Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: E=mc² is incomplete
45 views
Skip to first unread message
hanson
Nov 3, 2012, 7:19:55 PM11/3/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> quoted & wrote:
______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
>
<http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc²-incomplete>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Relationship.jpg>
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, whenever you post such finds that are meant
for High-schoolers, you should so indicate in your post...
>
... & in this case you should also strongly mention that
Einstein STOLE "E=mc^2" from Pretto, Hasenoehr
and other goyim... & that
>
Albert had to fork over all of his Nobel loot to his
Christian 1st wife Mileva Maric as HUSH MONEY,
for her not to "sing" or blow the whistle on Einstein
cuz the 1905 paper was really her intellectual
property... a situation that was the main cause why
Einstein was arrested for wife beating, twice:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
This episode merely illustrates that Physics is a
very social enterprise that reaches far beyond the
physics-"purists" landscape.
>
Back to the "incomplete E=mc²" equation.
This subject usually belabors the worn out
E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
equation which is not complete neither.
>
Worse though is that all these math expressions
about physics will never be needed by students
once they are on and during their entire career,
barring the few who become teachers.
>
Your intro on the subject above, does also carefully
sidestep that SR&GR are truly pathetic stories,
which are so bad that already 60 years ago
>
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
On the other end of the spectrum,one finds Einstein
Dingleberries who go beyond their worship of Albert's
sphincter and invoke God, to make it complete, like
poster Ben Jacoby just pointed out with the belief of
>
the loud mouthing Jewish Jail bird Hebe-Herbier aka
"G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com>, who
like Einstein plagiarized the equation, but he stole it
from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
with the explanation that
" 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
All in all, Sam, Relativity is a story to be enjoyed &
laughed about. That is SR/GR's sole raison d'etre.
>
Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
>
<http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc²-incomplete>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Relationship.jpg>
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, whenever you post such finds that are meant
for High-schoolers, you should so indicate in your post...
>
... & in this case you should also strongly mention that
Einstein STOLE "E=mc^2" from Pretto, Hasenoehr
and other goyim... & that
>
Albert had to fork over all of his Nobel loot to his
Christian 1st wife Mileva Maric as HUSH MONEY,
for her not to "sing" or blow the whistle on Einstein
cuz the 1905 paper was really her intellectual
property... a situation that was the main cause why
Einstein was arrested for wife beating, twice:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
This episode merely illustrates that Physics is a
very social enterprise that reaches far beyond the
physics-"purists" landscape.
>
Back to the "incomplete E=mc²" equation.
This subject usually belabors the worn out
E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
equation which is not complete neither.
>
Worse though is that all these math expressions
about physics will never be needed by students
once they are on and during their entire career,
barring the few who become teachers.
>
Your intro on the subject above, does also carefully
sidestep that SR&GR are truly pathetic stories,
which are so bad that already 60 years ago
>
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
On the other end of the spectrum,one finds Einstein
Dingleberries who go beyond their worship of Albert's
sphincter and invoke God, to make it complete, like
poster Ben Jacoby just pointed out with the belief of
>
the loud mouthing Jewish Jail bird Hebe-Herbier aka
"G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com>, who
like Einstein plagiarized the equation, but he stole it
from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
with the explanation that
" 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
All in all, Sam, Relativity is a story to be enjoyed &
laughed about. That is SR/GR's sole raison d'etre.
>
Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
Brad Guth
Nov 3, 2012, 10:01:30 PM11/3/12
to
On Nov 3, 4:20 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc-incomplete>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Re...>
> "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com>, who
smart enough to think anything through for himself. Makes me think
that he too is a wife beater and a plagiarist like his friend Harlow
and always Einstein.
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc-incomplete>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Re...>
> like Einstein plagiarized the equation, but he stole it
> from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
> with the explanation that
> " 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
> declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
> after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
> his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
> sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
> which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
> once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
> All in all, Sam, Relativity is a story to be enjoyed &
> laughed about. That is SR/GR's sole raison d'etre.
>
> Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
Mainstream puppets and brown-nosed clowns like our Sam isn't quite
> from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
> with the explanation that
> " 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
> declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
> after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
> his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
> sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
> which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
> once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
> All in all, Sam, Relativity is a story to be enjoyed &
> laughed about. That is SR/GR's sole raison d'etre.
