
tables from poor American families?"
== "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ?
------- answer that, oye-weh-Salami -----
[hanson]
Listen Salami, you sanctimonious 2-faced bird brain, it looks like
that with all your self-anointed Jewish intelligence you just
wanna get even with me in your anger because I pointed out
to you that your Big Bong is not the same as the Big Bang... Here in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a9b464ddbddb75b3
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dc1ec4751edca94b
ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs you stereotypical G-d-ly Zionist
proselytizer... you busily seeding even more Anti-Semitism with your
bigotry then there already is . ahahahaha ahahahahanson
hanson
<herbert...@webtv.net> is going big time oye-weh now in
news:29118-450...@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net...
to Raymond, a truly "G-d"-ly & unkosher Salami Zionist akaand wails:
>
[Herbie to Ray]
> [2] Ray, Nicely posted.
> [1] I, Bert, for one will never respond to Hanson again.
> Bert
>
[hanson]
Awe... awe... Herbie, Hebie, Herbie, listen: First things First:
[1] You are a stereotypical lying Jew, self serving to the max, Herbie.
Because just 2 days ago you made a loud-mouthed grand standing:
:B: Hanson I could never get tired of you.
:B: You make me laugh. --- Bert
What happened Herbie? Your laughter gone? Herbie, I simply
did and do you the favor by acquiescing to your yearnings and I
will go on making you happy until you give an answer to the
question why are you NOT able or willing to give an even simple
answer to the question re: Israel, and instead you do scream
more 'Heil Zion', usually accompanied by your seeding & fomenting
of more Anti-Semitism with your nasty and extremely bigoted
comments instead of answering the simple question:
== What good or benefit has come in return to the American
taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that came off the
tables from poor American families?"
== "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ?
------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert -----
PS: in one of your recent nasties, instead of you answering
the above, you said: "Why don't you go to Iran and protect
bin Larden." ... But Herbie, a much more pertinent comment
by you would have been why it is that that one of the "Ten most
Wanted" on the FBI list happens to be a TERRORIST JEW by
name of Adam Pearlman from Riverside, California, aka.
Adam Yahiye Gadahn who is Al Qaida's #3 chieftain. This Jew
turned Muslim threatened that LA and Melbourne will be the
next target of terrorist attacks and "much less compassionate"
then the London & Spain massacres were.. see: 09-12-05
abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/ 102904_nw_american_alQaeda.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/31400b26f8948943
[hanson]
[2] Herbie, since you know everything, did you know, hope or just
assume that the Sephardim, the truly "G-d"-ly & unkosher Salami
Zionist "Raymond Yohros" <b...@birdband.net> a ding-bat with
bird brain, to whom you sucked up to was your personal Messiah?
Thanks for the laughs, Herbie.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
rambu...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <physics....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157216392.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > 100 Years of E=mc2
> > Book Link :
> > https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
> >
> > 1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
> >
> > E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
> > 1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
> > upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
> > energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
> >
> > 2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
> > inconsistency?
> >
> > The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
> > obtain a mathematical equation).
>
> even infest an insignificant amount of insignificant crackpots.
> Let me guess.... you're an engineer - right?
> Right:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Ajay+Sharma+engineer
> Way to go ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Yep, you guessed right, Ajay Sharma is an engineer with dreams of
dthroning Einstein. He doesn't know how to write the equation of
momentum conservation and he's advertising his "masterpiece" on the
whole internet.
Dirk Van de moortel
<rambu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1158380163.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just let him make a fool of himself.
It's a known fact that constantly replying to demented engineers
is extremely counter-productive ;-)
Dirk Vdm
physicsajay
============Ajay Sharma responds===========
My work is based upon the following reference
References of Einstein’s work
.
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work
My work is available at
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA
2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.
3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,
10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND
4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND
5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
is published in journal
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
Physics Essays, CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past, present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
physicsajay
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <physics....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157216392.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > Book Link :
> > https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
> >
> > 1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
> >
> > E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
> > 1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
> > upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
> > energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
> >
> > 2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
> > inconsistency?
> >
> > The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
> > obtain a mathematical equation).
>
> even infest an insignificant amount of insignificant crackpots.
> Let me guess.... you're an engineer - right?
> Right:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Ajay+Sharma+engineer
> Way to go ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm