Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics Subject: Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 11:09:26 +0200 Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net wfX7p2je/u/BO2B0KIIzMAvvbk/fZv7bFDlYdXex3KUFH/0hwt Cancel-Lock: sha1:8oqstmpVWU4w39GRYJ58Lf5RSWk= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:387027 sci.physics:587446 Am 30.06.2016 22:24, schrieb Dr. Bob John: >> Here is another striking statement: >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 >> Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] >> and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, >> starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or >> Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS >> CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well >> known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all >> basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility >> of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable >> of containing new quantum gravitational effects." > > This e=mc² again, I read many places not even Modern Science really know > where it is coming from, not how come. Empirically that equivalence cannot > possibly be tested nearly in any way. It is simple impossible to test it. > Thus, even though it probably makes sense deriving stuff under other > circumstances, it is impossible to test. > As far as I know, that equation stems from Henry Poincare. In my opinion the equation is wrong. Meant is actually the mass defect, that occurs with nuclear decay. Then the energy of the beam is compared to the missing mass of the radioactive sample. Now 'defect' deserves a minus, while 'beam' requires a positive sign for its energy. 'mass defect' requires also a delta (delta(m_sample) = m_2 minus m_1). So: - delta(m_sample) = e_beam /c² TH