>
> Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
smart enough to think anything through for himself. Makes me think
that he too is a wife beater and a plagiarist like his friend Harlow
and always Einstein.
space...@gmail.com
Nov 3, 2012, 10:31:31 PM11/3/12
to
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 4:20:05 PM UTC-7, hanson wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> quoted & wrote:
>
> ______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
C squared is the concentration of energy as mass...
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> quoted & wrote:
>
> ______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
Mitchell Raemsch
>
> >
>
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc�-incomplete>
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Relationship.jpg>
>
> >
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Sam, whenever you post such finds that are meant
>
> for High-schoolers, you should so indicate in your post...
>
> >
>
> ... & in this case you should also strongly mention that
>
> Einstein STOLE "E=mc^2" from Pretto, Hasenoehr
>
> and other goyim... & that
>
> >
>
> Albert had to fork over all of his Nobel loot to his
>
> Christian 1st wife Mileva Maric as HUSH MONEY,
>
> for her not to "sing" or blow the whistle on Einstein
>
> cuz the 1905 paper was really her intellectual
>
> property... a situation that was the main cause why
>
> Einstein was arrested for wife beating, twice:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
> >
>
> This episode merely illustrates that Physics is a
>
> very social enterprise that reaches far beyond the
>
> physics-"purists" landscape.
>
> >
>
> Back to the "incomplete E=mc�" equation.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Relationship.jpg>
>
> >
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Sam, whenever you post such finds that are meant
>
> for High-schoolers, you should so indicate in your post...
>
> >
>
> ... & in this case you should also strongly mention that
>
> Einstein STOLE "E=mc^2" from Pretto, Hasenoehr
>
> and other goyim... & that
>
> >
>
> Albert had to fork over all of his Nobel loot to his
>
> Christian 1st wife Mileva Maric as HUSH MONEY,
>
> for her not to "sing" or blow the whistle on Einstein
>
> cuz the 1905 paper was really her intellectual
>
> property... a situation that was the main cause why
>
> Einstein was arrested for wife beating, twice:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
> >
>
> This episode merely illustrates that Physics is a
>
> very social enterprise that reaches far beyond the
>
> physics-"purists" landscape.
>
> >
>
space...@gmail.com
Nov 3, 2012, 10:51:44 PM11/3/12
to
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 7:01:31 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Nov 3, 4:20 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> quoted & wrote:
>
> > ______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
>
Rearange the equation and solve for the universal speed limit.
> On Nov 3, 4:20 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> quoted & wrote:
>
> > ______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
>
C is defined as equal to the square root of energy divided by mass.
It is the math of the speed limit and must be heald to.
C is part of mathematical time...
Mitchell Raemsch
Hyperbolic c squared
Nov 4, 2012, 9:23:14 AM11/4/12
to
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 6:20:05 PM UTC-5, hanson wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw
hanson
Nov 4, 2012, 2:31:13 PM11/4/12
to
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:
. ______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
Relativity is a story to be enjoyed & laughed about.
That is SR/GR's only reason to exist.
>
Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
>
>
Yehiel Porat wrote:
Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
>
>
Hanson my friend
but you didnt answer the op question:
is E=mc^2
no matter at this moment =- who is the copyrighted)
is it complete or not ??
TIA
Y.Porat
>
hanson wrote:
Yehi, my dear old haver. Good to hear from you.
I hope all is well by you.
>
Now then, I did NOT argue whether E=mc^2 was
complete or not. To me that does NOT matter.
BECAUSE neither myself nor anybody else in
s.p. or at large has ever had a personal experience
that NEED the certainty to know whether E=mc^2
was complete or not. It's useless but funny palaver!
>
I proposed for Sam to state up front & LOUD, for
him to include in his posts the history of the object,
when he posts such high school level subjects.
Students deserve that, don't they, Yehie?
If not then "Parrots" (Porat's copyright) will be born.
Right, Yehi?
>
So, tell me, Yehi, whether you, during your long
professional career, as a construction engineer
ever faced the unavoidable need and requirement,
to know whether E=mc^2 was complete or not.
>
If that need ever arose during your work or in
your personal life, I most certainly like to hear that.
>
Take care, old haver and hope for peace!
