Nova,Einstein ,Political Correctness
jack
PBS Nova tonight included Emilie Du Chatelet in the list of those who
laid the groundwork for the physical concepts that eventually lead to
relativity. They state clearly that it was Liebniz that originated the
idea of energy and the role of the square of the velocity . Further
,it was another scientist who demonstrated this with falling ball.
Other than popularizing these new things and helping to spread them
around, I don't see from what Nova has shown,how Du Chatelet did
anything really original herself. So why was she included? I really
don't need to have political correctness served up with every
discussion in the history of science. We might as well just say it
was Einstein's wife who really came up with the idea. jack
RP
jack wrote:
Women were emphasized in the story. I can only speculate as to why, but
I believe it boils down to "sex sells". And selling is what popular
science is all about.
Richard Perry
Sue...
jack
wrote:
Well,yes. The feminist input to her story went something like "here
was a women ahead of her time who liked lots of sex ,didn't take crap
from anyone and was really smart". a real poster girl for the
University Womens Assn. Don't get me wrong ,I applaud anyone who goes
after the truth but in a program whose goal is to show the historical
development of the concepts in physics,we shouldn't lie to the
audience just so we can appear to be advocating for women in science.
I would rather have heard about Emmy Noether if they just wanted to
show original contributions by women,at least her work stand on its
own. Du Chatelet was indeed interesting but this was the wrong place
for her. jack
hanson
news:u05pk1tjih1rm98hg...@4ax.com...
> OK, So can anyone tell me why the producer of "Einstein's Big
> Idea" on PBS Nova tonight 11-Oct-2005 included Emilie Du Chatelet
> in the list of those who laid the groundwork for the physical concepts
> They state clearly that it was Liebniz that originated the idea of
> energy and the role of the square of the velocity . Further,
> it was another scientist who demonstrated this with falling ball.
> Other than popularizing these new things and helping to spread them
> anything really original herself. So why was she included? I really
> don't need to have political correctness served up with every
> discussion in the history of science. We might as well just say it
>
[hanson]
== [1] No man and for that matter no woman is an Island. The entire
history of Science is made up by individuals in interwoven events
from many, many, sometimes seemingly unrelated disciplines in a
sort of punctuated evolution. We naturally get to hear mostly just the
points/people which were picked out of the barrel of history by the
producers of these TV shows to make it look heuristic and in vogue.
== [2] The program that followed this was a 1 hour program titled
"Einstein's Wife". Your notion that "it was Einstein's wife who really
came up with the idea for E=mc^2" was expressed much more
pronounced in a similar PBS/Discovery channel program that aired in
2003. This current "Einstein's Wife" program sounded like a retouched
watered down "afterbirth" when compared to the 2003 piece in which
a whole slew of academician physicists were asked about the origin
of the 1905 paper. The issue was whether or not it was Einstein's
Christian wife, Mileva Maric, who really had the ideas and performed
the math in the manuscript. She urged/nagged her hubby, Albert, to
publish HER work under his name, (given the status women had back
then) which he apparently reluctantly did ... and in the process did not
care to include any citations, etc. ... ahahaha...
But, the moment the paper made a splash, their marriage soured
and he dumped her.... One can wonder why Einstein acquiesced to
her divorce demands for him to give her all the money that he got
from his Nobel price... Hush money?........ ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
The vast number of the interviewed professionals subscribed to the
scenario that it was Maric who was the creator and inventor of SR,
and not Einstein who cashed in on the laurels..... ahahaha....
ahahaha... ahahanson
RP
Sue... wrote:
Noether's theorem is way too intensive a subject for popular accounts
like this one. And AFAIK she wasn't a sexpot either.
Why cover advance arguments in symmetry when the treatment of E=mc^2
wasn't even covered correctly. There is no *conversion* of mass to
energy. The mass of a closed system is constant, as is its energy. The
fact that the individual masses of the particles don't sum to the mass
of the whole doesn't immediately imply the conversion of mass to energy
or vice versa, it only implies that mass and matter aren't synonymous.
Mass is electromagnetic PE divided by c^2.
Assuming a closed system of two equally massive particles (M = total mass):
E = M c^2.
E = k q^2 /d
k q^2 /d = M c^2
M = k q^2 /d c^2
M = (mu_o q^2)/(4 pi d)
c is derived then as a speed relating to charge, in particular it
derives from the relationship between the electrostatic and
magnetostatic interactions between charges. The above conversion from
electrostatic to magnetostatic constant is a mathematical operation
only, both forms of the equation referring to precisely the same force
between the particles. That is, it may be regarded as either
electrostatic or magnetostatic, these being fundamentally equivalent and
thus just mathematically differing interpretations of the force.
The two are thus equal, and:
(mu_o q^2)/(4 pi d) = k q^2 /d c^2
c = sqrt(((k q^2 /d))(4 pi d))/(mu_o q^2)
Reducing
c = sqrt(4 pi k / mu_o )
IOW, c equals the square root of the permittivity divided by the
permeability. These two are in turn artifacts of the system of units
that we've arbitrarily applied to nature, namely mass and charge.
But, for any orbital system the KE of the masses equals half the escape KE.
Thus KE = m c^2/2
That's where that damned 2 was hiding.
The mass of the *atom*, in this logical system, is thus a function of
the charges and their displacement from each other and won't equal the
sum of the masses of the particles of which it is composed. The equation
E=mc^2 only states that in a closed *atomic* system the ratio E/m is
constant, that is, since m is a function of PE. Potential
electromagnetic energy has mass, and thus these cannot be converted into
each other, not physically, rather PE is converted to KE, the latter of
which is frame dependent in certain instances, namely when isolating a
portion of the closed system and ignoring the rest. It follows from that
only when isolating a portion of the system and assuming its FoR, does
the conversion of mass to energy appear. It being a frame dependent
effect, an artifact of mental abstraction, or better arbitrary mental
division of the system. The conversion is thus not real but instead it
is imagined by those who have taken a portion of the closed system out
of context.
c enters in as the speed of charge, which in turn determines the value
of the electromagnetic potential. c is also a factor for converting from
the electrostatic to the magnetostatic constants, permittivity and
permeability respectively, but not by accident. Charges in relative
motion at c (anti-parallel currents) produce the Coulomb force, and it
is this relationship between magnetostatics and electrostatics from
which c is derived, it being the speed of the charges required to
produce the electrostatic interaction from the equations of magnetism,
as that interaction is given by Coulomb's law.
So in essence, I disliked the entire show; it was neither politically
nor technically correct.
Richard Perry
zzbu...@netscape.net
They would have to do that if they claimed Leibnitz orignated
the idea of energy. Since Leibnitz was one of orignators
of the moron physics theories that ideas aren't REAL and
they need prepproved from EUCLID, and least ACTION,
both of which have NOTHING to do with energy.
donsto...@hotmail.com
think what he could have accomplished had he worked as a dogcatcher, or
a burger flipper.
2. In addition to the 4 fields, Einstein was secretly also trying to
unite the first 4 integers: 1, 2, 3, and 4.
3. Einstein accomplished a lot but boy, what heights he could have
achieved had he been a cybernetic General Systems Thinker rather than
working within the specialty subfield of physics.
4. Constructivism states that we build on past results, so those past
results look simplistic as time trudges on and should not be ridiculed
5. All in all, you're just another constructivistic brick system
forming the eventual Wall metasystem.
Tom Roberts
> Noether's theorem is way too intensive a subject for popular accounts
> like this one. And AFAIK she wasn't a sexpot either.
On that subject, I believe Einstein _was_ a "sexpot", but this was
glossed over, too.
Yes, Du Chatelet is not included in the pantheon of famous physicists
anywhere else. I had never heard of her before. Of course there was a
veil over women back then, but from what was said, she does not seem to
me to be of a stature comparable to anyone else profiled on the program.
Meitner, of course, is; so is Noether; so are Faraday, Lavoisier,
Einstein, ....
And I would be rather surprised if the lead spheres they
displayed actually buried themselves 4 times deeper (as was
claimed). In modern terms, the energy absorbed by the clay
is not at all linear in depth as that claim assumes (e.g.
the cross-sectional area of the sphere increases with depth,
more clay must be displaced to the sides, etc.). So I think
they dumbed this down to the audience. Of course it is
possible that the experimenter lucked out and the obvious
non-linearities canceled reasonably well.
> Why cover advance arguments in symmetry when the treatment of E=mc^2
> wasn't even covered correctly.
It was good enough for the intended audience.
> There is no *conversion* of mass to
> energy.
Sure there is:
Nucleus1 => Nucleus2 + Nucleus3 + neutron(s) + energy
The mass of Nucleus1 is more than the sum of the masses of
Nucleus2+Nucleus3+neutron(s). The mass difference is converted to
energy, and this can be enormous.
Or:
e+ + e- => gamma + gamma + energy
The sum of the masses on the left is nonzero, on the right there is no
mass. The mass of the e+e- pair is converted to energy.
This _IS_ how these words and concepts are used.
> The mass of a closed system is constant, as is its energy.
This depends on what you mean. A closed "black box" system behaves as an
object with mass E/c^2 where E is the total internal energy of the
system. For this case the mass of the system is indeed constant as long
as it remains truly closed. But if you look inside that is no longer the
case, and one must consider the masses of the constituents, and the sum
of those masses is not in general constant. My two examples above are
not closed black-box systems, and the notion "mass is E/c^2" simply does
not apply.
[I am using the context of SR/GR.]
> ... much nonsense]
> That's where that damned 2 was hiding.
Not really. It "hides" in the lowest-order term of 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for
very small v/c.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Mark Martin
RP wrote:
> Noether's theorem is way too intensive a subject for popular accounts
> like this one. And AFAIK she wasn't a sexpot either.
You got that one right:
http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/bstud/noether.html
-Mark Martin
Harry
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dij6uu$n...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> RP wrote:
SNIP
> > There is no *conversion* of mass to energy.
>
> Sure there is:
>
> Nucleus1 => Nucleus2 + Nucleus3 + neutron(s) + energy
I agree with RP. The "conversion" concept even had "bugged" me for a while
until I discovered that Einstein formulated it better 100 years ago:
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation [...]The mass of
a body is a measure of its energy-content [...] radiation conveys inertia"
IOW, there is conversion of material mass into radiation by *giving off*
energy, not by converting anything to energy. Both the mass of a body and
the inertia of radiation are measures of energy. That makes perfect sense
and is crystal clear.
> The mass of Nucleus1 is more than the sum of the masses of
> Nucleus2+Nucleus3+neutron(s). The mass difference is converted to
> energy, and this can be enormous.
>
> Or:
>
> e+ + e- => gamma + gamma + energy
>
> The sum of the masses on the left is nonzero, on the right there is no
> mass. The mass of the e+e- pair is converted to energy.
>
> This _IS_ how these words and concepts are used.
Indeed, that sloppy language has become popular; it still _IS_ misleading.
[snip]
Harald
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
to the mass on the right side. The mass of a system is *not* equal to
the sum of the masses of the components.
>Or:
>
> e+ + e- => gamma + gamma + energy
>
>The sum of the masses on the left is nonzero, on the right there is no
>mass. The mass of the e+e- pair is converted to energy.
Same as above. the mass of the electron-positron system is exactly
equal to the mass of the two gammas (which is not the same as the sum
of the masses of the gammas).
What you get, in both cases, is that some (or all) of the energy
presented in the system is transformed into a transferable form, one
which, being unbounded, can be given away, thus leaving the system
with less anergy and less mass. This is akin to selling property for
cash. The act of sale doesn't change your wealth but it transforms
part of it into a form which can leave, easily. As many careless people
did find out.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:dij6uu$n...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
>>RP wrote:
>>>There is no *conversion* of mass to energy.
>>Sure there is:
>>Nucleus1 => Nucleus2 + Nucleus3 + neutron(s) + energy
>
> I agree with RP. The "conversion" concept even had "bugged" me for a while
> until I discovered that Einstein formulated it better 100 years ago:
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation [...]The mass of
> a body is a measure of its energy-content [...] radiation conveys inertia"
>
> IOW, there is conversion of material mass into radiation by *giving off*
> energy, not by converting anything to energy.
Bah! Either you quibble over words that do not matter, or you make a
more serious mistake (see below).
