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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403364 > unrolled thread

E = mc^2 : Einstein was not the author of course

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#405689

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Initially I had tried to use a quaternion formula for rotation:
> 
> v' = q * v * q^-1

Okay, write down your algorithm. Pseudocode is fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405700

W dniu niedziela, 15 stycznia 2017 20:21:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Reid Schaffner napisał:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> > Initially I had tried to use a quaternion formula for rotation:
> > 
> > v' = q * v * q^-1
> 
> Okay, write down your algorithm. Pseudocode is fine.

try to use wikipedia... :)

q = cos(f/2) + u*sin(f/2);
q^-1 = cos(f/2) - u*sin(f/2);

thus the alg. of rotation with angle f
around an unit vector: u = (x,y,z) is:

rotation(TP3d &v, &u, double f)
{
  double s = sin(f/2), c = cos(f/2);
  v = TP4d(c, s*u)*v*TP4d(c, -s*u); // v -> v'
}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405704

alsor wrote:

> W dniu niedziela, 15 stycznia 2017 20:21:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Reid
> Schaffner napisał:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 
>> > Initially I had tried to use a quaternion formula for rotation:
>> > 
>> > v' = q * v * q^-1
>> 
>> Okay, write down your algorithm. Pseudocode is fine.
> 
> try to use wikipedia... :)
> 
> q = cos(f/2) + u*sin(f/2);
> q^-1 = cos(f/2) - u*sin(f/2);
> 
> thus the alg. of rotation with angle f around an unit vector: u =
> (x,y,z) is:
> 
> rotation(TP3d &v, &u, double f)
> {
>   double s = sin(f/2), c = cos(f/2);
>   v = TP4d(c, s*u)*v*TP4d(c, -s*u); // v -> v'
> }

I'm not using Wikipedia, only when I have time to spend correcting it. No 
idea if is wrong or right, what I can tell you for sure is that, you have 
to have a condition statement (actually two) for the Arctangent. I can't 
see it. ALso, I can't see your input data/data set that algorithm has to 
take as input. It rather looks like a 3d display algorithm, not proper 
rotation. See you in Glucksburg.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405715

W dniu niedziela, 15 stycznia 2017 21:22:30 UTC+1 użytkownik Reid Schaffner napisał:
> alsor wrote:
> 
> > W dniu niedziela, 15 stycznia 2017 20:21:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Reid
> > Schaffner napisał:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Initially I had tried to use a quaternion formula for rotation:
> >> > 
> >> > v' = q * v * q^-1
> >> 
> >> Okay, write down your algorithm. Pseudocode is fine.
> > 
> > try to use wikipedia... :)
> > 
> > q = cos(f/2) + u*sin(f/2);
> > q^-1 = cos(f/2) - u*sin(f/2);
> > 
> > thus the alg. of rotation with angle f around an unit vector: u =
> > (x,y,z) is:
> > 
> > rotation(TP3d &v, &u, double f)
> > {
> >   double s = sin(f/2), c = cos(f/2);
> >   v = TP4d(c, s*u)*v*TP4d(c, -s*u); // v -> v'
> > }
> 
> I'm not using Wikipedia, only when I have time to spend correcting it. No 
> idea if is wrong or right, what I can tell you for sure is that, you have 
> to have a condition statement (actually two) for the Arctangent. I can't 
> see it. ALso, I can't see your input data/data set that algorithm has to 
> take as input. It rather looks like a 3d display algorithm, not proper 
> rotation. See you in Glucksburg.

Sorry, but there in no arctan in a rotation.