Your friend
hanson
Mahipal
Nov 4, 2012, 9:26:26 PM11/4/12
to
On Nov 4, 2:32 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc-incomplete>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Re...>
> "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com>, who
The equation is just ... well... an equation. Many Physicists, like
Phillip Morrison at MIT who wrote and PBS'ed "The Ring of Truth" think
it should be E=M in his magical write in the Air hands writing of E=M.
See how much simpler it now is?! Well, neither did I and whatever.
Sorry if you, any you, are height wise Short, for being
relativistically challenged by Gravity is no excuse not to trust the
tall Tall TALL Individuals.
> I proposed for Sam to state up front & LOUD, for
> him to include in his posts the history of the object,
> when he posts such high school level subjects.
> Students deserve that, don't they, Yehie?
> If not then "Parrots" (Porat's copyright) will be born.
> Right, Yehi?
I love the Usenet and even more the Italians. No one ever really
points out at the Uni where E=mc^2 actually historically originated
from Pretto, Hasenoeh. Neat History That!
> So, tell me, Yehi, whether you, during your long
> professional career, as a construction engineer
> ever faced the unavoidable need and requirement,
> to know whether E=mc^2 was complete or not.
Every Equation is and will always be Incomplete. It's a trick of Math
that we can always tack on a dimensionless multiplier. Or a limitless
Taylor's Expansion Approximate Approximation. Shhh...
> If that need ever arose during your work or in
> your personal life, I most certainly like to hear that.
If only words could talk...
> Take care, old haver and hope for peace!
> Your friend
> hanson
Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc-incomplete>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Re...>
Phillip Morrison at MIT who wrote and PBS'ed "The Ring of Truth" think
it should be E=M in his magical write in the Air hands writing of E=M.
See how much simpler it now is?! Well, neither did I and whatever.
Sorry if you, any you, are height wise Short, for being
relativistically challenged by Gravity is no excuse not to trust the
tall Tall TALL Individuals.
> I proposed for Sam to state up front & LOUD, for
> him to include in his posts the history of the object,
> when he posts such high school level subjects.
> Students deserve that, don't they, Yehie?
> If not then "Parrots" (Porat's copyright) will be born.
> Right, Yehi?
points out at the Uni where E=mc^2 actually historically originated
from Pretto, Hasenoeh. Neat History That!
> So, tell me, Yehi, whether you, during your long
> professional career, as a construction engineer
> ever faced the unavoidable need and requirement,
> to know whether E=mc^2 was complete or not.
that we can always tack on a dimensionless multiplier. Or a limitless
Taylor's Expansion Approximate Approximation. Shhh...
> If that need ever arose during your work or in
> your personal life, I most certainly like to hear that.
> Take care, old haver and hope for peace!
> Your friend
> hanson
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/
bja...@iwaynet.net
Nov 5, 2012, 12:13:57 AM11/5/12
to
On 11/4/2012 2:31 PM, hanson wrote:
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>>
> On the other end of the spectrum,one finds Einstein
> Dingleberries who go beyond their worship of Albert's
> sphincter and invoke God, to make it complete, like
> poster Ben Jacoby just pointed out with the belief of
> the loud mouthing Jewish Jail bird Hebe-Herbier aka
> "G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com>, who
> like Einstein plagiarized the equation, but he stole it
> from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
> with the explanation that
> " 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
> declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
> after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
> his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
> sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
> which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
> once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
Oddly, the above incredible story is actually 100% true. One simply
> <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>>
> On the other end of the spectrum,one finds Einstein
> Dingleberries who go beyond their worship of Albert's
> sphincter and invoke God, to make it complete, like
> poster Ben Jacoby just pointed out with the belief of
> the loud mouthing Jewish Jail bird Hebe-Herbier aka
> "G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com>, who
> like Einstein plagiarized the equation, but he stole it
> from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
> with the explanation that
> " 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
> declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
> after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
> his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
> sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
> which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
> once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
can't make up shit this strange!
Ha Ha Hanson is right on!
hanson
Nov 5, 2012, 11:48:09 AM11/5/12
to
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:
- hanson wrote:
>
>
>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> quoted & wrote:
>
. ______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
>
<http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc�-incomplete>
- hanson wrote:
>
>
>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> quoted & wrote:
>
. ______ E=mc^2 is incomplete __________
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Relationship.jpg>
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, whenever you post such finds that are meant
for High-schoolers, you should so indicate in your post...