When one starts with a some mass and some energy, and then ends up with
less mass but more energy, there's no reason not to say that mass was
converted into energy. Just as one might say this battery has a bunch of
chemical potential energy, and connecting a resistor across its
terminals converts chemical energy into electrical energy, and then
converts it into heat energy. This is the same sort of conversion
process; only the details differ.
Note: that "chemical potential energy" shows up as an
increase in the mass of the battery; and if you contain
the heat in the resistor, that "heat energy" shows up as
an increase in the mass of the resistor.
If you cannot discuss conversion of different "types" of energy to other
"types" of energy, then the whole concept of conservation of energy
becomes useless (and meaningless). In fact, we observe such conversions
all the time -- that's the whole point of using "energy"!
Now there is a different argument you could have used, that actually has
some merit:
In my battery example above what I called conversion is really
extracting internal energy from the battery and moving it first to the
wires and then to the resistor as heat (which is merely internal motion
of its components). So this "conversion" is just moving energy around
from one place to another.
That can reasonably be applied to many/most compound objects, but for
e+e- annihilation that argument doesn't hold at all -- the original pair
COMPLETELY disappears. That observation, combined with the fact that the
increase in mass of battery and resistor can be measured (at least in
principle), means it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a
conversion of mass into energy.
Mass and energy aren't the same, either:
> Both the mass of a body and
> the inertia of radiation are measures of energy.
Except they aren't, by the usual definitions of those words in modern
physics. For instance, mass is an invariant but energy is not.
More specifically: energy is the Noether current corresponding to time
translation, but mass is an intrinsic property of particles and is
generally a (constant) parameter appearing in certain types of terms in
the Lagrangian. Those are QUITE different. In SR and GR this means that
in most cases an object's energy is the time component of its 4-momentum
and its mass is the norm of its 4-momentum; in certain cases they are
related by a simple factor of c^2 (and _that_ was the subject of this
documentary, but it glossed over the technical details alluded to here).
IOW: mass and energy can be equivalent, but they need not be, and they
certainly aren't the same.
> That makes perfect sense
> and is crystal clear.
Nevertheless it is wrong.
>>[...] The mass difference is converted to
>> energy, and this can be enormous.
>>[...] The mass of the e+e- pair is converted to energy.
>> This _IS_ how these words and concepts are used.
>
> Indeed, that sloppy language has become popular; it still _IS_ misleading.
How is that "sloppy" or "misleading"? In these processes the amount of
mass decreases and the amount of energy increases -- how is that not a
conversion of mass into energy?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
jack
>"jack" <road...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>news:u05pk1tjih1rm98hg...@4ax.com...
>> OK, So can anyone tell me why the producer of "Einstein's Big
>> Idea" on PBS Nova tonight 11-Oct-2005 included Emilie Du Chatelet
>> in the list of those who laid the groundwork for the physical concepts
>> that eventually lead to relativity [1].
>> They state clearly that it was Liebniz that originated the idea of
>> energy and the role of the square of the velocity . Further,
>> it was another scientist who demonstrated this with falling ball.
>> Other than popularizing these new things and helping to spread them
>> around, I don't see from what Nova has shown, how Du Chatelet did
>> anything really original herself. So why was she included? I really
>> don't need to have political correctness served up with every
>> discussion in the history of science. We might as well just say it
>> was Einstein's wife who really came up with the idea [2]. jack
>>
>[hanson]
>== [1] No man and for that matter no woman is an Island. The entire
>history of Science is made up by individuals in interwoven events
>from many, many, sometimes seemingly unrelated disciplines in a
>sort of punctuated evolution. We naturally get to hear mostly just the
>points/people which were picked out of the barrel of history by the
>producers of these TV shows to make it look heuristic and in vogue.
>== [2] The program that followed this was a 1 hour program titled
>"Einstein's Wife". Your notion (you misread my statement) that "it was Einstein's wife who really
>came up with the idea for E=mc^2" was expressed much more
>pronounced in a similar PBS/Discovery channel program that aired in
>2003. This current "Einstein's Wife" program sounded like a retouched
>watered down "afterbirth" when compared to the 2003 piece in which
>a whole slew of academician physicists were asked about the origin
>of the 1905 paper. The issue was whether or not it was Einstein's
>Christian wife, Mileva Maric, who really had the ideas and performed
>the math in the manuscript. She urged/nagged her hubby, Albert, to
>publish HER work under his name, (given the status women had back
>then) which he apparently reluctantly did ... and in the process did not
>care to include any citations, etc. ... ahahaha...
>But, the moment the paper made a splash, their marriage soured
>and he dumped her.... One can wonder why Einstein acquiesced to
>her divorce demands for him to give her all the money that he got
>from his Nobel price... Hush money?........ ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>The vast number of the interviewed professionals subscribed to the
>scenario that it was Maric who was the creator and inventor of SR,
>and not Einstein who cashed in on the laurels..... ahahaha....
>ahahaha... ahahanson
>
Yah,and I'm sure Albert beat her cause he was a male chauvenist pig
and Mieva was really lesbian cause she was so enlightened. Those pig
males always trying to keep women down %&*%$##...........moron
John C. Polasek
Yes or how about:
Nucleus1 + binding energy = Nucleus2 + Nucleus3 + neutrons +
radiated energy?
JP
>>Or:
>>
>> e+ + e- => gamma + gamma + energy
>>
>>The sum of the masses on the left is nonzero, on the right there is no
>>mass. The mass of the e+e- pair is converted to energy.
>
>Same as above. the mass of the electron-positron system is exactly
>equal to the mass of the two gammas (which is not the same as the sum
>of the masses of the gammas).
>
>What you get, in both cases, is that some (or all) of the energy
>presented in the system is transformed into a transferable form, one
>which, being unbounded, can be given away, thus leaving the system
>with less anergy and less mass. This is akin to selling property for
>cash. The act of sale doesn't change your wealth but it transforms
>part of it into a form which can leave, easily. As many careless people
>did find out.
>
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
platopes
...
> >
> Yah,and I'm sure Albert beat her cause he was a male chauvenist pig
Angry and violent would do the trick. No need to be MCP.
> and Mieva was really lesbian
As opposed to "kinda" lesbian?
> cause she was so enlightened.
Lesbian = enlightened? Nope!
> Those pig males always trying to keep women down
I'm sure that's *never* happened, except maybe during inter-species
mud-wrestling matches...
%&*%$##...........moron
Why the sudden name change? "Jack" is more dignified.
p
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
[snip]
> When one starts with a some mass and some energy, and then ends up with
> less mass but more energy, there's no reason not to say that mass was
> converted into energy. Just as one might say this battery has a bunch of
> chemical potential energy, and connecting a resistor across its
> terminals converts chemical energy into electrical energy, and then
> converts it into heat energy. This is the same sort of conversion
> process; only the details differ.
>
When it is said that mass 'converts" to energy, an attempt is made to
explain the way physical reality works. But that is pure speculation.
As far as a model, yes, you can consider mass converting to energy.
That seems to work fairly well in estimating accurately outcomes of
experiments. But, can you say in an ontological sense that mass
converts to energy? The answer is of course not. We are something like
25 orders of magniture away from Planck scale to be able to state with
certainty whether the conversion is not into minute particles. The
mechanical explanation of the world based on particle collissions is
not ruled out completely yet. So it is better to say that mass and
energy have some type of equivalence. By using the term "conversion"
one simply makes a fool of himself. Obviously, some physicists make a
fool of themselves constantly, it is well known. These idiots lack an
understanding of the foundational problems of physics. These problems
persist since th time of Descartes, Galileo, leibniz and Newton and
NONE has been answered or resolved. So be humble, do not use
expressions that imply a much broader spectrum of possibilities than
can be tolerated, such as for instance the expression "conversion"
does.
Mike
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
hanson
> Yah,and I'm sure Albert beat her cause he was a male chauvenist pig
> and Mieva was really lesbian cause she was so enlightened. Those pig
> males always trying to keep women down %&*%$##...........moron
>
ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahaha... and so, you cranked yourself over this?
AHAhaha... sure looks like it... ahahahaha... It that because you are
[_] a yentl on the rag, under PMA stress, but adoring Albert
as your cultural heritage and your personal spiritual channeler.
[_] an evangelical or an orthodox yidd confusing physics with religion.
[_] or grievously jealous that you are a moron & not "Johnny" or "Dolly".
ahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, jack... off.... ahahaha...
ahaha... ahahanson
donsto...@hotmail.com
so easily amused.
![Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjURN6b50hrZp1VmOKY6vUoD4xke_qxfdpwlGhkd6mvzimVI=s40-c)
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
Tom Roberts wrote:
> That can reasonably be applied to many/most compound objects, but for
> e+e- annihilation that argument doesn't hold at all -- the original pair
> COMPLETELY disappears.
So it does. To be replaced by two gamma rays, which (as a system) have
the same mass as the two particles. Mass is not converted to anything.
Mass remains. Mass is conserved, end of story. Any time you think it
isn't, you've been cheating and changing your reference frame.
>That observation, combined with the fact that the
> increase in mass of battery and resistor can be measured (at least in
> principle), means it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a
> conversion of mass into energy.
No mass increase would be measurable, even in principle, in such a
system. Heat has mass. Heat a resistor with a battery, and the total
mass of the system does not change. Not unless you let the heat radiate
away does it change. But in that case, the mass of the heat winds up in
whatever absorbs it. Mass is conserved.
SBH
Tom Roberts
> In article <dij6uu$n...@netnews.net.lucent.com>, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
>> Nucleus1 => Nucleus2 + Nucleus3 + neutron(s) + energy
>>The mass of Nucleus1 is more than the sum of the masses of
>>Nucleus2+Nucleus3+neutron(s). The mass difference is converted to
>>energy, and this can be enormous.
>
> Well, this is not exact.
But as I said, the mass of Nucleus1 is indeed more than the sum of the
masses of the particles on the right.
Whether or not you consider my words to be "exact", this _is_ how this
sort of thing is described and discussed; I am not breaking new ground here.
> The mass on the left side is *exactly* equal
> to the mass on the right side. The mass of a system is *not* equal to
> the sum of the masses of the components.
You are willing to apply the term "mass" to unbound, open systems, and I
am not. As I discussed in this and another post in this thread, it's
easy to determine the mass of a closed system. But "how do you catch a
moonbeam in your hand? [O. Hammerstein]" -- if "mass" means amount of
stuff, then there's no good way to capture the portion represented by
the flying apart of those nuclei and neutrons above.
To me, mass is well defined for elementary particles. And for a bound
and closed system there is a similar quantity to which the name "mass"
seems quite appropriate. But for an unbound and open system I think it's
too big a pun to apply the word "mass". For a bound and closed system
you can treat it as a single object and derive equations of motion for
it that involve its mass; for the unbound and open system you cannot do
that, and must obtain equations of motion for each of its parts (each of
which has its individual mass, of course).
Specifically: consider the motion of Nucleus1 in an external
electromagnetic field. Now try to do that for the stuff on
the right hand side above -- considering Nucleus1 as a single
object with a definite mass works well; it does not work at
all for the collection on the RHS....
[Here I am using the context of SR, GR, or NM. For QFT the
term "mass" really only applies to the elementary fields of
the theory (i.e. the coefficients of the appropriate terms
in the Lagrangian) -- any attempt to apply that word to a
composite involves a major PUN, because a composite has no
term in the Lagrangian.]
So this really boils down to: mass of WHAT? To me, the word only applies
reasonably to an object, not to a collection of objects. If you look
inside a bound and closed system you can no longer consider the "mass of
the system as a whole"; for an unbound and open system you are always in
that situation.
I am not alone in making this distinction, and certainly classically
(pre-SR) this is the norm.
sbha...@ix.netcom.com said essentially the same thing.
Here on USENET it is not always possible to talk to newbies and experts
in the same post. Subtly nuanced distinctions as I make above are
often/usually lost. If you insist on sound bites you must choose one
approach or the other; once you recognize and understand the subtleties
then you can use either mode as appropriate. We chose differently here.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>That can reasonably be applied to many/most compound objects, but for
>>e+e- annihilation that argument doesn't hold at all -- the original pair
>>COMPLETELY disappears.
>
> So it does. To be replaced by two gamma rays, which (as a system) have
> the same mass as the two particles. Mass is not converted to anything.
> Mass remains. Mass is conserved, end of story.
Answered in a long post responding to Mati Meron.
