Physical Explanation for E=mc^2
mpc755
EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.
The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear
fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion
reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
matter and aether in neighboring places.
mpc755
The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on
the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably
modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is
matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume
between matter and aether.
Dono.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Imbecile. Autistic. Autistic imbecile.
mpc755
Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
surrounding matter and aether.
I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the
matter 'converts' to energy? What happened to the mass associated with
the matter? Did it disappear? And if you say matter 'becomes' energy
then you still have the same issue of what happened to the mass
because energy is mass-less.
So, in E=mc^2, what happens to the mass?
In nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, when energy is created, is
there more, less, or the same amount of mass in existence in the
universe?
Igor
Funny, but quantum theory explains these things quite well without
ever remotely mentioning your silly aether.
mpc755
Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
surrounding matter and aether.
I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the
matter 'converts' to energy? What happened to the mass associated with
the matter? Did it disappear? And if you say matter 'becomes' energy
then you still have the same issue of what happened to the mass
because energy is mass-less.
So, in E=mc^2, what happens to the mass?
In quantum theory, in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, when energy
is created, is there more, less, or the same amount of mass in
existence in the universe?
If there is more or the same what does it exist as?
In AD, the mass still exists, as aether.
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
mpc Einstein I know would go with my G=EMC^2 I met him in 1951 and
we talked about this one on one TreBert
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
mpc Space is just all there is in both micro and macro realms.
Reality is there is more space from electron to atom nucleas than most
objects in the macro world. We must always keep this picture up front
when we visualize the universe. TreBert
PD
> On Feb 13, 9:34 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> > > diminishes by L/c2."
>
> > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
> > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
> > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
> > > and matter is energy.
>
> > > The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear
> > > fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion
> > > reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
> > > matter and aether in neighboring places.
>
> > Funny, but quantum theory explains these things quite well without
> > ever remotely mentioning your silly aether.
>
> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
> surrounding matter and aether.
>
> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the
> matter 'converts' to energy? What happened to the mass associated with
> the matter? Did it disappear?
Yes. That's what mass-energy conversion MEANS. Mass becomes energy and
is no longer mass.
There is no law of nature that says matter is conserved.
Mass is a *measurable* quantity. If you measure a system's mass, and
some of it is converted into energy, you can *measure* the difference
by measuring the mass again and SEEING that it no longer the same
number as before. That is, you can SEE with your very own eyes that
mass is not a conserved quantity. You don't have to lie to yourself
that the mass is still there but hidden somewhere, and invent some
stupid aether just to have some place to hide it.
PD
> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> exists as part of the body has not vanished.
It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*.
Do you need a place to hide matter so that it escapes measurement but
where you can still choose to believe it still exists?
mpc755
When you say you measure a system's mass you are not taking into
account the aether which exists within and outside of the system. When
matter is converted to energy the mass of the system is less but the
overall mass in existence in the universe remains the same.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kinetic energy is mass.
mpc755
> On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> > diminishes by L/c2."
>
> > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> > exists as part of the body has not vanished.
>
> It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*.
Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to
measure it with. As Einstein said, all we can do is measure the state
of the aether and the state of the aether is determined by its
connections to the matter and the state of the matter in neighboring
places.
When a body gives off energy and its mass diminishes the overall mass
in existence in the universe remains constant.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The state of the aether is its two rates and flow. Immaterial flows
over energy.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
When I say I *measure* the system's mass, I mean I *measure* it.
Perhaps it would be good if you would specify how to make the mass
measurement in such a way that the aether stored in the mass is
included in the measurement.
Please note that taking a measured number and fudging it by adding
something that is not measured but is just guessed at, is scientific
fraud.
PD
> On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> > > diminishes by L/c2."
>
> > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> > > exists as part of the body has not vanished.
>
> > It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*.
>
> Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to
> measure it with.
Ah, so you CHOOSE to believe that mass is conserved, even though
measurement says otherwise, and you CHOOSE to believe that the mass
that appears missing has been hidden somewhere where it can't be
measured. You can't confirm that with experimental measurement, but
you CHOOSE to believe it anyway.
Do you believe in invisible gremlins too?
mpc755
You can't measure the mass of the aether. What you can measure is the
state of the aether.
For example, let's say you existed in water and it was physically
impossible for you to detect or measure the water directly. All you
could do was measure the state of the water based upon the state of
the matter in the water. The matter in the water is an ice cube. As
the ice cube melts it will give off energy and the mass of the ice
cube will diminish but the overall mass in existence remains the same.