>
... & in this case you should also strongly mention that
Einstein STOLE "E=mc^2" from Pretto, Hasenoehr
and other goyim... & that
>
Albert had to fork over all of his Nobel loot to his
Christian 1st wife Mileva Maric as HUSH MONEY,
for her not to "sing" or blow the whistle on Einstein
cuz the 1905 paper was really her intellectual
property... a situation that was the main cause why
Einstein was arrested for wife beating, twice:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
This episode merely illustrates that Physics is a
very social enterprise that reaches far beyond the
physics-"purists" landscape.
>
Back to the "incomplete E=mc^2" equation.
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, whenever you post such finds that are meant
for High-schoolers, you should so indicate in your post...
>
... & in this case you should also strongly mention that
Einstein STOLE "E=mc^2" from Pretto, Hasenoehr
and other goyim... & that
>
Albert had to fork over all of his Nobel loot to his
Christian 1st wife Mileva Maric as HUSH MONEY,
for her not to "sing" or blow the whistle on Einstein
cuz the 1905 paper was really her intellectual
property... a situation that was the main cause why
Einstein was arrested for wife beating, twice:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
This episode merely illustrates that Physics is a
very social enterprise that reaches far beyond the
physics-"purists" landscape.
>
This subject usually belabors the worn out
E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
equation which is not complete neither.
>
Worse though is that all these math expressions
about physics will never be needed by students
once they are on and during their entire career,
barring the few who become teachers.
>
Your intro on the subject above, does also carefully
sidestep that SR&GR are truly pathetic stories,
which are so bad that already 60 years ago
>
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER __
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER __
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER __
>
E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
equation which is not complete neither.
>
Worse though is that all these math expressions
about physics will never be needed by students
once they are on and during their entire career,
barring the few who become teachers.
>
Your intro on the subject above, does also carefully
sidestep that SR&GR are truly pathetic stories,
which are so bad that already 60 years ago
>
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER __
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER __
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER __
>
>
Yehiel Porat wrote:
Hanson my friend
here is the answer to your above question :
Yehiel Porat wrote:
Hanson my friend
>
hanson wrote:
Which one?
The one about the (Porat copy righted) Parrots?
or whether "you, Yehi, ever had an experience in
your personal life or during your career, that
NEEDED the certainty to know whether E=mc^2
was complete or not?
>
Yehiel Porat wrote:
let me tell you a secrete
[provided you will not tell it to anyone (:-)
ALL MY MODEL IS BASED ON E=mc^2 !!!
SO AT LEAT FOR ME THERE IS NOTHING
MORE SACRED IN PHYSICS MORE THAT
REVOLUSIONALY SIMPLE HISTORIC FORMULA!!
ANYONE WHO INVENTED AND DISCOVERED
IT DESERVES TO BE (and already is )IN THE
there is nothing more simple powerful complete
and beautiful than that seemingly simple equation
the other one from that league is __ E=hf __ !!!
>
hanson wrote:
Ahhhh... Right, it will be beautiful when you, Yehi will
be in the PANTHEON OF PHYSICS FOREVER !!!
Everbody will come and visit to see how dawn rises
slowly over Porat's Marbel Head!... Wondeful!
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 13, 2012, 2:13:38 AM11/13/12
to
On Nov 4, 4:20 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc-incomplete>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Re...>
> "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com>, who
have some questions to ask. In the electron positron collision two
gamma photons are radiated. Energy of these two gamma rays is measured
to be equal to to 2m*c^2, where m is the mass of electron. This
indicates that there is no other energy conversion.
However it can be shown that potential energy of the charge on each
electron is the same and since charge too is annihilated, we expect
double the energy that is actually observed. I suspect that the gamma
energy is the outcome of charge annihilation, whereas there is no
reason for mass to get annihilated. It simply remains undetected.
However this supposition would contradict another reverse phenomenon.
Two gamma rays, when collide inside atom produce a pair of electron-
positron.
Another objection is related to direct derivation of the equation.