>>That observation, combined with the fact that the
>>increase in mass of battery and resistor can be measured (at least in
>>principle), means it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a
>>conversion of mass into energy.
>
> No mass increase would be measurable, even in principle, in such a
> system.
OK. This is a difference in parsing english. I meant "mass of (battery)
and (resistor)" and you read "mass of (battery and resistor)".
> Heat has mass.
Say, rather, that a hot object has more mass than the same object when
cold. It is not really the heat itself that has mass, but rather its
effect on the object -- c.f. my response to Mati.
> Heat a resistor with a battery, and the total
> mass of the system does not change.
Yes. But the mass of the battery and the mass of the resistor both
change. This last is what I meant.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <dij6uu$n...@netnews.net.lucent.com>, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
>>> Nucleus1 => Nucleus2 + Nucleus3 + neutron(s) + energy
>>>The mass of Nucleus1 is more than the sum of the masses of
>>>Nucleus2+Nucleus3+neutron(s). The mass difference is converted to
>>>energy, and this can be enormous.
>>
>> Well, this is not exact.
>
>But as I said, the mass of Nucleus1 is indeed more than the sum of the
>masses of the particles on the right.
>
>Whether or not you consider my words to be "exact", this _is_ how this
>sort of thing is described and discussed; I am not breaking new ground here.
>
>
>> The mass on the left side is *exactly* equal
>> to the mass on the right side. The mass of a system is *not* equal to
>> the sum of the masses of the components.
>
>You are willing to apply the term "mass" to unbound, open systems, and I
>am not.
A system is open when it exhanges energy or momentum with other
systems. That's what "open" means. Whether the system is bound or
not, is not relevant to the issue. Now, of course if the system
exchanges energy or momentum, its energy and momentum need no longer
be conserved and same goes for the mass, nothing new here.
As I discussed in this and another post in this thread, it's
>easy to determine the mass of a closed system. But "how do you catch a
>moonbeam in your hand? [O. Hammerstein]" -- if "mass" means amount of
>stuff, then there's no good way to capture the portion represented by
>the flying apart of those nuclei and neutrons above.
And what's wrong with the good, old fashioned m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (I took
the liberty to set c = 1, for convenience). This is a perfectly good
way to capture the above. And since m here is a function of conserved
(for closed system) quantities, it is conserved as well.
>
>To me, mass is well defined for elementary particles. And for a bound
>and closed system there is a similar quantity to which the name "mass"
>seems quite appropriate. But for an unbound and open system I think it's
>too big a pun to apply the word "mass". For a bound and closed system
>you can treat it as a single object and derive equations of motion for
>it that involve its mass; for the unbound and open system you cannot do
>that, and must obtain equations of motion for each of its parts (each of
>which has its individual mass, of course).
Works equally well for bound as for unbound. For a bound system, as
soon as it is not completely rigidly bound (and hardly any system is)
all you get from the equation of motion treating it as a single object
is the motion of its CM. Same is true for the unbound.
>
> Specifically: consider the motion of Nucleus1 in an external
> electromagnetic field. Now try to do that for the stuff on
> the right hand side above -- considering Nucleus1 as a single
> object with a definite mass works well; it does not work at
> all for the collection on the RHS....
Why not. You'll get the motion of the center of mass. No problem.
Of course, unless the field is perfectly uniform, you'll have to take
into account the fact that different pieces of the system see
different fields. But same is true even for bound systems for
anything that isn't an elementary particle.
>
> [Here I am using the context of SR, GR, or NM.
That's the context I'm using too.
> For QFT the
> term "mass" really only applies to the elementary fields of
> the theory (i.e. the coefficients of the appropriate terms
> in the Lagrangian) -- any attempt to apply that word to a
> composite involves a major PUN, because a composite has no
> term in the Lagrangian.]
That goes back that what I said above. You can take the attitude that
mass is defined only for elementary particles but that makes it way
too limited a concept to be useful.
>So this really boils down to: mass of WHAT? To me, the word only applies
>reasonably to an object, not to a collection of objects.
Any macroscopic object is a collection of objects.
> If you look
>inside a bound and closed system you can no longer consider the "mass of
>the system as a whole"; for an unbound and open system you are always in
>that situation.
>
Oh, you can certainly consider the mass of the system as a whole and
as far as the motion of the CM, that's what is relevant. Of
courseOnce the system is a collection of objects, the motion of the CM
alone doesn't cover all that's happening. That doesn't negate the
value of total mass, just illustrates that for complex systems more
information is needed.
>I am not alone in making this distinction, and certainly classically
>(pre-SR) this is the norm.
Not at all, the total mass of a system is perfectly well defined for a
classical system. Trivially so, since in this case it is just the sum
of the individual masses.
>
And once you get past classical, using for mass the sum of the masses
of the components isn't even clearly defined. Lets say that I want to
evaluate the mass of a macroscopic object, say, a chunk of cheese.
Sum of the masses of what components should I take? The molecules?
The individual atoms? The nuclei and the electrons? The electrons
and the protons and the neutrons in the nuclei? The electrons and the
quarks which make the protons and the neutrons? Each of these sums
will give me a different value, so where is the cutoff.
So, no, I much prefer m^2 = E^2 - p^2. It is clearly defined, through
quantities which are (in principle at least) measurable and it reduces
to the standard classical mass for all objects which can be confined
and "weighted". And it still makes sense for all other objects. At
most, you can say that defined this way it is redundant since it
doesn't convey any information beyond this already contained in E and p.
And I would agree with this. Yet, we do use the tangent function in
trig, even though it doesn't convey any information beyond this
already present in sine and cosine. Is this a problem?
Harry
> Harry wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:dij6uu$n...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> >>RP wrote:
> >>>There is no *conversion* of mass to energy.
> >>Sure there is:
> >>Nucleus1 => Nucleus2 + Nucleus3 + neutron(s) + energy
> >
> > I agree with RP. The "conversion" concept even had "bugged" me for a
while
> > until I discovered that Einstein formulated it better 100 years ago:
> > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation [...]The mass
of
> > a body is a measure of its energy-content [...] radiation conveys
inertia"
> >
> > IOW, there is conversion of material mass into radiation by *giving off*
> > energy, not by converting anything to energy.
>
> Bah! Either you quibble over words that do not matter,
It surely mattered to me, as it put me on the wrong track for a while.
>or you make a more serious mistake (see below).
>
> When one starts with a some mass and some energy,
Also Bah! That's what's misleading to start with, and I even can't guess
what you mean here- one should define in which form the energy is as it
doesn't even add up with mass.
> and then ends up with
> less mass but more energy, there's no reason not to say that mass was
> converted into energy. Just as one might say this battery has a bunch of
> chemical potential energy, and connecting a resistor across its
> terminals converts chemical energy into electrical energy, and then
> converts it into heat energy. This is the same sort of conversion
> process; only the details differ.
Sometimes details matter: here you compared apples with apples, and that's
OK. You're mistaken to think that comparing apples with apples or apples
with oranges is "only details".
> Note: that "chemical potential energy" shows up as an
> increase in the mass of the battery; and if you contain
> the heat in the resistor, that "heat energy" shows up as
> an increase in the mass of the resistor.
OK again: "showing up as" is close to "measuring as" - "converting to"
implies that it doesn't exist as such afterwards.
> If you cannot discuss conversion of different "types" of energy to other
> "types" of energy, then the whole concept of conservation of energy
> becomes useless (and meaningless). In fact, we observe such conversions
> all the time -- that's the whole point of using "energy"!
Obviously we agree on the physics, but that's not a surprise. My point (and
that of RP) was exactly that: no energy disappears into nothing or appears
from nothing!
> Now there is a different argument you could have used, that actually has
> some merit:
>
> In my battery example above what I called conversion is really
> extracting internal energy from the battery and moving it first to the
> wires and then to the resistor as heat (which is merely internal motion
> of its components). So this "conversion" is just moving energy around
> from one place to another.
Exactly!
> That can reasonably be applied to many/most compound objects, but for
> e+e- annihilation that argument doesn't hold at all -- the original pair
> COMPLETELY disappears. That observation, combined with the fact that the
> increase in mass of battery and resistor can be measured (at least in
> principle), means it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a
> conversion of mass into energy.
Again: it's a conversion of Joules into Joules, that is, of stored energy
into radiation energy. No energy is created!
> Mass and energy aren't the same, either:
And that is perfectly understood the way Einstein formulated it - which
formulation I now hold as the most exact and consistent one.
> > Both the mass of a body and
> > the inertia of radiation are measures of energy.
>
> Except they aren't, by the usual definitions of those words in modern
> physics. For instance, mass is an invariant but energy is not.
Thus, according to you, modern physics denies that the mass of a body is a
measure of energy!
> More specifically: energy is the Noether current corresponding to time
> translation, but mass is an intrinsic property of particles and is
> generally a (constant) parameter appearing in certain types of terms in
> the Lagrangian. Those are QUITE different. In SR and GR this means that
> in most cases an object's energy is the time component of its 4-momentum
> and its mass is the norm of its 4-momentum; in certain cases they are
> related by a simple factor of c^2 (and _that_ was the subject of this
> documentary, but it glossed over the technical details alluded to here).
Regretfully I didn't see that documentary.
> IOW: mass and energy can be equivalent, but they need not be, and they
> certainly aren't the same.
>
> > That makes perfect sense
> > and is crystal clear.
>
> Nevertheless it is wrong.
Nevertheles it's correct (and so on - we could babble about it like little
children but I leave it at this).
> >>[...] The mass difference is converted to
> >> energy, and this can be enormous.
> >>[...] The mass of the e+e- pair is converted to energy.
> >> This _IS_ how these words and concepts are used.
> >
> > Indeed, that sloppy language has become popular; it still _IS_
misleading.
>
> How is that "sloppy" or "misleading"? In these processes the amount of
> mass decreases and the amount of energy increases -- how is that not a
> conversion of mass into energy?
Explained twice now that the amount of energy is conserved, so that it
doesn't "increase" and that's enough. I used to think like you, but it just
doesn't make sense.
Best regards,
Harald
Androcles
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:1129170617.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| > That can reasonably be applied to many/most compound objects, but
for
| > e+e- annihilation that argument doesn't hold at all -- the original
pair
| > COMPLETELY disappears.
|
|
| So it does. To be replaced by two gamma rays, which (as a system) have
| the same mass as the two particles. Mass is not converted to anything.
| Mass remains. Mass is conserved, end of story. Any time you think it
| isn't, you've been cheating and changing your reference frame.
Quite an interesting observation, that.
e+e- annihilation has cancelled the electrism.
Androcles
Androcles
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
| > Tom Roberts wrote:
| >>That can reasonably be applied to many/most compound objects, but
for
| >>e+e- annihilation that argument doesn't hold at all -- the original
pair
| >>COMPLETELY disappears.
| >
| > So it does. To be replaced by two gamma rays, which (as a system)
have
| > the same mass as the two particles. Mass is not converted to
anything.
| > Mass remains. Mass is conserved, end of story.
|
| Answered in a long post responding to Mati Meron.
|
|
| >>That observation, combined with the fact that the
| >>increase in mass of battery and resistor can be measured (at least
in
| >>principle), means it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a
| >>conversion of mass into energy.
| >
| > No mass increase would be measurable, even in principle, in such a
| > system.
|
| OK. This is a difference in parsing english. I meant "mass of
(battery)
| and (resistor)" and you read "mass of (battery and resistor)".
|
Cauchy's functional equation is the equation
mass(battery + resistor) = mass(battery) + mass(resistor)
Androcles.
donsto...@hotmail.com
mass(battery + resistor) = mass(battery) + mass(resistor)
Androcles.
***************
Fuckwit.
donsto...@hotmail.com
it wasn't called "Einstein's Big Picture." What a shame that he could
never break out of his "Physics" box. Had he only discovered the
Principia Cybernetica and Hofstadter's writings (the cognitive
scientist, not the historian). Boy. By now I bet we could have
actaully gotten to the Moon with all that insight. Wowsers!
Tom Roberts
> Say, that NOVA on "Einstein's Big Idea" was purdy darned good. Too bad
> it wasn't called "Einstein's Big Picture." What a shame that he could
> never break out of his "Physics" box.
You clearly have no knowledge of history or Einstein at all.