You measure the state of the water by measuring the energy and the
state of the ice cube.
mpc755
> On Feb 13, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> > > > diminishes by L/c2."
>
> > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished.
>
> > > It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*.
>
> > Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to
> > measure it with.
>
> Ah, so you CHOOSE to believe that mass is conserved, even though
> measurement says otherwise, and you CHOOSE to believe that the mass
> that appears missing has been hidden somewhere where it can't be
> measured. You can't confirm that with experimental measurement, but
> you CHOOSE to believe it anyway.
>
You do confirm the mass still exists because of the energy. Mass is
conserved in nature. In E=mc^2, the energy is the effect the matter
transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether.
You CHOOSE to believe the mass 'becomes' energy.
I CHOOSE to believe the physical transformation of matter to energy is
energy.
PD
Ah, so you can't measure the mass to confirm experimentally that it is
conserved. Yet you claim you KNOW this is true anyway, without
experimental verification.
PD
> On Feb 13, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> > > > > diminishes by L/c2."
>
> > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished.
>
> > > > It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*.
>
> > > Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to
> > > measure it with.
>
> > Ah, so you CHOOSE to believe that mass is conserved, even though
> > measurement says otherwise, and you CHOOSE to believe that the mass
> > that appears missing has been hidden somewhere where it can't be
> > measured. You can't confirm that with experimental measurement, but
> > you CHOOSE to believe it anyway.
>
> You do confirm the mass still exists because of the energy.
Energy is not mass. The measured mass is changed.
> Mass is
> conserved in nature.
No, it's not. There's not a lick of experimental evidence that says
that mass is conserved.
You believe it is anyway, but you want to hide it somewhere where it
can't be measured.
> In E=mc^2, the energy is the effect the matter
mpc755
>
> > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> > diminishes by L/c2."
>
> > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> > exists as part of the body has not vanished.
>
> It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*.
> Do you need a place to hide matter so that it escapes measurement but
> where you can still choose to believe it still exists?
>
It is measured in the energy created. If you existed in water and
could not directly detect the mass of the water and an ice cube melts
in the water you would conclude the mass associated with the ice cube
no longer exists which is incorrect. The water still exists. The state
of the water transformed from ice to liquid water.
mpc755
If you existed in water and could not detect the water directly and an
ice cube melted does the mass associated with the ice cube still
exist?
mpc755
If you existed in water and could not detect the water directly and an
ice cube melts in the water does the mass associated with the ice cube
still exist?
PD
But I *can* detect water directly.
If I could not detect water, then I would not have any experimental
basis for believing that the mass from the ice was conserved. None.
Our laws are based on what we *measure*, not on what we imagine might
be there.
We can imagine invisible gremlins, and then all sorts of interesting
physical laws are possible -- like conservation of hat size,
conservation of genes, conservation of gremlin-killing boogeymen. But
since they are all presuming things about unmeasurable stuff, they are
worthless scientifically. Worthless, worthless, worthless.
Just like you!
PD
You mean if I hypothetically supposed something about not being able
to detect something I can detect, and then I hypothetically supposed
this undetectable water existed anyway, would I be able to
hypothetically surmise that the hypothetically conserved mass was
associated with the hypothetically supposed water that I
hypothetically cannot detect?
mpc755
The experimental basis for believing the mass of ice is conserved is
the energy created. And even if you choose to believe the ice 'became'
the energy and there is less water in existence you would be
incorrect.
The water consists of many particles of ice. When one of the ice
particles melts, the effect this transition of the ice has on the
neighboring ice and water is energy. There are physical effects
occurring. The physical effects of the ice transitioning to liquid
water is energy.
The aether consists of particles of matter. When the matter
transitions to aether, the effect this transition of matter to aether
has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. There are physical
effects occurring. The physical effects of the matter transitioning to
aether is energy.
mpc755
You detect the water still exists because of the energy created. The
energy created is the measurable physical effect of ice transitioning
to liquid water.
The water consists of many particles of ice. When one of the ice
particles melts, the effect this transition of the ice has on the
neighboring ice and water is energy. There are physical effects
occurring. The physical effects of the ice transitioning to liquid
water is energy.
The aether consists of particles of matter. When the matter
transitions to aether, the effect this transition of matter to aether
has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. There are physical
effects occurring. The physical effects of the matter transitioning to
aether is energy.
Bill Hobba
> On Feb 13, 9:17 am, "Dono."<sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 6:03 am, mpc755<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
>>>> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>>
>>>> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
>>>> diminishes by L/c2."
>>
>>>> The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
>>>> aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
>>>> dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
>>>> and matter is energy.