While integrating momentum to derive KE, mass is treated as
independent variable, whereas it is not. It is dependent on velocity v
and partial derivatives are applicable only to independent variables.
So just express m in terms of v and you simply don’t get the famous
equation.
And this should be expected. Whole business is about mass at rest and
expression for kinetic energy cannot include a term that is velocity
independent.
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc-incomplete>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Re...>
> like Einstein plagiarized the equation, but he stole it
> from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
> with the explanation that
> " 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
> declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
> after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
> his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
> sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
> which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
> once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
> All in all, Sam, Relativity is a story to be enjoyed &
> laughed about. That is SR/GR's sole raison d'etre.
>
> Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
Atomic reactions tell us that the equation E=mc^2 holds good. But I
> from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
> with the explanation that
> " 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
> declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
> after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
> his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
> sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
> which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
> once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
> All in all, Sam, Relativity is a story to be enjoyed &
> laughed about. That is SR/GR's sole raison d'etre.
>
> Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
have some questions to ask. In the electron positron collision two
gamma photons are radiated. Energy of these two gamma rays is measured
to be equal to to 2m*c^2, where m is the mass of electron. This
indicates that there is no other energy conversion.
However it can be shown that potential energy of the charge on each
electron is the same and since charge too is annihilated, we expect
double the energy that is actually observed. I suspect that the gamma
energy is the outcome of charge annihilation, whereas there is no
reason for mass to get annihilated. It simply remains undetected.
However this supposition would contradict another reverse phenomenon.
Two gamma rays, when collide inside atom produce a pair of electron-
positron.
Another objection is related to direct derivation of the equation.
While integrating momentum to derive KE, mass is treated as
independent variable, whereas it is not. It is dependent on velocity v
and partial derivatives are applicable only to independent variables.
So just express m in terms of v and you simply don’t get the famous
equation.
And this should be expected. Whole business is about mass at rest and
expression for kinetic energy cannot include a term that is velocity
independent.
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 13, 2012, 2:17:05 AM11/13/12
to
On Nov 4, 4:20 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/emc-incomplete>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-Mass-Momentum_Pythagorean_Re...>
> like Einstein plagiarized the equation, but he stole it
> from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
> with the explanation that
> " 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
> declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
> after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
> his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
> sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
> which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
> once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
> All in all, Sam, Relativity is a story to be enjoyed &
> laughed about. That is SR/GR's sole raison d'etre.
>
> Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
Which equation holds Einstein and his supporters together? Intolerant
> from a farmer's barn-roof and used it as his handle
> with the explanation that
> " 'G=EMC^2' meant "God is EMC^2" ... ... only to
> declared sacrilegiously that "god is hocus pocus",
> after which Hebe Herbie had the chutzpah to send
> his "G=EMC^2" to the Pope in the Vatican, who
> sent Hebe-Herbie a "form-thank-you" letter back,
> which kike Glazier now tries to peddle on ebay...
> once he figures out how to do it.... AHAHAHAHA...
>
> All in all, Sam, Relativity is a story to be enjoyed &
> laughed about. That is SR/GR's sole raison d'etre.
>
> Thanks for your post, Sam... ahahahahanson
and uncivilized behavior can also be noticed in the posts by his
supporters.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 13, 2012, 2:24:43 AM11/13/12
to
"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc713351-5fbb-4010...@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Atomic reactions tell us that the equation E=mc^2 holds good. But I
have some questions to ask. In the electron positron collision two
gamma photons are radiated. Energy of these two gamma rays is measured
to be equal to to 2m*c^2, where m is the mass of electron. This
indicates that there is no other energy conversion.
However it can be shown that potential energy of the charge on each
electron is the same and since charge too is annihilated, we expect
double the energy that is actually observed. I suspect that the gamma
energy is the outcome of charge annihilation, whereas there is no
reason for mass to get annihilated. It simply remains undetected.
However this supposition would contradict another reverse phenomenon.
Two gamma rays, when collide inside atom produce a pair of electron-
positron.
Another objection is related to direct derivation of the equation.
While integrating momentum to derive KE, mass is treated as
independent variable, whereas it is not. It is dependent on velocity v
and partial derivatives are applicable only to independent variables.
So just express m in terms of v and you simply don’t get the famous
equation.