There is an angle around an unit vector,
thus the quaternion is:
q = cos(f/2) + sin(f/2)*u;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405718

alsor wrote:

>> I'm not using Wikipedia, only when I have time to spend correcting it.
>> No idea if is wrong or right, what I can tell you for sure is that, you
>> have to have a condition statement (actually two) for the Arctangent. I
>> can't see it. ALso, I can't see your input data/data set that algorithm
>> has to take as input. It rather looks like a 3d display algorithm, not
>> proper rotation. See you in Glucksburg.
> 
> Sorry, but there in no arctan in a rotation.
> There is an angle around an unit vector, thus the quaternion is:
> q = cos(f/2) + sin(f/2)*u;

Dont be sorry so fast. It must be. You just display your lack of the 
required prerequisites. That Arctangent is what gives quaternions their 
singularity behavioural. Please conformly adjust your papers immediately.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405721

W dniu niedziela, 15 stycznia 2017 23:54:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Reid Schaffner napisał:
> alsor wrote:
> 
> >> I'm not using Wikipedia, only when I have time to spend correcting it.
> >> No idea if is wrong or right, what I can tell you for sure is that, you
> >> have to have a condition statement (actually two) for the Arctangent. I
> >> can't see it. ALso, I can't see your input data/data set that algorithm
> >> has to take as input. It rather looks like a 3d display algorithm, not
> >> proper rotation. See you in Glucksburg.
> > 
> > Sorry, but there in no arctan in a rotation.
> > There is an angle around an unit vector, thus the quaternion is:
> > q = cos(f/2) + sin(f/2)*u;
> 
> Dont be sorry so fast. It must be. You just display your lack of the 
> required prerequisites. That Arctangent is what gives quaternions their 
> singularity behavioural. Please conformly adjust your papers immediately.

Simply:

for an angle of rot. f and axis u:
q = cos(f/2 + sin(f/2)* u

v' = q*v*q' = Rodigues' formula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues%27_rotation_formula

Capisto babe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405722

alsor wrote:

>> Dont be sorry so fast. It must be. You just display your lack of the
>> required prerequisites. That Arctangent is what gives quaternions their
>> singularity behavioural. Please conformly adjust your papers
>> immediately.
> 
> Simply:
> 
> for an angle of rot. f and axis u:
> q = cos(f/2 + sin(f/2)* u
> v' = q*v*q' = Rodigues' formula.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues%27_rotation_formula
> Capisto babe?

You know what, what you grabbed who knows where from, must be correct 
(unverified). My bad entirely. That conditional statement would be there 
in order to AVOID those singularities. That's the reason aforementioned 
for which quaternions ARE BAD. Please pay attention in your derivation. 
You have to introduce condition statements, to avoid singularities. This 
is how we do in Math Modelling and Scientific computation. When something 
may go outside the Domain of Applicability, you HAVE to exclude it. Keep 
up the good work!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405726

W dniu poniedziałek, 16 stycznia 2017 00:58:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Reid Schaffner napisał:
> alsor wrote:
> 
> >> Dont be sorry so fast. It must be. You just display your lack of the
> >> required prerequisites. That Arctangent is what gives quaternions their
> >> singularity behavioural. Please conformly adjust your papers
> >> immediately.
> > 
> > Simply:
> > 
> > for an angle of rot. f and axis u:
> > q = cos(f/2 + sin(f/2)* u
> > v' = q*v*q' = Rodigues' formula.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues%27_rotation_formula
> > Capisto babe?
> 
> You know what, what you grabbed who knows where from, must be correct 
> (unverified). My bad entirely. That conditional statement would be there 
> in order to AVOID those singularities. That's the reason aforementioned 
> for which quaternions ARE BAD. Please pay attention in your derivation. 
> You have to introduce condition statements, to avoid singularities. This 
> is how we do in Math Modelling and Scientific computation. When something 
> may go outside the Domain of Applicability, you HAVE to exclude it. Keep 
> up the good work!

Sorry, but in a rotation there is no singularity points.

operations: sin, cos, mul, addition: have no singularities also.

Maybe in the quantum relativity
a smooth sphere has some fantastic singularities.. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405747

Am 15.01.2017 20:21, schrieb Reid Schaffner:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Initially I had tried to use a quaternion formula for rotation:
>>
>> v' = q * v * q^-1
>
> Okay, write down your algorithm. Pseudocode is fine.