Einstein was a complex man with many different interests outside of
physics. Most particularly: his lifelong advocacy of pacifism.
Are you aware he was offered the opportunity to be the first president
of Israel, but turned it down?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
How to invite a suicide bomber into the White House:
"So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they
wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me." -- Albert
Einstein
Why the suicide bomber will go to Paradise:
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Why God does not play dice:
God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein
Einstein's diplomacy:
If A equals success, then the formula is _ A = _ X + _ Y + _ Z. _ X is
work. _ Y is play. _ Z is keep your mouth shut. -- Albert Einstein
Why Einstein turned down the presidency of Israel:
The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax. --
Albert Einstein
Why Roberts is an Einstein lover:
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some: the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes -- Tom Roberts.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
Androcles.
Robert J. Kolker
> Are you aware he was offered the opportunity to be the first president
> of Israel, but turned it down?
Dr. Einstein was interested in reading God's mind, not running the Holy
Land for Him.
Bob Kolker
tadchem
RP wrote:
<snip>
> Women were emphasized in the story. I can only speculate as to why, but
> I believe it boils down to "sex sells". And selling is what popular
> science is all about.
Judging from her Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilie_du_Chatelet
she preferred to *give* it away, and generally gave well - to the
Marquis Florent-Claude Chastellet (her husband), the Duc de Richelieu,
and three others *before* she met Voltaire, who moved into her country
house in Lorraine (under her husband's nose). She died of
complications bearing a child fathered by 'a young soldier.'
Her 'amorous adventures' overwhelm even those of Alma Mahler or Marilyn
Monroe.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
hanson
news:1129170584.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I didn't know that a member of that Hanson teeny-bopper
> band could get so easily amused.
>
of those thin teeny-boppers, Stockbauer, you fat old geezer.
At least they play with a band... while you are uptight and get to
play with yourself only... ahahaha... just like that other poster,
that moron-"jack"... off... did in this agony... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
It looks like neither of you two mental giants did get the joke nor
the irony of it all, ..... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
But thanks for the laughs, fatty. Try to muster a smile... ahahaha...
HAHAHA... ahahaha.... ahahanson
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> When it is said that mass 'converts" to energy, an attempt is made to
> explain the way physical reality works. But that is pure speculation.
> As far as a model, yes, you can consider mass converting to energy.
> That seems to work fairly well in estimating accurately outcomes of
> experiments.
That is what physics -is-. Estimating accurately the outcomes of
experiments. I bet you think physics is about what reality -really- is.
Fat chance of that. Our the precision of our best instruments is fiften
orders of magnitude grosser than Planck Length.
Dream on, a priorist.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3r7k8hF...@individual.net...
> Mike wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > When it is said that mass 'converts" to energy, an attempt is made to
> > explain the way physical reality works. But that is pure speculation.
> > As far as a model, yes, you can consider mass converting to energy.
> > That seems to work fairly well in estimating accurately outcomes of
> > experiments.
>
> That is what physics -is-. Estimating accurately the outcomes of
> experiments. I bet you think physics is about what reality -really- is.
No, he thinks physics is about giving "one answer
and whether it is right or wrong I stock with it":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
>
> Fat chance of that. Our the precision of our best instruments is fiften
> orders of magnitude grosser than Planck Length.
>
> Dream on, a priorist.
You are talking to a politician ;-)
Dirk Vdm
RP
I suggest that the Joule be declared a fundamental unit, and mass a
composite value, a mathematical artifact. Mass can be completely
eliminated from the equations of physics by simply substituting in the
mass equivalent energy.
The point I was making, though you were correct in a sense, was more
exactly that mass, by virtue of E=mc^2, is a composite unit, a
mathematical artifact, in the same sense that the refractive index is a
mathematical artifact, and a redundant one at that. The latter is just
another expression for the speed of light through a media, but is cast
as a ratio to c times. You can no more physically convert mass to
energy than you can physically convert a refractive index into the speed
of light through a media.
Richard Perry
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
Mark Martin wrote:
> RP wrote:
>
> > Noether's theorem is way too intensive a subject for popular accounts
> > like this one. And AFAIK she wasn't a sexpot either.
>
>
> http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/bstud/noether.html
>
> -Mark Martin
COMMENT:
Well, hell, you can't expect that the woman who taught Einstein a thing
or two about tensor analysis, did it without a bit more than the usual
amount of testosterone!
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
COMMENT:
Einstein was a Zionist. Definition: Jew who asks a second Jew to donate
money so that a third Jew can go to Israel.
Einstein was not about to go to Israel himself. Being an enlightened
soul, he realized that the Promised Land can be a state of mind, and
can just as well be located in New Jersey.
SBH
Robert J. Kolker
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Einstein was a Zionist. Definition: Jew who asks a second Jew to donate
> money so that a third Jew can go to Israel.
That is an old but funny joke. I used to carry a blue and white pushke
around trying to get contributions.
Bob Kolker
jack
Me thinks yer off the deep end,time to take your medicine! jack
hanson
& in news:h6nqk1l5iua5m1i1d...@4ax.com...
>> as your cultural heritage and your personal spiritual channeler.
>>[C] or grievously jealous that you are a moron & not "Johnny" or "Dolly".
>>ahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, jack... off.... ahahaha...
>>ahaha... ahahanson
>>
> Me thinks yer off the deep end,time to take your medicine! jack
>
ahahaha... so jack, you cranked yourself over this too as you are
obviously trying to hide that [A], [B] and [C] applies to you by
default... That's the breaks, jack. I'm sorry for your plight, fatty.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Koobee Wublee
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Fi23f.26$hY...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> == [1] No man and for that matter no woman is an Island. The entire
> history of Science is made up by individuals in interwoven events
> from many, many, sometimes seemingly unrelated disciplines in a
> sort of punctuated evolution. We naturally get to hear mostly just the
> points/people which were picked out of the barrel of history by the
> producers of these TV shows to make it look heuristic and in vogue.
String, super-string, super-super-string, and multi-dimensions of any sorts
come to mind. You have brought up an excellent point.
> == [2] The program that followed this was a 1 hour program titled
> "Einstein's Wife". Your notion that "it was Einstein's wife who really
> came up with the idea for E=mc^2" was expressed much more
> pronounced in a similar PBS/Discovery channel program that aired in
> 2003. This current "Einstein's Wife" program sounded like a retouched
> watered down "afterbirth" when compared to the 2003 piece in which
> a whole slew of academician physicists were asked about the origin
> of the 1905 paper. The issue was whether or not it was Einstein's
> Christian wife, Mileva Maric, who really had the ideas and performed
> the math in the manuscript. She urged/nagged her hubby, Albert, to
> publish HER work under his name, (given the status women had back
> then) which he apparently reluctantly did ... and in the process did not
> care to include any citations, etc. ... ahahaha...
Given Einstein's lack of interest in the academics, what you are saying is
more than plausible indeed.
> But, the moment the paper made a splash, their marriage soured
> and he dumped her.... One can wonder why Einstein acquiesced to
> her divorce demands for him to give her all the money that he got
> from his Nobel price... Hush money?........ ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> The vast number of the interviewed professionals subscribed to the
> scenario that it was Maric who was the creator and inventor of SR,
> and not Einstein who cashed in on the laurels..... ahahaha....
> ahahaha... ahahanson
Poincare was one of the first to cast doubt on the Aether. He should be
credited as the father of SR just as Birknes has pointed out. However,
given GR not even able to resolve the twins paradox, you can take it to the
bank that SR is bogus. Since Einsten or whoever came up with that 1905
paper copied Poincare, it should be a no brainer to see Einstein being wrong
as well. In order to resolve the twin's paradox, one must go back to the
absolute frame of reference. What I mean the asbolute frame of reference
means only the frame where the frames share the same ancestry (relative
velocity = 0 before each frame accelerated away). And in this absolute
frame of reference, ther is nothing special about it. That means that do
not expect to find unicorns, dragons, leprachauns, or fairy-tale characters
in this absolute frame of reference.
Harry
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0tadnZYFp6K...@centurytel.net...
SNIP
> > Explained twice now that the amount of energy is conserved, so that it
> > doesn't "increase" and that's enough. I used to think like you, but it
just
> > doesn't make sense.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Harald
>
> I suggest that the Joule be declared a fundamental unit, and mass a
> composite value, a mathematical artifact. Mass can be completely
> eliminated from the equations of physics by simply substituting in the
> mass equivalent energy.
I don't think that's a good idea: energy is a metaphysical idea, and thus in
physics, stricly speaking, just a calculation unit. Mass relates more
directly to physical measurements, by weighing and impacting things.
They are different things.
> The point I was making, though you were correct in a sense, was more
> exactly that mass, by virtue of E=mc^2, is a composite unit, a
> mathematical artifact, in the same sense that the refractive index is a
> mathematical artifact, and a redundant one at that.
Ok, so in this respect we have an exactly contrary POV!
Cheers,
Harald
Mike
On the contrary, you idiot, I am an empiricist. You, and however
adheres to relativity is a priorist. For me, stooooooooooooooopid,
science must be build on purely empirical principles or self-evident
axioms. Otherwise, science does not differ from religion,
irrespectively of what the experiments say you idiot.
Axiom one: There are globally inertial reference frames -- fails
verificationm
Axiom two: Space-time is a 4-D continuum -- faiuls verification
Axiom 3: All laws of physiucs must retain their form in all inertial
reference frames --- fails verification
Axiom 4: The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference
frames --- fails verification
Now, you
stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid,
if you are going to ground a theory on four axioms that fail
verification, irrespectivelly of what experiments say, you are no
different than a religious phanatic.
No wonder, those four axioms generate predictions that are
contradictory, like the twin paradox or the closed time lines.
I tell you Kolker and your body guard Dirt of the Motel, you found the
wrong person the mess with. You sound like a priest and Dirty van der
Shid, is a physicist wannabe.
Mike
>
> Bob Kolker
Mike
Hallo, physicist wannabe. I heard you started studying the absolute
value function.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah - idiot
Mike
>
> Dirk Vdm
tj Frazir
said.
I'd love to hear Nova tell us about the dangers of pot . Like evryone
will go crazy and kill each orther with hammers .
I'd expect Nova to say Einstein was a poor speller and had trouble
with english and was an idiot. They will say some one esle did
evrything and he was the front man and history books in usa were wrote
by honest people.
The usa history books are nothing but brass shining brass asses.
The usa GOV based 1/2 the laws on lies to pad their fat pockets .
Like the war on pot to rid towns of mexicans and blacks. The war on
the poor to controle labor cost . The USA gov invents lies to tell to
push thier fasist ajenda .
You dont think I give a flying fuck what Nova says do you ?
I would not trust Nova with a 10 foot pole .
"" OH were Nova ..like nasa ,, no piss headed
morons full of shit alloud ""
nsa taakes inventions and call them thier own .
2000 dumbfucking morons will look brilliant after they steel an
invention and modifie it .
Let cronkite talk TV news talk ad convince us Nasa and Nova are so
smart the stupid public
will bow down at thier feet wile handing over a big fat paycheck.
Nova is just a GOV backed pack of stupid shit.
The writers are all 24 years old english majors.
Like nasa wants to fake another trip to the moon !!! HA HA ,,some
dumbass newbe dont know they faked it and thinks they will go back when
if they did they might prove they never went !
If nova said it Im shure it was a pack of shit.
YAY Ballard ,, wile you were smashing cameras I was dropping cams in
corn oil and seeing the deep .
The first Zues was long befor jason the cheap copies of the real macoy.
They go steal shit because they can search any ship and do what ever
they want.
Then they lie out thier asses .
Bend over usa GOV .. with GM and delfie and the oil cost up for grabs
,,the most damage I can do is import till I buy them out.
Ill wait till its cheap then push the over the edge buy importing LPE
fom rushia and china.
Ill take the fate of the ol bosses out of the GOV hands and feed them
to the sharks.
Ill end the electric monopolies too.
sudenly the masses will have energy and lots of money . The Gov might
nead a fucking job.
Ill put evry dime on vote.
let the people decide if they want to blow 500 billion on nasa .
let the peole decide if they want to pay out the ass for propaganda
stories on public tv.
The money laaundering lies and mob tactics of the fed gov is worse and
going down hill.
They stole a rotor from me and said the president dont want anything
that works.