And this should be expected. Whole business is about mass at rest and
expression for kinetic energy cannot include a term that is velocity
independent.
========================================
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Big Dog
Nov 13, 2012, 10:55:48 AM11/13/12
to
On 11/13/2012 1:13 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> However it can be shown that potential energy of the charge on each
> electron is the same and since charge too is annihilated, we expect
> double the energy that is actually observed.
The potential energy of each charge on the electron? How do you go about
> However it can be shown that potential energy of the charge on each
> electron is the same and since charge too is annihilated, we expect
> double the energy that is actually observed.
estimating that?
And why do you think there is energy recovered from charge annilation?
Do you see an energy-charge conversion equation somewhere?
hanson
Nov 13, 2012, 4:30:31 PM11/13/12
to
Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Vilas Tamhane wrote:
it can be shown that potential energy of the charge
on each electron is the same and since charge too
is annihilated, we expect double the energy that is
actually observed.
>
Fatso wrote:
The potential energy of each charge on the electron?
How do you go about estimating that?
>
hanson wrote:
The potential energy of each charge on the electron?
How do you go about estimating that?
>
Fatso, look it up in your text book and explain it
to Vilas, instead of barking a phony question at him
'that he did not ask for. What a Dreidel you are!
>
Fatso wrote:
And why do you think there is energy recovered
from charge annilation?
Do you see an energy-charge conversion equation
somewhere?
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso wrote:
And why do you think there is energy recovered
from charge annilation?
Do you see an energy-charge conversion equation
somewhere?
>
Open your fucking text book and cut & paste the
answers to your question like:
e^2 = hbar*a*c = E_kin*2r_H = (m_e*c^2)*a^2*r_H
or another half dozen of such (E) vs. (e) equations.
... instead of you not paying attention to what Vilas
said and you licking your mutt balls under the table.
Fatso, you splendid Schmuckface, thanks for the
laughs though ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
hanson
Nov 13, 2012, 4:31:32 PM11/13/12
to
And this should be expected. Whole business is about
mass at rest and expression for kinetic energy cannot
include a term that is velocity independent.
>
hanson wrote:
mass at rest and expression for kinetic energy cannot
include a term that is velocity independent.
>
Vilas you delivered an interesting and cogent
tripe above. The background and fundament of
your notion is in the definition of the term "Mass"
which has many different interpretations.
>
There are lengthy discussions in s.p. about it
with Prof Paul Draper in the lead role.
<http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass>
<http://tinyurl.com/Questions-on-Mass-definition>
But then with a grand & suave Shakespearian
cape waving Draper disappeared in a cloud of
farts that were bestowed onto him by posters,
just as the issue started to become interesting.
I hope that Paul will come back.
>
Another aspect you touched on above, re the
Pair creation and -annihilation may be highlighted
when you look at it as a game of nuclear binding
energy is set free & converted into radioactive
energy, like the in fission chain reaction during an
Atomic explosion. No particles are converted into
energy. Only the binding energy from the "cleaved"
atoms is converted into radiative kT, hf, EMP & all.
>
There are many ways one can pontificate about
this subject matter. The most profound one was
posted some years back by my colleague, Group-
leader Prof. Franz Heymann, who said: ~
"I have been experimenting here at CERN for
the last 33 years. I have never seen any particle
anywhere. But I have seen daily what they do."
>
Franz's notion is in league with the take that Prof.
Draper expressed in the above links.
Take care, Vilas, and thanks for the fun.
hanson
Big Dog
Nov 13, 2012, 5:04:08 PM11/13/12
to
On 11/13/2012 3:30 PM, hanson wrote:
>
> Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> it can be shown that potential energy of the charge on each electron is
> the same and since charge too is annihilated, we expect double the
> energy that is actually observed.
>>
> Fatso wrote:
> The potential energy of each charge on the electron? How do you go
> about estimating that?
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Fatso, look it up in your text book and explain it
> to Vilas, instead of barking a phony question at him
> 'that he did not ask for. What a Dreidel you are!
It ain't in a textbook, ahahahahasshat. That's why I asked the question.
>
> Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> it can be shown that potential energy of the charge on each electron is
> the same and since charge too is annihilated, we expect double the
> energy that is actually observed.
