Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403364 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-29 11:35 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-05 09:26 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 11:35 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-29 22:28 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:23 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-30 00:00 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> - 2016-12-30 10:00 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-30 22:19 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> - 2016-12-30 21:27 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-31 06:23 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-02 08:16 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 04:59 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-03 04:28 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 05:16 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-03 19:25 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 13:52 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:02 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 19:05 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-04 07:26 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 15:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Kurt Getman <erttarnKmu@erttarnKmu.ert> - 2017-01-05 00:05 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-04 18:21 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-09 21:22 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Kurt Getman <erttarnKmu@erttarnKmu.ert> - 2017-01-05 00:06 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-07 08:15 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-07 08:10 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-07 22:24 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-07 21:52 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-08 07:21 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:29 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:30 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Sharilyn Vore <inolr@nryowno.an> - 2017-01-08 11:32 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 12:01 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-08 22:49 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 14:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-09 06:05 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-09 03:35 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-10 06:52 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 04:41 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-11 04:43 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 20:30 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-11 22:06 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-11 16:40 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 07:46 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 05:06 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 18:33 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-12 19:38 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 14:09 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-13 09:38 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-13 08:05 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 07:43 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-14 11:33 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 21:08 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-13 08:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-13 18:58 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-13 20:51 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 17:17 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 20:58 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-14 12:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 20:43 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-14 20:47 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-14 22:32 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 19:21 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 12:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 20:22 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 14:13 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 22:54 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 15:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-15 23:58 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-15 16:27 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-16 06:57 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 07:57 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 08:04 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-01-12 09:21 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 18:20 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 09:41 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-12 19:58 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-12 11:34 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-13 21:06 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:07 -0600
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-14 10:29 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-14 14:26 -0600
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 14:26 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-12 23:42 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-12 15:48 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-12 16:27 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Ward Nusbaum <uqowm@msdmmsuus.org> - 2017-01-13 18:36 +0000
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 18:06 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-01-11 18:03 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-08 14:11 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 15:01 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-08 15:31 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-08 16:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-10 10:32 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 20:15 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-05 06:43 +0100