>>
>>>> The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear
>>>> fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion
>>>> reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
>>>> matter and aether in neighboring places.
>>
>>> the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably
>>> modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is
>>> matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>
> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
> surrounding matter and aether.
>
> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the
> matter 'converts' to energy?
I suspect he thinks about it correctly - that matter is just a different
form of energy like heat is another form. That this is so follows from
the modern defintion of energy based on Noethers Theorem. Note E=MC'2
does not say mass and energy are the same thing or that energy has mass
- simply that it is another form of energy.
> What happened to the mass associated with
> the matter? Did it disappear?
Nope - it was simply converted to another form of energy like heat
energy for example can be converted to EM energy. No mystery involved.
Thanks
Bill
> And if you say matter 'becomes' energy
> then you still have the same issue of what happened to the mass
> because energy is mass-less.
>
> So, in E=mc^2, what happens to the mass?
>
> In nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, when energy is created, is
> there more, less, or the same amount of mass in existence in the
> universe?
mpc755
And this is exactly the misunderstanding of what energy is that I am
discussing. Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is not a form of
energy. The effect matter transitioning to aether has on the
neighboring matter and aether is energy. The effect mass transitioning
from a compressed to an uncompressed state has on the surrounding mass
is energy. When matter transitions to aether the physical effect the
increase in volume the mass associated with the transition undergoes
is energy.
Mass is associated with a material substance. Matter and aether are
different states of this material substance. Matter is compressed
aether and aether is uncompressed matter.
When matter transitions to aether the effect the increase in volume
the mass associated with the transition undergoes is energy.
Energy is the physical effects associated with mass transitioning from
matter to aether.
Where matter is 'created' in the universe is where the pressure is
great enough to compress aether into matter.
BURT
> On Feb 13, 2:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 3:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 13, 2:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 13, 7:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> > > > > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> > > > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> > > > > > diminishes by L/c2."
>
> > > > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> > > > > > exists as part of the body has not vanished.
>
> > > > > It certainly escapes measurement. Mass is *measurable*.
>
> > > > Aether is not measurable in and of itself because there is nothing to
> > > > measure it with.
>
> > > Ah, so you CHOOSE to believe that mass is conserved, even though
> > > measurement says otherwise, and you CHOOSE to believe that the mass
> > > that appears missing has been hidden somewhere where it can't be
> > > measured. You can't confirm that with experimental measurement, but
> > > you CHOOSE to believe it anyway.
>
> > You do confirm the mass still exists because of the energy.
>
> Energy is not mass. The measured mass is changed.
Energy when infinitely dense is mass of a point particle.
Mass is infinitely concentrated energy of C squared quantity.
Mitch Raemsch
> > > > > > matter and aether in neighboring places.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
mpc755
> Nope - [mass] was simply converted to another form of energy
BURT
I have to say that there is finite density energy with time flow as
well as infinitely dense.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Bill Hobba
That is incorrect. It follows immediately from the modern definition of
energy based on Noethers theorem and the relativistic free particle
Lagrangian. You cant really argue with a definition.
I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like
something you grasp with your hand. Its not like that. As Feynman has
said no one really knows what it is. We can define it, and the modern
definition based on Noethers beautiful theorem is simply wonderful, but
physicists don't know what it is really.
Thanks
Bill
mpc755
Not sure who you are referring to when you say 'Noethers theorem', but
if you are referring to Einstein then you don't even understand his
stance on aether:
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
> I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like
> something you grasp with your hand.
Energy is the result of physical actions. The physical action of
matter expanding into aether is energy.
> Its not like that. As Feynman has
> said no one really knows what it is.
I know exactly what it is. It is the physical effects matter
transitioning to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether.
Feynman was also famous for saying no one understood a double slit
experiment. Seems like Feynman was more interested in not
understanding nature than understanding it.
A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In
a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the associated aether
displacement waves enters and exits the available slits and creates
interference upon exiting the slits. The C-60 molecule enters and
exits a single slit and the direction it travels is altered by the
interference it encounters when exiting the slits. Placing detectors
at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether
displacement wave (turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
> We can define it, and the modern
> definition based on Noethers beautiful theorem is simply wonderful, but
> physicists don't know what it is really.
>
I do.
Bill Hobba
It has nothing to do with Einstein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
>
> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
That has been posted here innumerable times. First it is taken out of
context. And secondly relativity has moved on quite a bit since
Einsteins time. Regardless of what Einstein may or may not have thought
neither SR nor GR requires an aether. Indeed in either theory the
existence of such would be an adhoc assumption with zero physical basis
or consequence.