The GOV is full of fucking rat ass motherfuckers.
hanson
news:sNI3f.5866$MN6.2695@fed1read04...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote to Jack in message
> news:Fi23f.26$hY...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> == [1] No man and for that matter no woman is an Island. The entire
>> history of Science is made up by individuals in interwoven events
>> from many, many, sometimes seemingly unrelated disciplines in a
>> sort of punctuated evolution. We naturally get to hear mostly just the
>> points/people which were picked out of the barrel of history by the
>> producers of these TV shows to make it look heuristic and in vogue.
>
> String, super-string, super-super-string, and multi-dimensions of
> any sorts come to mind. You have brought up an excellent point.
>
>> == [2] The program that followed this was a 1 hour program titled
>> "Einstein's Wife". Your notion that "it was Einstein's wife who really
>> came up with the idea for E=mc^2" was expressed much more
>> pronounced in a similar PBS/Discovery channel program that aired in
>> 2003. This current "Einstein's Wife" program sounded like a retouched
>> watered down "afterbirth" when compared to the 2003 piece in which
>> a whole slew of academician physicists were asked about the origin
>> of the 1905 paper. The issue was whether or not it was Einstein's
>> Christian wife, Mileva Maric, who really had the ideas and performed
>> the math in the manuscript. She urged/nagged her hubby, Albert, to
>> publish HER work under his name, (given the status women had back
>> then) which he apparently reluctantly did ... and in the process did not
>> care to include any citations, etc. ... ahahaha...
>
> Given Einstein's lack of interest in the academics, what you are
> saying is more than plausible indeed.
>
>> But, the moment the paper made a splash, their marriage soured
>> and he dumped her.... One can wonder why Einstein acquiesced to
>> her divorce demands for him to give her all the money that he got
>> from his Nobel price... Hush money?........ ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>> The vast number of the interviewed professionals subscribed to the
>> scenario that it was Maric who was the creator and inventor of SR,
>> and not Einstein who cashed in on the laurels..... ahahaha....
>> ahahaha... ahahanson
>
> Poincare was one of the first to cast doubt on the Aether. He [P] should be
> credited as the father of SR just as Birknes has pointed out. However, given
> GR not even able to resolve the twins paradox, you can take it to the bank
> that SR is bogus. Since Einsten or whoever came up with that 1905 paper
> copied Poincare, it should be a no brainer to see Einstein being wrong as
> well. In order to resolve the twin's paradox, one must go back to the
> means only the frame where the frames share the same ancestry (relative
> velocity = 0 before each frame accelerated away). And in this absolute frame
> of reference, ther is nothing special about it. That means that do not expect
> to find unicorns, dragons, leprachauns, or fairy-tale characters in this
> absolute frame of reference.
>
Besides discussing (at a later date) your technical issues with "assbolute"
frames, it may be additionally more beneficial for the "Seelenheil" of the
two preceding posters, those 2 fat geezers & Albert disciples, Jack M. O'Ron,
who said that: "I'm sure Albert beat her cause he was a male chauvenist
pig and Mileva was really lesbian"... and Stocky Bauer who seems to have
a pedo thing for the "Hanson teeny-bopper band" for some yet to be
defined reason,.... ahahahaha.... to add and post a related and extremely
pertinent neo-archeological issue to what has been going down here, a fact
that has not been mentioned in either of the 2 TV shows above:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/caaf114f60499c00
API/UPI Ulm's city news service.
Ulmer Stadtzeitung by Karl Peter Stachel, 04-01-2003.
***** Einstein's Foreskin Found. *****
Under special arrangements with Ulm's urban renewal and
redevelopment agency, German archeologists from the University
of Munich were granted a few days for archeological investigations
on the Ulmer Bahnhofstrasse, prior to the begin of demolition
activities by city crews.
There, in Einstein's house of birth on Bahnhofstrasse 20
they discovered behind an alcove an old, sealed perfume bottle,
filled with formaline and labeled as "Von userem liebsten Albertle,
14. März 1879" (From our dearest Baby Albert).
It turned out that the small, grayish lump within the bottle was originally
Einstein's foreskin and was kept their on the wishes of his mother.
The find was hailed as very significant by Einstein's disciples to
whom this artifact appears to be as dear as the Dead Sea scrolls
are to Christianity.
The current Ulmer Moel, Ariel Meir-Cohn, was consulted and he
asserted that the foreskin could have been indeed a sentimental
keep sake by Einstein's parents, in memory of their Baby Albert's
circumcision on 14 March, 1879 .
To verify, the descendents of the then operative Moel in charge, around
1879, Baruch Messerman, were located and interviewed by local TV
and the investigations are continuing into this just breaking story. The
Messermans said that they would check their family records at home
and in their temple for further clues.
Meanwhile, Einstein's penile residue was flown to McMaster in the USA
who maintains a "brain bank" where Einstein's brain has been preserved
in a jar. Einstein's pickled brain and his foreskin and will undergo
DNA analysis to see whether the two have something in common.
--
hanson
Traveler
Wow! This whole Einstein thing is getting weirder by the day. ahaha...
When I found out that Einstein agreed with his friend, Kurt "lunatic"
Godel, that GR allows time travel via closed time-like loops (a false
claim since nothing can move in spacetime), it became clear to me that
Einstein did not really understand his own chicken-shit math theory.
Assuming, of course, that it was his theory to begin with.
ahahahaha... Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1129299886.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > When it is said that mass 'converts" to energy, an attempt is made to
> > > explain the way physical reality works. But that is pure speculation.
> > > As far as a model, yes, you can consider mass converting to energy.
> > > That seems to work fairly well in estimating accurately outcomes of
> > > experiments.
> >
> > That is what physics -is-. Estimating accurately the outcomes of
> > experiments. I bet you think physics is about what reality -really- is.
> >
> > Fat chance of that. Our the precision of our best instruments is fiften
> > orders of magnitude grosser than Planck Length.
> >
> > Dream on, a priorist.
>
> On the contrary, you idiot, I am an empiricist. You, and however
> adheres to relativity is a priorist. For me, stooooooooooooooopid,
> science must be build on purely empirical principles or self-evident
> axioms. Otherwise, science does not differ from religion,
> irrespectively of what the experiments say you idiot.
No, for you science is built upon giving "one answer
and whether it is right or wrong I stock with it":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
Dirk Vdm
brian a m stuckless
brian a m stuckless
IAM circumcising the foreskin of your hearts.
< http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=mountain+of+foreskins&start=10&hl=en&
>;
<
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=mountain+of+foreskins&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
>.
/\
__ _\/_ __
\_\/_/\_\/_/
/\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
_\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
/_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
/\ - O - _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
\/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He and No more is more.
:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
p.s.
Go see <Three (mp - a*u)/3, QUARKs for MiSTER i've had it.!!>
RP
Harry wrote:
> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0tadnZYFp6K...@centurytel.net...
> SNIP
>
>
>>>Explained twice now that the amount of energy is conserved, so that it
>>>doesn't "increase" and that's enough. I used to think like you, but it
>
> just
>
>>>doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Harald
>>
>>I suggest that the Joule be declared a fundamental unit, and mass a
>>composite value, a mathematical artifact. Mass can be completely
>>eliminated from the equations of physics by simply substituting in the
>>mass equivalent energy.
>
>
> I don't think that's a good idea: energy is a metaphysical idea, and thus in
> physics, stricly speaking, just a calculation unit. Mass relates more
> directly to physical measurements, by weighing and impacting things.
> They are different things.
>
>
>>The point I was making, though you were correct in a sense, was more
>>exactly that mass, by virtue of E=mc^2, is a composite unit, a
>>mathematical artifact, in the same sense that the refractive index is a
>>mathematical artifact, and a redundant one at that.
>
>
> Ok, so in this respect we have an exactly contrary POV!
Not really, because I regard both energy and mass as artifacts of our
arbitrary system of units and measures. The base reality is that stuff
exists, produces patterns, and these patterns change over time. All of
physics is nothing more than an attempt to simulate these processes with
symbolic representatives of the things that we think we perceive.
Energy is related to mass by the constant conversion factor c^2. The
conversion is mathematical, not physical. You already agreed that the
mass in a closed system is constant, and that we can regard shifts in
the mass distribution as just the movement of energy from one place to
another. When we regard each particle as an energetic subsystem rather
than a mass, then there is no weirdness about the total energy of an
atom not equaling the sum of the energies of its particles. The
electromagnetic potentials between them either add to or subtract from
the grand total. The mystery of the exchange between mass and energy
disappears when the conversion from mass to energy is done up front, on
paper, the only place that it ever truly occurs anyway, before the
changes in the system occur. Once having converted all of the initial
mass to energy on paper, the problem reduces to simple conservation of
energy during the changes, i.e. "how much energy was lost here and
gained there?"
The energy released from a fusion reaction was energy that the particles
already had not just individually, but also collectively as a group of
electromagnetically interacting particles. Not one of them disappears in
the interaction. No matter is converted to anything, it is all still
accounted for after the reaction. We could then make an alternate
argument in terms of e+e- annihilation, but in this case I'll argue
strongly that the electron positron pair simply goes into a very tight
orbit, the new composite particle of positronium being non reactive to
em frequencies other than their resonant gamma frequency, or IOW, they
are effectively neutral particles wrt any wavelengths much longer than
their own. When gamma photons create an electron/positron pair, they are
only separating the two particles out of their preexisting mutual orbit,
this being just another version of photoelectron emission. The mass of
the positronium atom drops to very nearly zero as the particles spiral
inward releasing em radiation. The neutrino may even be a positronium atom.
Richard Perry
FrediFizzx
No. The neutrino has spin 1/2. It can't be a positronium atom.
Neutrinos are simply the most "free" fermions from the bounds of the
quantum "vacuum". In our picture, there really isn't much difference
between fermions. It is the quantum "vacuum" that determines whether a
fermion is a neutrino, electron, or quark. The basic quantum entity
that makes fermions and "everything" are all the same. IOW, if you had
a "bare" neutrino in your right hand and a "bare" quark in your left
hand, you would not be able to tell them apart from each other.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Mike
Hahahaha.... it may be so, coming from you, likely a priest, but God
was probably laughing at fool Einstein. I think "Dr" Al would have donw
better as a preacher:
Axiom one: There are globally inertial reference frames -- fails
verificationm
Axiom two: Space-time is a 4-D continuum -- fails verification
Axiom 3: All laws of physics must retain their form in all inertial
reference frames --- fails verification
Axiom 4: The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference
frames --- fails verification
That is certainly an "act" of trying to read God's mind.
hahahahahahaha...wake up
stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid.
Mike
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
Tom Roberts wrote:
> You are willing to apply the term "mass" to unbound, open systems, and I
> am not.
COMMENT:
Well, that's YOUR problem.
Think of a spherical baloon of gas molecules, suspended perfectly
inside a second larger spherical container, with a perfect vacuum gap
between the baloon and larger container. Both sit on a scale, which
measures a total container weight W. That W is the mass of the baloon
and container and gas. Heat the gas and the mass increases--- for an
ideal gas you're weighing pure kinetic energy.
Now, suddenly pop the baloon or make it go away. This is equivalent to
making the sphere that holds the gas suddently just a big larger-- and
doing it far faster than the gas can expand, so this is a adiabatic
expansion where no work is done by the gas. Also, let's have a gas
which is ideal, so we can forget any Joule-Thompson effect from gas
molecules attracting each other. We can make it helium and make it thin
enough that it acts very close to idealilty. Temperature therefore does
not decrease in this gas, as it flies outward to fill the larger
system.
Q1: Now, at the moment the baloon pops, the system is unbound, just as
if we'd popped the baloon in space. Do you think its mass suddenly
becomes undefined?
Q2: When all that gas hits the walls of the larger box, do you think
needle on the scale will change?
Q3: While the gas is in flight outwards, unbound, and before it hits
the walls of the larger sphere, do you think the needle on the scale
will change in THAT interval?
Hopefully you answer is "no" to all three questions.
Mass is basically the average of what you measure with the scale. It
can just as well be gamma rays (or any radiation) bouncing around
inside that (ideal) box, as it can be gas molecules, and they will
contribute to the weight also. So long as your scale is in the center
of mass frame for the box and contents, the needle may jiggle from side
to side for statistical reasons, but on average it stays at the same
place. Mass is that average. Disregarding the mass of the confining
box, the mass is the system is the same, whether the confining box is
actually there, or not. As demonstrated above.