E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 12:57 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 17:47 -0800
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-01-04 22:52 +0100
Re: E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-05 09:26 -0800
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 11:35 -0800 |
| Subject | E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course |
| Message-ID | <2b2052e8-28ae-4158-bbc8-5a47e4564de2@googlegroups.com> |
Einsteinians have always known that Einstein was not the author of the famous equation E = mc^2 : http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E = mc^2 between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted low-speed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46941 Philip Ball: "Did Einstein discover E = mc2? Who discovered that E = mc2? It's not as easy a question as you might think. Scientists ranging from James Clerk Maxwell and Max von Laue to a string of now-obscure early 20th-century physicists have been proposed as the true discovers of the massenergy equivalence now popularly credited to Einstein's theory of special relativity. These claims have spawned headlines accusing Einstein of plagiarism, but many are spurious or barely supported. Yet two physicists have now shown that Einstein's famous formula does have a complicated and somewhat ambiguous genesis which has little to do with relativity. (...) While Einstein's celebrated 1905 paper, "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", clearly laid down the foundations of relativity by abandoning the ether and making the speed of light invariant, his derivation of E = mc2 did not depend on those assumptions. You can get the right answer with classical physics, says Rothman, all in an ether theory without c being either constant or the limiting speed." http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-einstein-discover-emc2.html Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several well-founded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that." http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/12/29/the-four-biggest-mistakes-of-einsteins-scientific-life/ Ethan Siegel: "The truth might deflate your view of Einstein a bit, but here it is: Einstein was only able to derive E = mc^2 for a particle completely at rest. Despite also inventing special relativity -- founded on the principle that the laws of physics are independent of an observer's frame of reference -- Einstein's formulation couldn't account for how energy worked for a particle in motion. In other words, E = mc^2 as derived by Einstein was frame-dependent! It wasn't until Max von Laue made the critical advance, six years later, that showed the flaw in Einstein's work: one must get rid of the idea of kinetic energy. Instead, we now talk about total relativistic energy, where the traditional kinetic energy -- KE = ½mv^2 -- can only emerge in the non-relativistic limit. Einstein made similar errors in all seven of his derivations of E = mc^2, spanning his entire life, despite that in addition to von Laue, Joseph Larmor, Wolfgang Pauli and Philipp Lenard all successfully derived the mass/energy relationship without Einstein's flaw." But Einsteinians never stop singing and worshiping E = mc^2 and its author Einstein (we all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI Symphony of Science - Secret of the Stars Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o442ms$1r5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403364 |
Pentcho Valev wrote: > http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf > Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the > celebrated relation E = mc^2 between mass and energy, a critical > examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that > Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these > proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified > assumptions, > committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted low-speed, restrictive > approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof > applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal > speeds." ahahaahaaa, I had a suspicion that Dr. Einstine was not the father of that thing. Then, thinking at it, I strongly start believe that it is wrong. Entirely. Like a moon landing. They pulled that E=mc² out of their arse. No derivations, or rather circular, no necessities pushing towards it, AND impossible to prove. Nobody ever turned a gram of mass into energy 100%. Since if they could, then it would violate a stronger Law of Nature, by destroying matter. Excellent post. I love excellent posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 19:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac6b0865-bbd9-434b-9d9b-f4d00514ed60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403364 |
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:35:36 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote: > Einsteinians have always known that Einstein was not the author of the famous equation E = mc^2 : As always, your point is entirely pointless [pun intended]. Tp understand why, you'd have to study this thing called "physics". Since you seem unaware of what it is, and there is obviously no room here to lecture about science to someone as ignorant as you are, i'll leave it at that. You are a complete failure in that area. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 00:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d15e5760-0850-43b4-8941-683639e79d15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403418 |
W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 04:23:12 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:35:36 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote: > > Einsteinians have always known that Einstein was not the author of the famous equation E = mc^2 : > > As always, your point is entirely pointless [pun intended]. > > Tp understand why, you'd have to study this thing called "physics". Since you seem unaware > of what it is, a short explaination: physics is a set of mumbling morons screaming "we are incredibly wise gurus!!! whoever doesn't believe us, is STUPID!!!" and unable to do almost anything more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 10:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o45b85$1m69$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403418 |
JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:35:36 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev > wrote: >> Einsteinians have always known that Einstein was not the author of the >> famous equation E = mc^2 : > > Tp understand why, you'd have to study this thing called "physics". > Since you seem unaware of what it is, and there is obviously no room > here to lecture about science to someone as ignorant as you are, i'll > leave it at that. Iow, you admit that Einstein is not the author of the most famous equation in the world?? Who is the proper father of that famous equation then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 22:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eco1atFoladU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #403448 |
Am 30.12.2016 11:00, schrieb Tiffany Wuest: >>> Einsteinians have always known that Einstein was not the author of the >>> famous equation E = mc^2 : >> >> Tp understand why, you'd have to study this thing called "physics". >> Since you seem unaware of what it is, and there is obviously no room >> here to lecture about science to someone as ignorant as you are, i'll >> leave it at that. > > Iow, you admit that Einstein is not the author of the most famous equation > in the world?? Who is the proper father of that famous equation then? > I have heard, it stems from Henri Poincare. But I have never seen the original source (and I cannot read French, anyhow). Another possibility would be Hendrik Lorentz. The equation itself is most likely wrong. The equation describes an effect, which is observed in connection with radioactive decay. There the emitted radiation has energy and that energy is balanced my decease in mass according to that formula. But in my opinion the term 'decrease' would require a negative sign for the mass lost, while the energy of the radiation is positive. So I would introduce deltas and something like this: delta (E) = - delta(m) * c^2 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tiffany Wuest <eesio@esufsi.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o46jg9$aj3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403526 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > So I would introduce deltas and something like this: > > delta (E) = - delta(m) * c^2 Why would you introduce such that. Since it is already basic mathematics. A delta(c²) would be an introduce, not your aforementioned introduce.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 06:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ecotn3F8mrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #403529 |
Am 30.12.2016 22:27, schrieb Tiffany Wuest: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> So I would introduce deltas and something like this: >> >> delta (E) = - delta(m) * c^2 > > Why would you introduce such that. Since it is already basic mathematics. > A delta(c²) would be an introduce, not your aforementioned introduce. This would be nonsense, since: delta(c²)=0 (if c is constant) So: the mass of the radioactive sample has changed (was smaller) and this would balance the energy of the emitted rays. And this is E_after_decay - E_before_decay =(m_after_decay - m_before_decay) * c² Since E_after_decay - E_before_decay = delta(E) is positive, but m_after_decay - m_before_decay = delta(m) is negative we need to put in a negative sign on one side. I would prefer the right side and so come to my formula: delta (E) = - delta(m) * c^2 The delta on the left is not really necessary, since 'Energy before decay' is zero (for that particular ray). So we would have this equation: E_ray= - delta(m_sample) * c² TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 08:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ecud1rF9ujkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #403570 |
Am 31.12.2016 06:23, schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> So I would introduce deltas and something like this: >>> >>> delta (E) = - delta(m) * c^2 >> >> Why would you introduce such that. Since it is already basic mathematics. >> A delta(c²) would be an introduce, not your aforementioned introduce. > > > This would be nonsense, since: > > delta(c²)=0 > > (if c is constant) > > So: the mass of the radioactive sample has changed (was smaller) and > this would balance the energy of the emitted rays. > > And this is > > E_after_decay - E_before_decay =(m_after_decay - m_before_decay) * c² > > Since > > E_after_decay - E_before_decay = delta(E) > > is positive, but > > m_after_decay - m_before_decay = delta(m) > > is negative > > we need to put in a negative sign on one side. > > I would prefer the right side and so come to my formula: > > delta (E) = - delta(m) * c^2 > > The delta on the left is not really necessary, since 'Energy before > decay' is zero (for that particular ray). > > So we would have this equation: > > E_ray= - delta(m_sample) * c² > > The usual equation 'E=m*c²' uses ill-defined measures. If you apply it to a ray, the term 'mass' (in connection to rays) would be meaningless. If you look only at the sample, the term 'energy' is not well defined, since a sample is 'stuff'. And material objects have mass. But you cannot really say 'stuff has energy', since to measure energy would require a process, in which energy is released. That would be a radioactive decay, of course, but the term energy would be used for the emitted rays and not for the mass of the material object. And if you apply the correct relations, the equation 'E=m*c²' is wrong, since the signs are wrong. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 04:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fbb2b88b-b30d-4fef-8508-02b7c82e2d02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403757 |