>
>
>> I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like
>> something you grasp with your hand.
>
>
> Energy is the result of physical actions. The physical action of
> matter expanding into aether is energy.
That is not the modern defintion - simple as that. It is very
interesting to see posters who dont underantd the modern defitition and
want to create their own.
Thanks
Bill
mpc755
It is not taken out of context at all. If you read carefully
everything Einstein ever said about ether the above quote accurately
reflects Einstein's understanding of GR.
As far as Einstein is concerned, according to GR, the theory he is
responsible for, space without ether is unthinkable.
You assume it is adhoc because you do not understand Einstein's
understanding of GR.
>
>
> >> I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like
> >> something you grasp with your hand.
>
> > Energy is the result of physical actions. The physical action of
> > matter expanding into aether is energy.
>
> That is not the modern defintion - simple as that. It is very
> interesting to see posters who dont underantd the modern defitition and
> want to create their own.
>
In terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect matter transitioning to
aether has on the neighboring matter and aether.
Bill Hobba
That is simply incorrect. In his original SR paper he stated the aether
was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. This
issue has been discussed here innumerable times. Fortunately John Baez
has laid the facts out bare:
'Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since, by
various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is
an aether theory". Here's a typical claim of this sort:
...the aether is restored in General Relativity see Einstein's 1924
essay "On the Aether". Einstein recanted on his 1905 rejection of the
aether since the mutable curved space-geometry is a dynamical object
(with shift and lapse fields in ADM formulation), hence an aether.
This claim is misleading, to say the least. What Einstein really
meant was that the aether which had been overthrown by str (and thus was
incompatible with gtr, which incorporates str) involved a a specific
"preferred frame of reference" in the classical field theory, whereas
the field equation of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the
euclidean geometry of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his
contemporaries), much less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does
not quite say there is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will
be gravitational waves running about, and these carry (very tiny)
amounts of energy, which gravitate. So in this sense, a very different
kind of "aether" in the very weak sense of there being "something there"
in a vacuum (namely nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric
properties of "space" in a 3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to
enter into gtr. In modern quantum field theories, of course, there are
still more "things which are there" in a vacuum, but again these do not
constitute an "aether" in the nineteenth century sense in which this
word was used as a technical term.
Einstein was criticizing people who claimed, in effect, that the
classical notion of the aether was such nonsense that people like
Maxwell should have known better. He was saying that the problem with
the classical aether was not ontological, merely that it is inconsistent
with observation and experiment; hence the need for str.
Many years ago, Andrei Sakharov (yes, that Sakharov!) proposed to
interpret gtr in terms of something like "stresses" on spacetime as
something like a material. This is discussed in Chapter 17 of MTW, but
here too, ill-informed readers of that theory have badly misunderstood
the meaning of Sakharov's work.'
While I am not a student of Einsteins work I have read his papers on
relativity. And my reading indicates he did not believe in an aether in
the sense you mean it - if at all. He certainly did not believe in
anything that even remotely resembles what you write.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> I suspect your problem is you are thinking of energy as a thing like
>>>> something you grasp with your hand.
>>
>>> Energy is the result of physical actions. The physical action of
>>> matter expanding into aether is energy.
>>
>> That is not the modern defintion - simple as that. It is very
>> interesting to see posters who dont underantd the modern defitition and
>> want to create their own.
>>
>
>
> In terms of E=mc^2, energy is the effect matter transitioning to
> aether has on the neighboring matter and aether.
It is obvious you don't even understand the modern definition of energy.
But let us leave this aside for the moment. What is your detailed
reasoning for the above statement?
Thanks
Bill
Androcles
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b77ae52$0$67823$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
mpc755
Albert Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether:
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an
absolutely stationary space was superfluous:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel.htm
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties,
nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place."
This is completely consistent with every other statement Einstein made
about the aether. Including but not limited to, "the state of the
[ether] is at every place determined by the connections with the
matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places".
It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to
understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can
continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but
I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.
The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy.
Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear
fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to
aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places.
I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I
understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Energy has two states. One is infinitely concentrated and the other is
finite. Aether rate effects energy but not the other way around.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
> In [Einstein's] original SR paper he stated the aether
> was superfluous which was basically the position he always held.
Albert Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether:
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an
absolutely stationary space was superfluous:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel...
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties,
nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place."
This is completely consistent with every other statement Einstein made
about the aether. Including but not limited to, "the state of the
[ether] is at every place determined by the connections with the
matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places".