SBH
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>That observation, combined with the fact that the
> >>increase in mass of battery and resistor can be measured (at least in
> >>principle), means it is perfectly reasonable to consider this a
> >>conversion of mass into energy.
> >
> > system.
>
> OK. This is a difference in parsing english. I meant "mass of (battery)
> and (resistor)" and you read "mass of (battery and resistor)".
>
>
> > Heat has mass.
>
> Say, rather, that a hot object has more mass than the same object when
> cold. It is not really the heat itself that has mass, but rather its
> effect on the object -- c.f. my response to Mati.
It's equally easy to consider the heat itself to have mass. In an ideal
gas, the heat is the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. Kinetic
energy has mass (so long as you're looking a one or more objects going
in different directions--- otherwise kinetic energy is sort of an
arbitrary quantity, and isn't conserved. But if you're going to change
inertial frames, energy of single objects isn't conserved either.)
> > Heat a resistor with a battery, and the total
> > mass of the system does not change.
>
> Yes. But the mass of the battery and the mass of the resistor both
> change. This last is what I meant.
Yes, the mass of battery goes down as it transfers mass to the
resistor. Mass can go from here to there. So?
Put a 20 kT fission bomb in a very strong ideal box on a scale, and
fire it off. Contents of the box will go to plasma at 10 million
degrees or something. The weight won't budge. Probably the box won't
even jump much, depending on how homogenous your explosian is.
Certainly it will be the same a second later after the explosion, as it
was before the bomb went off. There is no conversion of mass to energy.
Mass and energy are the same before as after the explosian. But more
energy has no changed to the form of heat and various kinds of EM
radiation.
Open a "window" which lets out radiation, and get an eye full of soft
X-rays-- bomb light from the box. As the box cools, a gram of radiation
leaks out and the scale slowly goes down by 1 gram. You can shine the
radiation on another ideal box of ice (your bomb calorimeter :)), and
let it melt water. When you're done, the bomb box will be at ice temp,
and a lot of ice will have melted in the other box. In fact, around 270
million liters of it. And if you can weigh 270,000 metric tones of ice
to the nearest gram, you'll see that the melted water will weigh 1 gram
more than it did before it was melted. (But that would be true no
matter how you melted it, of course). All that happened is mass moved
from here to there. But mass is always conserved. You can't get rid of
it. During this whole process, the gravitational field of the Earth
doesn't change. :) That gram of energy "gravitates" the whole time,
whether present as nuclear and EM fields in the bomb before it went
off, or radiation and kinetic energy in bomb after, or radiation
traveling betwen boxes, or potential energy in the melted ice. And you
can weigh it at every stage.
With one minor cavet: If you have a VERY large distance between boxes,
in theory all that gram of radiation in the beam could be in transit
between boxes, and while it was in transit, one box would weigh a gram
less, *before* the other box caught the radiation and weighed a gram
more. But how are you going to tell? If you send out a signal from box
#1 that you've lost a gram of matter, by the time it gets to box #2,
he'll have found it. So there's no way to report the missing mass,
while it is missing. So why says it's ever missing? No single observer
can "see" that.
Same thing for a mass detector which works by sensing gravity. I am not
sure if radiation in transit in ONE direction has mass, or gravitates.
I think it doesn't, but it moves so fast that you can't use gravity to
detect the loss. The effects of the temporary mass loss cannot be seen
by a single gravitational observer, because mass shows up THERE so fast
that loss HERE doesn't have TIME to propagate to the observer and be
felt, before the gain over there starts showing up also. How fast does
gravity have to travel, for that to be so? At the speed of light,
minimum. Gravitational waves MUST move at *at least* the same speed as
a light beam, or else gravity observers of this kind of transfer will
SEE a mass deficit (gravity deficit) while the beam (or photon) is in
one-direction transit, and we can't have THAT. In fact, I think this
gedanken experiment may be a sort of intuitive proof of why gravity
waves must travel at (at least) c.
SBH
Tom Roberts
any underlying physics.]
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Think of a spherical baloon of gas molecules, suspended perfectly
> inside a second larger spherical container, with a perfect vacuum gap
> between the baloon and larger container. Both sit on a scale, which
> measures a total container weight W. That W is the mass of the baloon
> and container and gas. Heat the gas and the mass increases--- for an
> ideal gas you're weighing pure kinetic energy.
>
> Now, suddenly pop the baloon or make it go away. This is equivalent to
> making the sphere that holds the gas suddently just a big larger-- and
> doing it far faster than the gas can expand, so this is a adiabatic
> expansion where no work is done by the gas. Also, let's have a gas
> which is ideal, so we can forget any Joule-Thompson effect from gas
> molecules attracting each other. We can make it helium and make it thin
> enough that it acts very close to idealilty. Temperature therefore does
> not decrease in this gas, as it flies outward to fill the larger
> system.
>
> Q1: Now, at the moment the baloon pops, the system is unbound, just as
> if we'd popped the baloon in space. Do you think its mass suddenly
> becomes undefined?
I think that the only system in your example is the whole thing,
including the outer container. The mass of that system is always well
defined, and does not change. Popping the balloon affects the
distribution of mass within different parts of the system, but not the
mass of the system itself.
> Q2: When all that gas hits the walls of the larger box, do you think
> needle on the scale will change?
Your description is ambiguous and I assume you mean the container sits
on a scale (as it contains the balloon, this meets your "both sit on a
scale").
Of course the needle doesn't change -- the system being weighed has a
well defined and unchanging mass.
Your example does not probe the difference you are trying to question.
> Q3: While the gas is in flight outwards, unbound, and before it hits
> the walls of the larger sphere, do you think the needle on the scale
> will change in THAT interval?
No. see above.
> Mass is basically the average of what you measure with the scale. [...]
Sure. That agrees with what I said earlier -- a bound and closed system
like this has a well defined mass.
To probe my statements you would need to omit the outer container --
then what would your scale weigh?
My dislike of puns that others around here are willing to accept makes
no difference in the predictions of any physical theory, it merely
affects word usage.
> It's equally easy to consider the heat itself to have mass.
How? Be specific, and don't use any enclosing volume that would
constitute a closed and bound system. Be sure to provide a direct way of
measuring it.
Bottom line: heat is a property of a system, and is not itself any sort
of object. As I keep saying: the term mass only applies sensibly to objects.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
RP
That's reminiscent of the view of string theorists. My take on this is
that: Just as the same gravitational forces can be accounted for by
assuming all of empty space as massive and objects as bubbles of empty
space, a sort of negative image of mass and space, and just as a glass
can be half empty or half full, there seems to be opposing yet
functionally equivalent views of just about everything imaginable.
Long ago there were some theorists who regarded all of sensible matter
and its motions as just an illusion produced by interference patterns of
superposed waves. It is however a functionally equivalent view that all
waves are illusions introduced by the motions of sensible particles. In
any case, I can't seem to get spherical waves to coalesce into an
inverse square field unless in the form of spherical standing waves, in
which case the particle must be its own original source. I find that
notion to be akin to the BB argument for the production of the universe
itself, and neither of these seem plausible, the universe bootstrapping
itself into existence, all of its particles doing so simultaneously, and
simultaneously in conjunction with one another.
I see the cause of the existence of particles as more a matter of pure
logical necessity, the literal lack of logical contradiction in a field
of possibilities. Pi is the natural result of a logical
possibility-sequence<sic>, and the structure of the electron's field is
likely due to something along the same lines. The fabric of space-time
is nothing more than a field of possibilities, it is truly virtual.
The solution to the problem of creation is that "we just are", but we
aren't as real as we are inclined to believe.
Richard Perry
Ken S. Tucker
Tom Roberts wrote:
[snip a load of shit]
> Bottom line: heat is a property of a system, and is not itself any sort
> of object. As I keep saying: the term mass only applies sensibly to objects.
The formula E=mc^2, has been repealed by
Mr. Dickhead Tom Roberts. Is heat and kinetic
energy related (duh).
Potato head Roberts, go away...you suck.
Ken
frank...@yahoo.com
Instead when energy generates matter (as in pair production of an
electron and positron from a gamma ray) the amount of energy required
to do this is in accordance to E=mc^2. I believe the formula is
actually an extremely trivial consequence of the normal kinetic energy
formula KE = 1/2mv^2. When pair production occurs, the net energy
generated is mc^2. 2 particles are produced which have the same mass,
so each particle must take away 1/2 of the energy or 1/2mc^2 in order
for total energy to be conserved. Notice that 1/2mc^2 is the kinetic
energy formula where v = c. Therefore the difference of 1/2 between
E=mc^2 and KE= 1/2mv^2 comes from the fact that 2 particles are always
produced in matter production (a matter/antimatter pair) and the sum of
the kinetic energies 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2 = mv^2. This is an extremely
simple explanation which requires no calculus or complex derivations. I
have detailed this argument at my website "What does E=mc^2 really
mean?":
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/emc.html
This is part of my Theory of Everything which can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
fhuemc
FrediFizzx
news:1129352231....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| [snip a load of shit]
|
| > Bottom line: heat is a property of a system, and is not itself any
sort
| > of object. As I keep saying: the term mass only applies sensibly to
objects.
|
| The formula E=mc^2, has been repealed by
| Mr. Dickhead Tom Roberts. Is heat and kinetic
| energy related (duh).
Well, I get Tom's point here and I think I have to agree with it
somewhat. Even though we have a equivalency of mass and energy, they
are different for most practical purposes. Take for example the
annihilation of an e+e- pair into two photons. The two photons as a
system can be said to have mass equal to the e+e- pair plus any kinetic
energy they might have had, but it is not what I would call "practical"
mass. However, it is said that most of the mass of nucleons is from the
kinetic energy of their components, so I suppose we do get into grey
areas with this. Nucleons do seem to be mostly "trapped" or "condensed"
energy. The really big problem is that there is no real fundamental
definition of mass yet. The mass of a practical object can only be
relatively related to the mass of another practical object.
Sure heat and kinetic energy are related, but they always also relate
back to some "object(s)".
FrediFizzx
Well, that was the conundrum I was faced with when I was first
developing the quantum "vacuum" charge concept. All real matter ended
up being holes in the equilibrium of the "vacuum". The solution; Dual
Spacetime.
| Long ago there were some theorists who regarded all of sensible matter
| and its motions as just an illusion produced by interference patterns
of
| superposed waves. It is however a functionally equivalent view that
all
| waves are illusions introduced by the motions of sensible particles.
In
| any case, I can't seem to get spherical waves to coalesce into an
| inverse square field unless in the form of spherical standing waves,
in
| which case the particle must be its own original source. I find that
| notion to be akin to the BB argument for the production of the
universe
| itself, and neither of these seem plausible, the universe
bootstrapping
| itself into existence, all of its particles doing so simultaneously,
and
| simultaneously in conjunction with one another.
There is not much doubt in my mind that "our" Universe is really a
"bubble" in a much bigger one. I think I am finding myself agreeing
with the concept of constant mass-energy creation into our bubble in the
present epoch that John Polasek presents in his "Dual Space" book. The
BB was just rapid inflow to get the party started. I don't see any
reason why that flow should have completely stopped. Our Universe's
"now" is an event horizon that physically moves at c. To where? Dual
Spacetime has to be the answer.
| I see the cause of the existence of particles as more a matter of pure
| logical necessity, the literal lack of logical contradiction in a
field
| of possibilities. Pi is the natural result of a logical
| possibility-sequence<sic>, and the structure of the electron's field
is
| likely due to something along the same lines. The fabric of space-time
| is nothing more than a field of possibilities, it is truly virtual.
| The solution to the problem of creation is that "we just are", but we
| aren't as real as we are inclined to believe.
Well, I certainly agree with the "we just are" concept. And "always
have been". But I also certainly would have to describe banging my head
against a door as being pretty real. ;-)
Androcles
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3rboaeF...@individual.net...
| The really big problem is that there is no real fundamental
| definition of mass yet. The mass of a practical object can only be
| relatively related to the mass of another practical object.
A point I've been trying to make for a long time, Fredi, but nobody
wishes
to discuss it.
We measure mass by "weighing" it. In other words, measure a force.
We detect magnetism by measuring a force, the magnet sticks to the
fridge door.
Electricity? The pith ball sticks to the comb.