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

I assume a certain mechanism acting in nature and try to show, this is 
actually the case.

The idea is, to take 'elements' of spacetime and let them interact as if 
they would rotate each other.

'Element' is meant as pointlike, but not a point.

It could be understood as having zero extension in time and space, but 
being a real 'thing'.

This is assumed to behave a little similar to a cogwheel with unusual 
features. The rotation is 'antisymmetric' and it takes two turns to return.

Antisymmetric means: the 'cogwheel' twists the other in the wrong 
direction (with it).

These things have an orientation into which they would 'move'.

Actually 'space' and 'time' are comoving with the observer.

So all the structures comoving are regarded as things, while all other 
are regarded as waves or field.

(If the axis of time is rotated, then other structures are stable and a 
different space appears, filled with other things.)

Now I try to show, this mechanism does in fact occur in nature.

One possibility is group theory and the group SO(3) (rotation group) and 
show it's similarity to natural phenomena.

One other is cosmology and in trying to relate certain phenomena to 
regions where the axis of time is rotated (black holes for instance).

But we have also complex numbers, which could somehow be understood as 
rotation angle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula


Now I want to make this rotation about a plain more 'volumetric', hence 
use similar construct in volume.

This would lead to what I have depicted on page 90 of my text:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/present#slide=id.i758

(Page 90 from my 'book' here:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )


This picture should show, what matter actually is.

It is a three dimensional simplification and a horizontal circle has to 
understood as a sphere.

These cones for m=0 are the light cones and the inner and out cones are 
therefore atoms (core and shell).

As prove of concept I tried to prove 'Growing Earth'.

(I have spent actually more time on that than on my 'book'.)

This would prove, that matter is 'relativistic', hence dependent on the 
FoR and could vanish without a trace or could pop out of nowhere.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405217

Am 11.01.2017 05:30, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>>>>>>> >  >  >  >  >  >  which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2.
>>>>>> >  >  >  >  >
>>>>>> >  >  >  >  >  but still m=0.
>>>>>> >  >  >  >  >  momentum is m times v,
>>>>> >  >  >>
>>>>> >  >  >  >  No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v
>>>>> >  >  >  >
>>>>>> >  >  >  >  >  hence is still zero.
>>>>> >  >  >  >
>>>>> >  >  >  >  When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer.
>>>> >  >  >
>>>> >  >  >  Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result.
>>> >  >
>>> >  >  SO you don't understand gamma.  It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).  What happens
>>> >  >  when v = c?
>> >
>> >
>> >  We would get 1/0
> No, idiot!  We would get 0/0.  You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon.
>


You provided this equation:
1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

and wanted to know, what happens at this point:
v = c

I plug this into your equation and come to:

1/sqrt(1 - c^2/c^2)= 1/ sqrt(1-1) = 1/ 0

How do you get 0/0 ??



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405220

Am 11.01.2017 05:30, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>>>>>>> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)
>
> See?  There it is again.
>
>>>>>>> which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but still m=0.
>>>>>> momentum is m times v,
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v
>>>>>
>>>>>> hence is still zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result.
>>>
>>> SO you don't understand gamma.  It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).  What happens
>>> when v = c?
>>
>>
>> We would get 1/0
>
> No, idiot!  We would get 0/0.  You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon.
>

You provided this equation:
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

and wanted to know, what happens at this point:
v = c

I plug this into your equation and come to:

gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - c^2/c^2)= 1/ sqrt(1-1) = 1/ 0

How do you get 0/0 ??