It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to
understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can
continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but
I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.
The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy.
Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear
fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to
BURT
Einstein said the aether is immatterial and doesn't move. That is
space aether.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
> was superfluous which was basically the position he always held.
Albert Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether:
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an
absolutely stationary space was superfluous:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel.htm
Bill Hobba
> absolutely stationary space was superfluous:
>
> http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel.htm
>
> "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
> an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties,
> nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
> electromagnetic processes take place."
And that is saying an ether is superfluous - which is the general view
he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is -
this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His
injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally
different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments
want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare.
'What Einstein really meant was that the aether which had been
overthrown by str (and thus was incompatible with gtr, which
incorporates str) involved a a specific "preferred frame of reference"
in the classical field theory, whereas the field equation of gtr
involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean geometry of "space"
which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries), much less any
"preferred frame".'
And John Baez is correct when he says GTR is incompatiple with the usual
version of an aether as an actual substance that pervades all of space
that light undulates in. Eintein knew this. His new conception of an
aether was completely different to the old:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF
'Recapitulating: we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical
qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists ether.
According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not
only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility of existence for standards of measuring rods
and clocks, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the
physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked
through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.'
It is interesting that those that harp on Einsteins aether comments
later in life neglect to mention this. That's what I mean by out of
context.
Thanks
Bill
>
> This is completely consistent with every other statement Einstein made
> about the aether.
>
> It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to
> understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can
> continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but
> I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2.
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
> EINSTEIN'
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
> exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
> aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
> dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
> and matter is energy.
>
> The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy.
> Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear
> fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to
> aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places.
>
> It is obvious you are going to choose to remain ignorant and not
> understand the above and that is fine if that is what you choose. But
> you can't expect me to not understand something I understand. I choose
> not to belong to the Feynman camp. I understand what occurs physically
mpc755
>
> > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
> > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
> > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties,
> > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
> > electromagnetic processes take place."
>
> And that is saying an ether is superfluous - which is the general view
> he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is -
> this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His
> injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally
> different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments
> want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare.
>
Why is John Baez interpretation of Einstein more accurate then
Einstein's own words? It's not. Einstein's words speak for themselves.
I guess I will have to keep posting Einstein's own words to reflect
Einstein's thoughts on ether and you can keep posting John Baez's.
And what about this 'first paper' of Einstein's? Are you just going to
deny its existence? Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether:
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
Einstein's definition of the aether as not being an absolutely
stationary space is the following:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
Here are more Einstein statements, in his own words, in support of
ether.
"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the
existence of an ether"
"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."
"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever."
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light"
It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to
understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can
continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but
I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.
The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy.
Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear
fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to
aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places.
Obviously, you are going to choose to remain in the Feynman camp and
choose to remain ignorant of what occurs physically in E=mc^2 and what
occurs physically in a double slit experiment. I understand what
BURT
> > In [Einstein's] original SR paper he stated the aether
> > was superfluous which was basically the position he always held.
>
> Albert Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether:
>
> http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
>
> Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an
> absolutely stationary space was superfluous:
>
He got rid of the aether because it was unneeded for computation in
SR. But he brought it back later in his life and said that it was
absolutely neccesary.
There is more than one aether together. And primary space aether does
not move.
Evidently if your qoute is right he recongnised another moving aether
but didn't know the difference. Space aether doesn't move but is a
pushing aether to matter.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
But time aether pushes light and not matter. Light is the Unified
force.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
> he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is -
> this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His
> injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally
> different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments
> want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare.
Why is John Baez interpretation of Einstein more accurate then
Einstein's own words? It's not. Einstein's words speak for themselves.
I guess I will have to keep posting Einstein's own words to reflect
Einstein's thoughts on ether and you can keep posting John Baez's.
And what about this 'first paper' of Einstein's? Are you just going to
deny its existence? Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether:
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
Einstein's definition of the aether as not being an absolutely
stationary space is the following:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
Here are more Einstein statements, in his own words, in support of
ether.
"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the
existence of an ether"
"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."
"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever."
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light"
It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to
understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can
continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but
I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.
The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy.
Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear
fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to
aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places.
Obviously, you are going to choose to remain in the Feynman camp and
choose to remain ignorant of what occurs physically in E=mc^2 and what
occurs physically in a double slit experiment. I understand what
BURT
I am remaining in no man's camp.
Aether is one and the design is in flow and push.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
BURT
Heat is a form of subatomic kinetic energy that can be radiated. It
can cause the quantum jump.
Mitch Raemsch