Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387078

Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians?

Show all headers | View raw

Am 01.07.2016 19:49, schrieb Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato:
> El viernes, 1 de julio de 2016, 5:09:30 (UTC-4), Thomas Heger  escribió:
>> 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
>
> 1905 Einstein derives the universal mass-energy relationship in his Sep 27
> paper (only 3 short pages), with the conclusion "The mass of a body is a
> measure of its energy-content". In the derivation, the Principle of Energy
> Conservation is taken for granted (conserved Total=Kinetic+Potential); and in
> the obtained result, the characteristic arbitrary additive constant C of ]
> potential energy disappears completely.
>
> In the last years I had been involved in the application of 1905 Einstein's
> Relativity (1905R) to Gravity, obtaining in particular very much simple
> explanations of relativistic effects considered today only possible to do with
> the General Relativity (developed 10 years later), as the gravitational red
> shift and Mercury's perihelion one. I already apply 1905R to problems still
> very difficult to address with GR, as the gravitational n-body one (with great
> success).
>
> If you are interested to know more about my work, start with the following link:
>
> Valls Hidalgo-Gato, R.A. (2012, Oct16), "Towards an extension of 1905
> relativistic dynamics with a variable rest mass measuring potential energy",
> ArXiv.org, 1210.4157. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4157.pdf


Very interesting paper.

I see the problem, that with reinterpretation of the meaning of a 
certain unit, the meaning of an equation changes and with this the 
physics tend to drown into quicksand.

So we had to discuss, what 'mass' does actually denote.

As far as I could tell, the kg is a measure for inertia, not of energy 
of some kind.

'Energy' is something we ascribe to processes.

So a kg of uranium is heavy and behaves inertial, while the beam 
originating from the metal has energy.

Now we always think, what comes out must have been in before. So mass 
and energy are somehow related.

Well, yes, but rays are not inertial and mass is not energetic.

I prefer to use a different analogy and that is a gyroscope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope

The simple form is called 'top' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top

mass is then related to stability and rays are kind of 'rolling away 
effects'.

This will happen, if the device gets tilted by an external force (or by 
slowing down or by an 'accident').

And 'mass' (in the analogy: concentrated angular momentum) CAN roll away 
as 'ray', which would reduce 'mass' and gain 'energy' (rolling angular 
momentum).


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-30 09:20 -0700
  Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-30 10:25 -0700
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 12:44 -0700
      Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 22:01 +0200
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-30 23:53 -0700
      Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-30 20:28 +0000
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 15:05 -0700
      Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-06-30 23:19 +0200
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-30 21:30 +0000
          Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-06-30 23:51 +0200
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 15:08 -0700
  Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 12:43 -0700
  Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-30 20:24 +0000
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 11:09 +0200
      Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 10:49 -0700
        Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-02 06:53 +0200
          Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-05 07:54 +0200
  Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 13:39 -0700
  Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-30 16:16 -0700
  Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 21:29 +0800
    Re: Are Einsteinians Disguised Newtonians? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 22:06 +0200

csiph-web