On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 12:16:15 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 31.12.2016 06:23, schrieb Thomas Heger: > > >>> So I would introduce deltas and something like this: > >>> > >>> delta (E) = - delta(m) * c^2 > >> > >> Why would you introduce such that. Since it is already basic mathematics. > >> A delta(c²) would be an introduce, not your aforementioned introduce. > > > > > > This would be nonsense, since: > > > > delta(c²)=0 > > > > (if c is constant) > > > > So: the mass of the radioactive sample has changed (was smaller) and > > this would balance the energy of the emitted rays. > > > > And this is > > > > E_after_decay - E_before_decay =(m_after_decay - m_before_decay) * c² > > > > Since > > > > E_after_decay - E_before_decay = delta(E) > > > > is positive, but > > > > m_after_decay - m_before_decay = delta(m) > > > > is negative > > > > we need to put in a negative sign on one side. > > > > I would prefer the right side and so come to my formula: > > > > delta (E) = - delta(m) * c^2 > > > > The delta on the left is not really necessary, since 'Energy before > > decay' is zero (for that particular ray). > > > > So we would have this equation: > > > > E_ray= - delta(m_sample) * c² > > > > > The usual equation 'E=m*c²' uses ill-defined measures. > > If you apply it to a ray, the term 'mass' (in connection to rays) would > be meaningless. > > If you look only at the sample, the term 'energy' is not well defined, > since a sample is 'stuff'. > > And material objects have mass. But you cannot really say 'stuff has > energy', since to measure energy would require a process, in which > energy is released. > > That would be a radioactive decay, of course, but the term energy would > be used for the emitted rays and not for the mass of the material object. > > And if you apply the correct relations, the equation 'E=m*c²' is wrong, > since the signs are wrong. > > TH "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli[
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 04:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ed0k3kFqu5bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #403775 |
Am 02.01.2017 13:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel: .. >> The usual equation 'E=m*c²' uses ill-defined measures. >> >> If you apply it to a ray, the term 'mass' (in connection to rays) would >> be meaningless. >> >> If you look only at the sample, the term 'energy' is not well defined, >> since a sample is 'stuff'. >> >> And material objects have mass. But you cannot really say 'stuff has >> energy', since to measure energy would require a process, in which >> energy is released. >> >> That would be a radioactive decay, of course, but the term energy would >> be used for the emitted rays and not for the mass of the material object. >> >> And if you apply the correct relations, the equation 'E=m*c²' is wrong, >> since the signs are wrong. >> >> TH > > "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was > nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli If you cannot say, whether or not my statement was correct or not, than why do you write a comment about it? IOW: if you have nothing to say you should say nothing. Of course my text was not confused, since I have addressed an important question in connection to this equation. This question was: what is the meaning of the term 'energy' in connection with a piece of matter at rest? Actually meant is the equivalence of the mass lost by a radioactive sample and the energy of the emitted rays. Now the term 'mass' belongs to matter at rest and 'energy' to emitted rays. The equation E=m*c² sets both terms equal, while in fact energy and mass are not equal, but only numerical values are equal, if you ignore the fact, that more of one means less of the other. This would hardly be the relation, you want to express with an equal sign. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 05:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c776b32-421a-46d5-99da-b4e51a306dc2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403838 |
On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:28:56 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 02.01.2017 13:59, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > .. > > > The usual equation 'E=m*c²' uses ill-defined measures. > > > > > > If you apply it to a ray, the term 'mass' (in connection to rays) would > > > be meaningless. > > > > > > If you look only at the sample, the term 'energy' is not well defined, > > > since a sample is 'stuff'. > > > > > > And material objects have mass. But you cannot really say 'stuff has > > > energy', since to measure energy would require a process, in which > > > energy is released. > > > > > > That would be a radioactive decay, of course, but the term energy would > > > be used for the emitted rays and not for the mass of the material object. > > > > > > And if you apply the correct relations, the equation 'E=m*c²' is wrong, > > > since the signs are wrong. > > > > > > TH > > > > "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was > > nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli > > If you cannot say, whether or not my statement was correct or not, than > why do you write a comment about it? That quote applies to your words. The operative description is CONFUSED. > IOW: if you have nothing to say you should say nothing. I had something to say and Pauli expressed it well. > Of course my text was not confused, since I have addressed an important > question in connection to this equation. No, you have spouted nonsense. > This question was: what is the meaning of the term 'energy' in > connection with a piece of matter at rest? Then why were you talking about a RAY. Of light, presumably. But light doesn't have mass. > Actually meant is the equivalence of the mass lost by a radioactive > sample and the energy of the emitted rays. Actually, your narrative meandered all over the place. That's ONE reason it was so confused. > Now the term 'mass' belongs to matter at rest and 'energy' to emitted rays. Matter at rest also has energy. That's ANOTHER reason why your narrative is so confused. > The equation E=m*c² sets both terms equal, while in fact energy and mass > are not equal, but only numerical values are equal, if you ignore the > fact, that more of one means less of the other. More confusion. > This would hardly be the relation, you want to express with an equal sign. > > > TH Actually, it works quite well. You are VERY confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 19:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ed28k8F8snvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #403861 |