Three fundamental forces.
Fleming's left-hand rule:
http://www.chilternweb.co.uk/physics/emag/right.html
I'll stick my neck out and venture an hypothesis, I'm sure it'll
be cut off.
Gravity is at right angles to magnicity and electrism
Electric motors turn by gravity.
Androcles.
Sue...
Androcles wrote:
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3rboaeF...@individual.net...
> | The really big problem is that there is no real fundamental
> | definition of mass yet. The mass of a practical object can only be
> | relatively related to the mass of another practical object.
>
> A point I've been trying to make for a long time, Fredi, but nobody
> wishes
> to discuss it.
>
> We measure mass by "weighing" it.
Waddaya mean WE 'qui no sabe'?
Inside both the pedestrian and
equestrian community and outside the
FQHE community folks simply use:
mass = n(0.511 MeV )
Obviously you are completely in the dark about
current research in the field of gravity theory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3739515.stm
:o)
Sue...
Ps:
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/condoleezza%20rice.jpg
http://www.write101.com/kemosabe.htm
Pps:
<<Gravity is at right angles to magnicity and electrism
Electric motors turn by gravity. >>
<< The orientation effect (dipole-dipole): The interaction
energy of two permanent dipoles depends on their relative
orientation, and might be expected to be zero overall for
a compound if all orientations are possible. This would be
true if the molecules were completely free to rotate, but
they are not and some orientations are preferred over others.
The energy of interaction varies as 1/r6, the force
between the dipoles as 1/r7. It is inversely dependent
upon the temperature. In a solid the interaction energy
varies as 1/r3. >>
http://www.rod.beavon.clara.net/vander.htm
<< I'll stick my neck out and venture an hypothesis,
I'm sure it'll be cut off. >>
http://home.att.net/~mcp3_2000/_backgrds/holidays/turkey_axe.jpg
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129364930.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:3rboaeF...@individual.net...
| > | The really big problem is that there is no real fundamental
| > | definition of mass yet. The mass of a practical object can only
be
| > | relatively related to the mass of another practical object.
| >
| > A point I've been trying to make for a long time, Fredi, but nobody
| > wishes
| > to discuss it.
| >
| > We measure mass by "weighing" it.
|
| Waddaya mean WE 'qui no sabe'?
Ok, you then. I never bother with bathroom scales when the moon
is overhead.
Androcles.
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129364930.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| > "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:3rboaeF...@individual.net...
| > | The really big problem is that there is no real fundamental
| > | definition of mass yet. The mass of a practical object can only
be
| > | relatively related to the mass of another practical object.
| >
| > A point I've been trying to make for a long time, Fredi, but nobody
| > wishes
| > to discuss it.
| >
| > We measure mass by "weighing" it.
|
| Waddaya mean WE 'qui no sabe'?
| Inside both the pedestrian and
| equestrian community and outside the
| FQHE community folks simply use:
|
| mass = n(0.511 MeV )
|
|
|
| Obviously you are completely in the dark about
| current research in the field of gravity theory.
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3739515.stm
|
| :o)
Nah... you are completely in the dark about my
'current' research in the 'field' of gravo-electro-magneticy.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1129353637.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I would agree with the argument that mass is not converted into energy.
> Instead when energy generates matter (as in pair production of an
> electron and positron from a gamma ray) the amount of energy required
> to do this is in accordance to E=mc^2. I believe the formula is
> actually an extremely trivial consequence of the normal kinetic energy
> formula KE = 1/2mv^2. When pair production occurs, the net energy
> generated is mc^2. 2 particles are produced which have the same mass,
> so each particle must take away 1/2 of the energy or 1/2mc^2 in order
> for total energy to be conserved. Notice that 1/2mc^2 is the kinetic
> energy formula where v = c. Therefore the difference of 1/2 between
> E=mc^2 and KE= 1/2mv^2 comes from the fact that 2 particles are always
> produced in matter production (a matter/antimatter pair) and the sum of
> the kinetic energies 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2 = mv^2. This is an extremely
> simple explanation which requires no calculus or complex derivations.
It is also completely wrong, and that was explained to you before
more than once.
Dirk Vdm
brian a m stuckless
Note ANY heat ENERGY e / c^2 = EQUiVALENT mass = m*c^2.!!
What is the definition of "object" ..in GR gtr Tivity.?!!
[NO mass CAN BE deFinitively-RELATED to GR POiNT-objects.]
[There's NO mass in GR gtr Tivity RELATED to G_uv = T_uv.]
Term GR "POiNT-like" DOEs NOT mean or indicate "POiNT-mass".
[ GR "POiNT-mass" is the *ONLY* mass, in GR-gtr-Tivity.!! ]
ALL, GR POiNT-"like" mass CAN BE is "POiNT"-mass ..*ONLY*.!!
[GR POiNT-"mass" inherently CANNOT have ROCKETs attached.!!]
[GR POiNT-"mass" inherently, CANNOT *STRETCH* into a ROD.!!]
However, ANY REAL (as-suspeciously-observed)
[ GR "POiNT-mass" CANNOT BE "ripped apart" at ANY horizon.!! ]
[ "Non-POiNT mass" WiLL BE "ripped apart" at a BH horizon.!! ]
[ The GUESS "non-POiNT" mass WiLL BE "ripped apart" there.!! ]
[ "Non-POiNT mass" DOEs NOT exist ..at all, in Gtr Tivity.!! ]
There was NO CURVATURE in GR ..mass CANNOT BE RELATED to it.!!
EXCEPT GR, "language and the use of words" ADD NOMENCLATURE.!!
GRANTED, GR was "The SEMANTiC COMEDY of REDUNDANT SYNONYMs".!!
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Tom Roberts wrote:
> [I repeat: this is about language and the use of words, not
> really about any underlying physics.]
"Physics" is ALL about "language and the use of words", duh.!!
> > It's equally easy to consider the heat itself to have mass.
>
> How?
Note ANY heat ENERGY e / c^2 = EQUiVALENT mass = m*c^2, Dimwit.!!
> As I keep saying: the term mass only applies sensibly to objects.
What is the definition of "object" ..in GR gtr Tivity, DooOP.?!!
[There is NO mass ..in GR gtr Tivity, RELATED to G_uv = T_uv.!!]
[Means NO mass CAN BE deFinitively-RELATED to GR-POiNT-objects.]
Term GR "POiNT-like" DOEs NOT mean or indicate GR "POiNT-mass".
[Note GR "POiNT-mass" is the "ONLY" mass, in GR-gtr-Tivity.!!]
[ALL, GR POiNT-"like" mass CAN BE is "POiNT"-mass .."ONLY".!!]
[GR POiNT-"mass", inherently, CANNOT have ROCKETs attached.!!]
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Sue...
brian a m stuckless wrote:
alt.local.village.idiot,alt.morons,sci.physics.relativity
donsto...@hotmail.com
replying to and go with the "show options" option so that he can
control where his posts go instead of letting people's "follow-up"
specifications put him in alt.morons, etc.
Also, that keybored of his - wow, it must have a stuck caps lock key.
You'd think he'd notice that by now.
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Gravity is at right angles to magnicity and electrism
> Electric motors turn by gravity.
>
> Androcles.
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
Google Groups
group:sci.physics author:Androcles
2890 examples of your utter stooopidity - a garbage midden of
ineducable faith-based spew and frank psychosis.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Ok, you then. I never bother with bathroom scales when the moon
> is overhead.
> Androcles.
Uncle Al
[snip]
> Nah... you are completely in the dark about my
> 'current' research in the 'field' of gravo-electro-magneticy.
>
> Androcles.
RP
FrediFizzx wrote:
It doesn't *have to be* the answer, though it may be the logical
consequence of your chosen premises.
> | I see the cause of the existence of particles as more a matter of pure
> | logical necessity, the literal lack of logical contradiction in a
> field
> | of possibilities. Pi is the natural result of a logical
> | possibility-sequence<sic>, and the structure of the electron's field
> is
> | likely due to something along the same lines. The fabric of space-time
> | is nothing more than a field of possibilities, it is truly virtual.
> | The solution to the problem of creation is that "we just are", but we
> | aren't as real as we are inclined to believe.
>
> Well, I certainly agree with the "we just are" concept. And "always
> have been". But I also certainly would have to describe banging my head
> against a door as being pretty real. ;-)
Yep, it's a pretty convincing illusion isn't it? :)
Richard Perry
brian a m stuckless
Reply to Pusch <
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.research/msg/fc507908edb886de?hl=en&
>;
%%%%%%%%
Google GROUP SEARCH < Hillman hover >;
< http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=hillman+hover&hl=en >;
Mass defect in GR
... they are exerting sufficient thrust to maintain
their position according to Newtonian
gravitostatics, they are not able to hover in gtr.
... Chris Hillman Home Page ...
sci.physics.relativity - Jun 22 2000, 1:39 pm by
Chris Hillman - 7 messages - 3 authors.
%%%%%%%
Take My WORD for it is FiNiSHED.!!
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Sue... wrote:
> alt.local.village.idiot,alt.morons,sci.physics.relativity
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4351185B...@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip]
|
| > Nah... you are completely in the dark about my
| > 'current' research in the 'field' of gravo-electro-magneticy.
| >
| > Androcles.
|
|
| http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
|
| Google Groups
| group:sci.physics author:Androcles
|
| 2890 examples of your utter stooopidity - a garbage midden of
| ineducable faith-based spew and frank psychosis.
|
| --
| Uncle Al
orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical and
vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
done. They literally drool foaming spit.
They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and attempt
assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place. What
do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
are.
The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation, public
disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
LITLE PEOPLE LIKE UNCLE SNIPCRAP HATE THAT and will
throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
Standard
of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result. The net result is
the
trivially reproducible falsification of Special Relativity in existing
mathematics
all over the world. Professionals call this "science." We don't care
what
god-fearing witch burners and wog haters call it.
Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an unsuccessful
rogue
researcher.
It's happening. Let the universe decide.
Androcles.
Androcles
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip]
| > Gravity is at right angles to magnicity and electrism
| > Electric motors turn by gravity.
| >
| > Androcles.
|
|
| http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
|
| Google Groups
| group:sci.physics author:Androcles
|
| 2890 examples of your utter stooopidity - a garbage midden of
| ineducable faith-based spew and frank psychosis.
If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles posted the
Androcles
Ken S. Tucker
I was trying to protect Mother Nature from the
ravage and pilliging of that Barbarian Roberts.
FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1129352231....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Tom Roberts wrote:
> | [snip a load of shit]
> |
> | > Bottom line: heat is a property of a system, and is not itself any
> sort
> | > of object. As I keep saying: the term mass only applies sensibly to
> objects.
> |
> | The formula E=mc^2, has been repealed by
> | Mr. Dickhead Tom Roberts. Is heat and kinetic
> | energy related (duh).
>
> Well, I get Tom's point here and I think I have to agree with it
> somewhat. Even though we have a equivalency of mass and energy, they
> are different for most practical purposes.
Sure that's true upon the condition of strict Baryon/Lepton
conservation, meaning for example a proton *under no
circumstances* can be converted to radiant energy.
If that is true, then there is a line drawn forever
through space and time, that a barrier exists preventing
mass (objects in Roberts lingo) to be converted to heat
(radiant energy).
IIRC Baez and Carlip agreed heating a box on a weigh scale
increments the scales reading. Similiarly, spinning up a
flywheel on that scale will also increment the scale,
confirming E=mc^2, and heat and kinetic energy are
convertible to mass, as defined by gravitation and inertia.
((pardon the rant, it's for Mother Natures Virtue)).
> Take for example the
> annihilation of an e+e- pair into two photons. The two photons as a
> system can be said to have mass equal to the e+e- pair plus any kinetic
> energy they might have had, but it is not what I would call "practical"
> mass. However, it is said that most of the mass of nucleons is from the
> kinetic energy of their components, so I suppose we do get into grey
> areas with this. Nucleons do seem to be mostly "trapped" or "condensed"
> energy. The really big problem is that there is no real fundamental
> definition of mass yet. The mass of a practical object can only be
> relatively related to the mass of another practical object.
>
> Sure heat and kinetic energy are related, but they always also relate
> back to some "object(s)".
I respect your PoV that mass is relative and agree.
I think we need to be careful about terminology, i.e.