Then you wrote:

  p = gamma*m*v

in case of
v=c

Gamma is infinity, mass is zero and v is c.

so we have

p= infinity * zero * c

And I refused to regard this as valid equation, but called that 'Voodoo'.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405227

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:04:28 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 11.01.2017 05:30, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>
>>>>>>>> E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)
>>
>> See?  There it is again.
>>
>>>>>>>> which you can derive from gamma*m*c^2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but still m=0.
>>>>>>> momentum is m times v,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's not. p = gamma*m*v
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hence is still zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result.
>>>>
>>>> SO you don't understand gamma.  It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).  What happens
>>>> when v = c?
>>>
>>>
>>> We would get 1/0
>>
>> No, idiot!  We would get 0/0.  You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon.
>>
>
>You provided this equation:
>gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>
>and wanted to know, what happens at this point:
>v = c
>
>I plug this into your equation and come to:
>
>gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - c^2/c^2)= 1/ sqrt(1-1) = 1/ 0
>
>How do you get 0/0 ??
>
>Then you wrote:
>
>  p = gamma*m*v
>
>in case of
>v=c
>
>Gamma is infinity, mass is zero and v is c.
>
>so we have
>
>p= infinity * zero * c
>
>And I refused to regard this as valid equation, but called that 'Voodoo'.
>
>
>TH
>


Oh, the infamous Androcles' Einstein division by zero error again!

w.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405307

Am 12.01.2017 09:21, schrieb Helmut Wabnig:

>>>>>>> When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result.
>>>>>
>>>>> SO you don't understand gamma.  It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).  What happens
>>>>> when v = c?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We would get 1/0
>>>
>>> No, idiot!  We would get 0/0.  You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon.
>>>
>>
>> You provided this equation:
>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>>
>> and wanted to know, what happens at this point:
>> v = c
>>
>> I plug this into your equation and come to:
>>
>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - c^2/c^2)= 1/ sqrt(1-1) = 1/ 0
>>
>> How do you get 0/0 ??
>>
>> Then you wrote:
>>
>>   p = gamma*m*v
>>
>> in case of
>> v=c
>>
>> Gamma is infinity, mass is zero and v is c.
>>
>> so we have
>>
>> p= infinity * zero * c
>>
>> And I refused to regard this as valid equation, but called that 'Voodoo'.

>
> Oh, the infamous Androcles' Einstein division by zero error again!
>
Sorry, but I didn't know about this subject.

I tried to defend my assumption, that E=m* c² is wrong.

In my understand E and m are antagonistic terms.

So: more E (energy) means less m (mass).

This is supported by experimental evidence, but is different to what 
Einstein said (E=m * c²).

In case you want to defend Gary Harnagel's position, than please. You 
are welcome.

I used 'reductio ad absurdo' to prove Harnagel's position wrong.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405312

W dniu czwartek, 12 stycznia 2017 18:20:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 12.01.2017 09:21, schrieb Helmut Wabnig:
> 
> >>>>>>> When you use the wrong equation, you get the wrong answer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now you want to multiply something with zero and get non-zero result.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SO you don't understand gamma.  It's 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).  What happens
> >>>>> when v = c?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We would get 1/0
> >>>
> >>> No, idiot!  We would get 0/0.  You keep insisting m = 0, buffoon.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You provided this equation:
> >> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> >>
> >> and wanted to know, what happens at this point:
> >> v = c
> >>
> >> I plug this into your equation and come to:
> >>
> >> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - c^2/c^2)= 1/ sqrt(1-1) = 1/ 0
> >>
> >> How do you get 0/0 ??
> >>
> >> Then you wrote:
> >>
> >>   p = gamma*m*v
> >>
> >> in case of
> >> v=c
> >>
> >> Gamma is infinity, mass is zero and v is c.
> >>
> >> so we have
> >>
> >> p= infinity * zero * c
> >>
> >> And I refused to regard this as valid equation, but called that 'Voodoo'.
> 
> >
> > Oh, the infamous Androcles' Einstein division by zero error again!
> >
> Sorry, but I didn't know about this subject.
> 
> I tried to defend my assumption, that E=m* c² is wrong.
> 
> In my understand E and m are antagonistic terms.
> 
> So: more E (energy) means less m (mass).
> 
> This is supported by experimental evidence, but is different to what 
> Einstein said (E=m * c²).
> 
> In case you want to defend Gary Harnagel's position, than please. You 
> are welcome.
> 
> I used 'reductio ad absurdo' to prove Harnagel's position wrong.
> 
> 
> TH

indeed.
the correct is:

E = dm c^2;
where dm is a mass deficit of a system.