Am 03.01.2017 14:16, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was >>> nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli >> >> If you cannot say, whether or not my statement was correct or not, than >> why do you write a comment about it? > > That quote applies to your words. The operative description is CONFUSED. > >> IOW: if you have nothing to say you should say nothing. > > I had something to say and Pauli expressed it well. > >> Of course my text was not confused, since I have addressed an important >> question in connection to this equation. > > No, you have spouted nonsense. > >> This question was: what is the meaning of the term 'energy' in >> connection with a piece of matter at rest? > > Then why were you talking about a RAY. Of light, presumably. But light > doesn't have mass. Well, here we do agree. But the term 'light' (in connection to radioactive decay) would also include shorter frequencies like gamma rays. With 'ray' ( emitted by the radioactive sample) we mean three main components, called alpha, beta and gamma rays. For all of those I use the collective term 'rays'. >> Actually meant is the equivalence of the mass lost by a radioactive >> sample and the energy of the emitted rays. > > Actually, your narrative meandered all over the place. That's ONE reason > it was so confused. ??? This statement I cannot decode. >> Now the term 'mass' belongs to matter at rest and 'energy' to emitted rays. > > Matter at rest also has energy. That's ANOTHER reason why your narrative > is so confused. Well, maybe matter at rest has somehow stored energy. Ok, agreed. But how would you put this insight into an equation? You would say: there is something energetic coming out and mass is missing. That should be equal in a way and for such a relation you would create an equation. But you cannot say "mass is equal to energy times a constant" because the behaviour of mass and energy is not equal, but antagonistic. Only the numerical values are equal (not the things themselves). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 13:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fdfc7229-8e32-4f04-9396-3191f9304b8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403880 |
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 03.01.2017 14:16, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was > > > > nonsense or not." – Wolfgang Pauli > > > > > > If you cannot say, whether or not my statement was correct or not, than > > > why do you write a comment about it? > > > > That quote applies to your words. The operative description is CONFUSED. > > > > > IOW: if you have nothing to say you should say nothing. > > > > I had something to say and Pauli expressed it well. > > > > > Of course my text was not confused, since I have addressed an important > > > question in connection to this equation. > > > > No, you have spouted nonsense. > > > > > This question was: what is the meaning of the term 'energy' in > > > connection with a piece of matter at rest? > > > > Then why were you talking about a RAY. Of light, presumably. But light > > doesn't have mass. > > Well, here we do agree. > > But the term 'light' (in connection to radioactive decay) would also > include shorter frequencies like gamma rays. Yes. So what? > With 'ray' ( emitted by the radioactive sample) we mean three main > components, called alpha, beta and gamma rays. No! Alpha and beta are misnamed. Actually, they are helium nuclei and electrons, respectively. > For all of those I use the collective term 'rays'. It would be more accurate to use the term "particles." When a nuclei emits an alpha particle, there is no "ray" about it. "Ray" implies an extended phenomenon. This is an example of more confusion. > > > Actually meant is the equivalence of the mass lost by a radioactive > > > sample and the energy of the emitted rays. > > > > Actually, your narrative meandered all over the place. That's ONE reason > > it was so confused. > > ??? > > This statement I cannot decode. It's not my fault that you don't know what you're saying. > > > Now the term 'mass' belongs to matter at rest and 'energy' to emitted > > > rays. > > > > Matter at rest also has energy. That's ANOTHER reason why your narrative > > is so confused. > > Well, maybe matter at rest has somehow stored energy. > > Ok, agreed. > > But how would you put this insight into an equation? > > You would say: there is something energetic coming out and mass is missing. > > That should be equal in a way and for such a relation you would create > an equation. > > But you cannot say "mass is equal to energy times a constant" because > the behaviour of mass and energy is not equal, but antagonistic. Baseless assertion flying in the face of experimental evidence. > Only the numerical values are equal (not the things themselves). > > TH "Numerical values" is more confused nomenclature. It is a FACT that two particles can disappear and be replaced by two photons, i.e., energy. If you refuse to deal with FACTS, you can't help but be confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 14:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d2bf6a9c-09b6-4c1d-ac7e-23f5807a2014@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403900 |
Baboon Gary Harnagel gibbered: > But you cannot say "mass is equal to energy times a constant" because > the behaviour of mass and energy is not equal, but antagonistic. Baseless assertion flying in the face of experimental evidence. Imbecilic imbecilities (1.49833385e+10*2 + 299792458)^2*2e-18 = 1832.1183469 solve (30.299792458^2) * 2 = 1836.154845995747363528 (((137036^4) / (pi / 2))^0.5) * G = 1.00000188
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 19:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9ba649c-63a2-4857-a18d-ebe897d5394b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403903 |