"practical mass", "practical object" are a means of
dividing the general definition of mass, by fuzzy
definitions. You know better than I the sub-catagories
of mass like bosons, fermions, hadrons, baryons,
leptons and one other you could name, but Roberts,
attempted a redefinition of the Mass-Energy Conservation
Law, by introducing the term "object".
I think the SR's E=mc^2 and GR's energy-momentum
vector components p_u , p , p^u stand true and need
no permission from Mr. Roberts vague definitions.
If Robert's to clarify his statement I'll apologize.
> FrediFizzx
Thanks Fredi, as always your a great referee.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Tom Roberts
> when energy generates matter (as in pair production of an
> electron and positron from a gamma ray) the amount of energy required
> to do this is in accordance to E=mc^2.
OK so far -- but this depends on how one applies "E=mc^2"....
> I believe the formula is
> actually an extremely trivial consequence of the normal kinetic energy
> formula KE = 1/2mv^2.
Not at all. That equation is wrong because it is merely the lowest order
of the expansion of
KE = E - mc^2 = mc^2 (\gamma - 1) = mc^2 (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1)
= 1/2 mv^2 + ...
> [... outrageously simplistic nonsense]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:9Pe4f.380$Y6....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > when energy generates matter (as in pair production of an
> > electron and positron from a gamma ray) the amount of energy required
> > to do this is in accordance to E=mc^2.
>
> OK so far -- but this depends on how one applies "E=mc^2"....
>
>
> > I believe the formula is
> > actually an extremely trivial consequence of the normal kinetic energy
> > formula KE = 1/2mv^2.
>
> Not at all. That equation is wrong because it is merely the lowest order
> of the expansion of
>
> KE = E - mc^2 = mc^2 (\gamma - 1) = mc^2 (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1)
> = 1/2 mv^2 + ...
That's what I told him a few weeks ago on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ce488ef69cef991c
He somehow seems to be blind far some forms of information.
A mild form of autism I guess :-)
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
Androcles <=> Jämmerkichkeit
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
--
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Henry Haapalainen
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1129375066....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
brian a m stuckless wrote:
alt.local.village.idiot,alt.morons,sci.physics.relativity
As I have said earlier, that person is using many different names.
Henry Haapalainen
hanson
Latter Day Moel got stuckup as he wrote in message
news:434FF5...@nf.sympatico.ca...
> IAM circumcising the foreskin of your hearts.
> brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
>
> "Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote an incisive message in
> news:sNI3f.5866$MN6.2695@fed1read04...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote to Jack in message
> > news:Fi23f.26$hY...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> == [1] No man and for that matter no woman is an Island. The entire
> >> history of Science is made up by individuals in interwoven events
> >> from many, many, sometimes seemingly unrelated disciplines in a
> >> sort of punctuated evolution. We naturally get to hear mostly just the
> >> points/people which were picked out of the barrel of history by the
> >> producers of these TV shows to make it look heuristic and in vogue.
> >
> [Koobee]
> > String, super-string, super-super-string, and multi-dimensions of
> > any sorts come to mind. You have brought up an excellent point.
> >
> [hanson to Jack]
> >> == [2] The program that followed this was a 1 hour program titled
> >> "Einstein's Wife". Your notion that "it was Einstein's wife who really
> >> came up with the idea for E=mc^2" was expressed much more
> >> pronounced in a similar PBS/Discovery channel program that aired in
> >> 2003. This current "Einstein's Wife" program sounded like a retouched
> >> watered down "afterbirth" when compared to the 2003 piece in which
> >> a whole slew of academician physicists were asked about the origin
> >> of the 1905 paper. The issue was whether or not it was Einstein's
> >> Christian wife, Mileva Maric, who really had the ideas and performed
> >> the math in the manuscript. She urged/nagged her hubby, Albert, to
> >> publish HER work under his name, (given the status women had back
> >> then) which he apparently reluctantly did ... and in the process did not
> >> care to include any citations, etc. ... ahahaha...
> >
> [Koobee]
> > Given Einstein's lack of interest in the academics, what you are
> > saying is more than plausible indeed.
> >
> [hanson]
> >> But, the moment the paper made a splash, their marriage soured
> >> and he dumped her.... One can wonder why Einstein acquiesced to
> >> her divorce demands for him to give her all the money that he got
> >> from his Nobel price... Hush money?........ ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> >> The vast number of the interviewed professionals subscribed to the
> >> scenario that it was Maric who was the creator and inventor of SR,
> >> and not Einstein who cashed in on the laurels..... ahahaha....
> >> ahahaha... ahahanson
> >
> [Koobee]
> > Poincare was one of the first to cast doubt on the Aether. He [P] should be
> > credited as the father of SR just as Birknes has pointed out. However,
> > given
> > GR not even able to resolve the twins paradox, you can take it to the bank
> > that SR is bogus. Since Einsten or whoever came up with that 1905 paper
> > copied Poincare, it should be a no brainer to see Einstein being wrong as
> > well. In order to resolve the twin's paradox, one must go back to the
> > absolute frame of reference. What I mean the *asbolute* frame of reference
> > means only the frame where the frames share the same ancestry (relative
> > velocity = 0 before each frame accelerated away). And in this absolute
> > frame
> > of reference, ther is nothing special about it. That means that do not
> > expect
> > to find unicorns, dragons, leprachauns, or fairy-tale characters in this
> > absolute frame of reference.
> >
> [hanson]
> Besides discussing (at a later date) your technical issues with "assbolute"
> frames, it may be additionally more beneficial for the "Seelenheil" of the
> two preceding posters, those 2 fat geezers & Albert disciples, Jack M. O'Ron,
> who said that: "I'm sure Albert beat her cause he was a male chauvenist
> pig and Mileva was really lesbian"... and Stocky Bauer who seems to have
> a pedo thing for the "Hanson teeny-bopper band" for some yet to be
> defined reason,.... ahahahaha.... to add and post a related and extremely
> pertinent neo-archeological issue to what has been going down here, a fact
> that has not been mentioned in either of the 2 TV shows above:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/caaf114f60499c00
> API/UPI Ulm's city news service.
> Ulmer Stadtzeitung by Karl Peter Stachel, 04-01-2003.
>
> ***** Einstein's Foreskin Found. *****
>
> Under special arrangements with Ulm's urban renewal and
> redevelopment agency, German archeologists from the University
> of Munich were granted a few days for archeological investigations
> on the Ulmer Bahnhofstrasse, prior to the begin of demolition
> activities by city crews.
>
> There, in Einstein's house of birth on Bahnhofstrasse 20
> they discovered behind an alcove an old, sealed perfume bottle,
> filled with formaline and labeled as "Von userem liebsten Albertle,
> 14. März 1879" (From our dearest Baby Albert).
> It turned out that the small, grayish lump within the bottle was originally
> Einstein's foreskin and was kept their on the wishes of his mother.
>
> The find was hailed as very significant by Einstein's disciples to
> whom this artifact appears to be as dear as the Dead Sea scrolls
> are to Christianity.
>
> The current Ulmer Moel, Ariel Meir-Cohn, was consulted and he
> asserted that the foreskin could have been indeed a sentimental
> keep sake by Einstein's parents, in memory of their Baby Albert's
> circumcision on 14 March, 1879 .
>
> To verify, the descendents of the then operative Moel in charge, around
> 1879, Baruch Messerman, were located and interviewed by local TV
> and the investigations are continuing into this just breaking story. The
> Messermans said that they would check their family records at home
> and in their temple for further clues.
>
> Meanwhile, Einstein's penile residue was flown to McMaster in the USA
> who maintains a "brain bank" where Einstein's brain has been preserved
> in a jar. Einstein's pickled brain and his foreskin and will undergo
> DNA analysis to see whether the two have something in common.
> --
> hanson
>
[Brian got STUckup
IAM circumcising the foreskin of your hearts.
< http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=mountain+of+foreskins&start=10&hl=en&
>;
<
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=mountain+of+foreskins&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
>.
/\
__ _\/_ __
\_\/_/\_\/_/
/\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._
_\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
/_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
/\ - O - _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
\/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He and No more is more.
:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
p.s.
Go see <Three (mp - a*u)/3, QUARKs for MiSTER i've had it.!!>
>
[hanson]
..... Your ASCII stuff here looks like you've hit your peepee with your
bible again, brian, and it got stuck to it "WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY"
....AHAHAHA... Does it hurt all the way from your foreskin to your
heart or did it simply fall off and is there "No more", but gums up your
work? ..... ahahaha... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
frank...@yahoo.com
point about the KE being different for particles at high speeds. So I
looked at the relativistic KE calculator in hyperphysics and I
calculated the KE for an electron and positron at nearly (.96) light
speed. It turns out that each of the particles will have about 1.5 MeV
when travelling at this speed. However,this means that the input energy
of the gamma ray would have to be twice this or 3 MeV in order to
generate the particles and then send them out at nearly light speed.
This is much higher than the 1.02 MeV which is the minimum energy
required to produce the pair. Theoretically, at this energy, the pair
is produced, but has no kinetic energy.
My own theories would indicate that particles released from the aether
in pair production would almost always have to ejected with near light
speed velocities, so I was wondering if anybody knew of any experiments
showing that the particles ejected from a 1.02 MeV gamma ray are indeed
ejected with a relatively low speed. Everything I have read indicates
that the particles are always produced at near light speed velocities.
If a 1.02 MeV gamma ray managed to produce 2 near light speed particles
with a total KE of 3 MeV , there would be a serious violation of
conservation of energy.
Tom Roberts
> so I was wondering if anybody knew of any experiments
> showing that the particles ejected from a 1.02 MeV gamma ray are indeed
> ejected with a relatively low speed.
Pair production from such low energy gammas is a quite difficult
experiment, as one needs matter for the pair production to occur, but
the low energy electrons won't travel very far due to energy loss in
that same matter. In addition to the need for VERY thin targets, the
phase space for this is small, so the rate will be quite small.
Generating such a low-energy gamma beam is quite difficult,
as is knowing the energy of the gamma.... Probably instead of
a beam this needs a gamma source....
Energy conservation implies that 1.02 MeV gammas cannot produce electron
pairs, but 1.03 MeV gammas can (in principle but probably not in
practice) produce electron pairs for which the KE of the electron and
positron is a few keV (i.e. small compared to their mass). That is not
the same as measuring it, of course.
> Everything I have read indicates
> that the particles are always produced at near light speed velocities.
Because for most if not all experiments they have high energies (for
electrons, "high energy" means more than ~.5 MeV).
> If a 1.02 MeV gamma ray managed to produce 2 near light speed particles
> with a total KE of 3 MeV , there would be a serious violation of
> conservation of energy.
Yes. Which is why I am puzzled that you think that would happen.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
frank...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts wrote:
> > If a 1.02 MeV gamma ray managed to produce 2 near light speed particles
> > with a total KE of 3 MeV , there would be a serious violation of
> > conservation of energy.
>
> Yes. Which is why I am puzzled that you think that would happen.
>
I think it might happen because I haven't read anything which reports
seeing anything less than light speed ejection. Your comments indicate
it would be difficult to measure, but no actual knowlege of such
measurements. But we must have experimentally shown pair production to
occur close to above 1.02 MeV which would lead to a conservation of
energy problem if particles are still ejected close to light speed.
Therefore, it is critical to verify low speed ejection to verify
accepted theories about relativistic kinetic energy. On the other hand,
my initial proposed model of pair production used the normal KE formula
and all the energy of the gamma went into the kinetic energy of the
particles (each would have a KE of ~ .5 MeV (non-relativistic).
Therefore, particles could be ejected at near light speed with a total
KE of 1.02 MeV which equal the input gamma ray energy.
If we saw a 1.02+ MeV gamma ray producing near-light speed particles,
this would support my theory. If we don't then my theory is garbage. So
this is a way to confirm existing theory and toss out alternate
explanations - if you have the data.
While experiments with low speed gammas would be difficult, I would
think experiments using very high energy gammas (wide ranging) would at
least show a bell curve range of particles speeds if particles are
ejected with all different speeds. If all particles were ejected at
near light speed, all the velocities should be bunched together and
drop with the distance to the measuring device. If you can show that
pair production can happen at a wide range of ejection velocities, I
would happily abandon my proposed theory that the normal KE formula
applies in pair production to explain E=mc^2. But I'd like to hear
about some actual experimental results.