>>
> Fatso wrote:
> The potential energy of each charge on the electron? How do you go
> about estimating that?
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Fatso, look it up in your text book and explain it
> to Vilas, instead of barking a phony question at him
> 'that he did not ask for. What a Dreidel you are!
Tamhane claims to be a trained electrical engineer, and yet he trots out
these little jabberwocks like "potential energy of the charge on the
electron". Since he seems to have invented that phrase, I'd like him to
expand on his idea. There is a so-called "classical electron radius"
that perhaps he is thinking of, but since the size of the electron is
experimentally much less than this radius, the idea doesn't seem very sound.
>>
> Fatso wrote:
> And why do you think there is energy recovered from charge annilation?
> Do you see an energy-charge conversion equation somewhere?
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Open your fucking text book and cut & paste the
> answers to your question like: e^2 = hbar*a*c = E_kin*2r_H =
> (m_e*c^2)*a^2*r_H
addled, jello-for-brains idea that if you see an equation that has E in
it and e in it, then that must be a energy-charge conversion equation?
Is this how you read equations, ahahahahahahahahasshat?
hanson
Nov 13, 2012, 8:05:21 PM11/13/12
to
Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> the failed
teacher cranked himself when he got caught with his
pants down AGAIN, is not even able to read text book
equations which can be seen by the way has to ask
questions about it:
>> Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> it can be shown that potential energy of the charge on each electron is
>> the same and since charge too is annihilated, we expect double the
>> energy that is actually observed.
>>>
>> Fatso wrote:
>> The potential energy of each charge on the electron?
>> How do you go about estimating that?
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Fatso, look it up in your text book and explain it
>> to Vilas, instead of barking a phony question at him
>> 'that he did not ask for. What a Dreidel you are!
>
Fatso got angry and wrote:
> It ain't in a textbook, ahahahahasshat.
>
hanson wrote:
> It ain't in a textbook, ahahahahasshat.
>
AHAHAHA... Fatso, you even need to plagiarize
your insults. That's how un-and-aboriginal you
are... No wonder you got fired!... ahahaha....
>
Fatso weaseled, lied and wrote:
That's why I asked the question.
<snip Fatso's lies and weaseling>
Fatso weaseled, lied and wrote:
That's why I asked the question.
>>>
>> Fatso wrote:
>> And why do you think there is energy recovered from charge annilation?
>> Do you see an energy-charge conversion equation somewhere?
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Open your fucking text book and cut & paste the
>> answers to your question like:
>> e^2 = hbar*a*c = E_kin*2r_H = (m_e*c^2)*a^2*r_H
>> Fatso wrote:
>> And why do you think there is energy recovered from charge annilation?
>> Do you see an energy-charge conversion equation somewhere?
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Open your fucking text book and cut & paste the
>> answers to your question like:
>> e^2 = hbar*a*c = E_kin*2r_H = (m_e*c^2)*a^2*r_H
>> or another half dozen of such (E) vs. (e) equations.
>> ... instead of you not paying attention to what Vilas
>> said and you licking your mutt balls under the table.
>>
>> ... instead of you not paying attention to what Vilas
>> said and you licking your mutt balls under the table.
>>
Fatso weaseled, lied and wrote:
> And what do these have to do with energy-charge conversion?
<snip the rest of Fatso's canine mental feebleness>
> And what do these have to do with energy-charge conversion?
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... Too much, Fatso!.... AHAHAHAHA...
1st you can't find equations in a text book, then when
presented with them you don't know what they are
and coyly leave the word "equation" out of your next
question because you know that you got caught with
your pants down, since you have let it come thru
loud and clear that you have no idea what you are
talking about.... AHAHAHAHAHA....
>
Fatso, listen, There is not even a need now
to pity your students, because you never were
neither a teacher, nor physicist, nor an engineer.
>
Fatso, you are nothing but a loud mouthing, fat
canine brain, that has classified and now has
ordered itself by the exhibition of your mental
agility right into ranks between retarded but
megalomaniac poster "Starmaker" who does
know Jack Schitt, and the hilarious, fully senile
Pulse Fusion inventor Hebe-Herbie G=EMC^2.
"who know how everything works".
>
Fatso, you are in good company in that triumvirate.