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 3:02:11 PM UTC-7, David (Lard Krapos Pimp) FullofIt wrote: > Imbecilic imbecilities
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 07:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ed3is3FiimaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #403900 |
Am 03.01.2017 22:52, schrieb Gary Harnagel: .. >>>> Now the term 'mass' belongs to matter at rest and 'energy' to emitted >>>> rays. >>> >>> Matter at rest also has energy. That's ANOTHER reason why your narrative >>> is so confused. >> >> Well, maybe matter at rest has somehow stored energy. >> >> Ok, agreed. >> >> But how would you put this insight into an equation? >> >> You would say: there is something energetic coming out and mass is missing. >> >> That should be equal in a way and for such a relation you would create >> an equation. >> >> But you cannot say "mass is equal to energy times a constant" because >> the behaviour of mass and energy is not equal, but antagonistic. > > Baseless assertion flying in the face of experimental evidence. 'mass' and 'energy' are physical terms and have a definition. The main characteristic of 'mass' is inertia, while 'energy' is used for something non-inert, hence of the opposite kind. E=m* c² does not say, that mass is a form of energy. mass is measured in kilogram and energy in Joule. What is apparently meant by you is a different idea: you associate mass with matter and matter as form of energy. But mass IS inertia, while matter is measured in Mol. Now we could talk about non-material foundations of matter, if you wish. I do in fact agree upon this. But apparently you don't, since you insist on particles as fundamental entities. >> Only the numerical values are equal (not the things themselves). >> >> TH > > "Numerical values" is more confused nomenclature. It is a FACT that two > particles can disappear and be replaced by two photons, i.e., energy. > If you refuse to deal with FACTS, you can't help but be confused. You have to distinguish between the thing itself and the way that we as human beings see it and model it. The models have a unit and a numerical value. E.g. a certain road has a length of - say- 100 m. Then '100' is a number, by which the base unit 1m had to be multiplied. But still this construct is not a road, only the length of this road. So these numbers belong to the descriptive model and not to the thing. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 15:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ddf8d6a4-6a23-414e-8295-0053c365bbcb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403937 |
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 11:26:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > 'mass' and 'energy' are physical terms and have a definition. > > The main characteristic of 'mass' is inertia, Actually, one definition is RESISTANCE to acceleration. But ANOTHER definition is the ability to attract other bodies ( or to curve spacetime). > while 'energy' is used for something non-inert, hence of the opposite > kind. I don't see them as opposites. > E=m* c² does not say, that mass is a form of energy. Who are you to claim that? > mass is measured in kilogram and energy in Joule. Irrelevant. Kelvins is a measure of temperature. So is the Fahrenheit system. A formula relates the two. Are you saying that one is a form of temperature but the other is not? Ergs measure energy, Joules do too. A scale factor relates the two. c^2 is the scale factor relating mass to energy. > What is apparently meant by you is a different idea: > > you associate mass with matter and matter as form of energy. > > But mass IS inertia, while matter is measured in Mol. Mass is measured in kg. > Now we could talk about non-material foundations of matter, if you wish. > > I do in fact agree upon this. > > But apparently you don't, since you insist on particles as fundamental > entities. Well, I believe strings are fundamental. > > "Numerical values" is more confused nomenclature. It is a FACT that two > > particles can disappear and be replaced by two photons, i.e., energy. > > If you refuse to deal with FACTS, you can't help but be confused. > > You have to distinguish between the thing itself and the way that we as > human beings see it and model it. We have no way of knowing the "things themselves" (whatever that means). > The models have a unit and a numerical value. > > E.g. a certain road has a length of - say- 100 m. > > Then '100' is a number, by which the base unit 1m had to be multiplied. "100" by itself means nothing at all. You seem to be wrapping yourself up in obfuscation. > But still this construct is not a road, only the length of this road. > > So these numbers belong to the descriptive model and not to the thing. > > > TH Does TH stand for THing? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Getman <erttarnKmu@erttarnKmu.ert> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 00:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o4k2kb$1v1t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #404046 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 11:26:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> 'mass' and 'energy' are physical terms and have a definition. >> The main characteristic of 'mass' is inertia, > > Actually, one definition is RESISTANCE to acceleration. But ANOTHER > definition is the ability to attract other bodies ( or to curve > spacetime). Your later definition is entirely bullshit. There is no attraction involving massive bodies. Common error in Relaivity, btw. So much indeed. Freefall is not, and can't be, attraction. Never. Please correct this unforgivable error immediately.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 18:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60512eab-4518-40db-9dff-dfe4122cc151@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #404050 |
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:05:36 PM UTC-7, Stupid, ignorant 'nym-shifting troll Kurt Getman wrote: > > [Stupid, ignorant cow pies and disgusting baloney] 'nuff said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web