Fatso, be grateful to have found your place in
the sun to celebrate your 15 seconds of fame.
>
Fatso, you splendid Schmuckface, thanks for the
laughs... ahahahaha...AHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
Fatso, you splendid Schmuckface, thanks for the
shuba
Nov 14, 2012, 9:46:09 AM11/14/12
to
Vilas wrote:
> Atomic reactions tell us that the equation E=mc^2 holds good.
Consider instead the general equality which follows from the
> Atomic reactions tell us that the equation E=mc^2 holds good.
definition of a 4-momentum (E/c, p_x, p_y, p_z) with norm m.
Applying the definition of the norm and solving for E^2 gives:
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
This equation reduces to the one you gave when p=0, that is for a
particle at rest. Moreover it can be used for massless particles,
and has been experimentally validated to extreme precision.
Here E is energy, m is mass, and p is the magnitude of the
3-momentum. While c does correspond to the speed of light, it also
functions as a multiplicative constant to keep units balanced.
Learning how to set c=1 by choosing appropriate units is a very
good idea. Energy and momentum increase without bound as velocity
approaches c, since p = m v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Mass is invariant.
> But I have some questions to ask.
---Tim Shuba---
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 14, 2012, 10:53:26 AM11/14/12
to
accumulation. I too don’t like these. There is certainly energy
involved in a charged capacitor, which is released if the plates are
neutralized. However the whole phenomenon can be described in terms of
electrostatic forces involved between discrete particles. This may not
solve the problem of energy of charge.
If there is no equation for the energy of a charge, then evolve one.
This is your job, not mine.
Big Dog
Nov 14, 2012, 11:24:40 AM11/14/12
to
On 11/14/2012 9:53 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> You may not like classical ideas about potential energy of charge
> accumulation.
Oh, I do. They work very well for accumulations of charge on macroscopic
>
> You may not like classical ideas about potential energy of charge
> accumulation.
objects. They just don't work well for subatomic particles.
One can for example ask how much energy would it take to gather together
the charge into a sphere the diameter of an electron, where that
diameter comes from scattering measurements. The problem is that
potential energy is enormous, certainly much higher than is commensurate
with any energy recoverable from electrons, and so it doesn't seem to
correspond to anything in reality. On the other hand, you can say, what
if we assign this potential energy to the rest energy of the electron
and ask what the radius of the sphere would be? Then you find a radius
of the electron that is unfortunately at least 10,000 times bigger than
we know the electron's size to be. So this classical formula just
doesn't seem to work for electrons -- or just about any other
fundamental particle.
> I too don�t like these. There is certainly energy
> involved in a charged capacitor, which is released if the plates are
> neutralized. However the whole phenomenon can be described in terms of
> electrostatic forces involved between discrete particles. This may not
> solve the problem of energy of charge.
>
> If there is no equation for the energy of a charge, then evolve one.
> This is your job, not mine.
>
Why do you think one is needed?
> neutralized. However the whole phenomenon can be described in terms of
> electrostatic forces involved between discrete particles. This may not
> solve the problem of energy of charge.
>
> If there is no equation for the energy of a charge, then evolve one.
> This is your job, not mine.
>
I'll just remind you that YOU claimed that one already existed, and that
*physicists* had shown that the energy is equivalent to that from
matter-to-energy conversion, and so this led you to think about a factor
of two for electrons and positrons annihilating to photons (which is not
observed). Hence my question to YOU about what YOU claimed.
This is where you will find that idle speculation is not nearly as
productive or interesting as digging in a little to find out what is
already known. Otherwise, you just end up dabbling in astrology and
alchemy, making noises that sound something like science but really aren't.
shuba
Nov 14, 2012, 12:24:36 PM11/14/12
to
Vilas wrote:
> If there is no equation for the energy of a charge, then evolve one.
The binding energy for positronium is given as 6.8 eV. Note that
> If there is no equation for the energy of a charge, then evolve one.
this means the bound state has *less* than twice the electron mass.
Consider that the energy of an electron at rest is around half a
million electron volts and, well you do the calculations.
Of course, binding energy still isn't "the energy of a charge", but
this little exercise does show that standard conservation laws are
happy and healthy. Best of luck pissing into the wind.
---Tim Shuba---
0 new messages