The: E = mc^2 is just another relativistic fallacy...

dE = vdp

then using: p = mv gamma:
E(v) = mc^2 gamma - mc^2

therefore one stupid can conclude:

E(v=0) = -mc^2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405325

Am 12.01.2017 18:41, schrieb alsor@interia.pl:

>>>> You provided this equation:
>>>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>>>>
>>>> and wanted to know, what happens at this point:
>>>> v = c
>>>>
>>>> I plug this into your equation and come to:
>>>>
>>>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - c^2/c^2)= 1/ sqrt(1-1) = 1/ 0
>>>>
>>>> How do you get 0/0 ??
>>>>
>>>> Then you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    p = gamma*m*v
>>>>
>>>> in case of
>>>> v=c
>>>>
>>>> Gamma is infinity, mass is zero and v is c.
>>>>
>>>> so we have
>>>>
>>>> p= infinity * zero * c
>>>>
>>>> And I refused to regard this as valid equation, but called that 'Voodoo'.
>>
>>>
>>> Oh, the infamous Androcles' Einstein division by zero error again!
>>>
>> Sorry, but I didn't know about this subject.
>>
>> I tried to defend my assumption, that E=m* c² is wrong.
>>
>> In my understand E and m are antagonistic terms.
>>
>> So: more E (energy) means less m (mass).
>>
>> This is supported by experimental evidence, but is different to what
>> Einstein said (E=m * c²).
>>
>> In case you want to defend Gary Harnagel's position, than please. You
>> are welcome.
>>
>> I used 'reductio ad absurdo' to prove Harnagel's position wrong.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> indeed.
> the correct is:
>
> E = dm c^2;
> where dm is a mass deficit of a system.

mass deficit is not 'dm', but 'delta m'. ('d' denotes infinitesimal 
small change).

In fact you need a minus sign, since mass is going down and energy is 
positive.

So we get:
E = - delta(m)* c²


And if you would would read one of my first posts to this thread, you 
would find that equation.

>
> The: E = mc^2 is just another relativistic fallacy...
>
> dE = vdp
>
> then using: p = mv gamma:
> E(v) = mc^2 gamma - mc^2
>
> therefore one stupid can conclude:
>
> E(v=0) = -mc^2
>

in fact:
E = - delta(m)* c²


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405338

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:58:18 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.01.2017 18:41, schrieb alsor@interia.pl:
> 
> >>>> You provided this equation:
> >>>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> >>>>
> >>>> and wanted to know, what happens at this point:
> >>>> v = c
> >>>>
> >>>> I plug this into your equation and come to:
> >>>>
> >>>> gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - c^2/c^2)= 1/ sqrt(1-1) = 1/ 0
> >>>>
> >>>> How do you get 0/0 ??
> >>>>
> >>>> Then you wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>    p = gamma*m*v
> >>>>
> >>>> in case of
> >>>> v=c
> >>>>
> >>>> Gamma is infinity, mass is zero and v is c.
> >>>>
> >>>> so we have
> >>>>
> >>>> p= infinity * zero * c
> >>>>
> >>>> And I refused to regard this as valid equation, but called that 'Voodoo'.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Oh, the infamous Androcles' Einstein division by zero error again!
> >>>
> >> Sorry, but I didn't know about this subject.
> >>
> >> I tried to defend my assumption, that E=m* c² is wrong.
> >>
> >> In my understand E and m are antagonistic terms.
> >>
> >> So: more E (energy) means less m (mass).
> >>
> >> This is supported by experimental evidence, but is different to what
> >> Einstein said (E=m * c²).
> >>
> >> In case you want to defend Gary Harnagel's position, than please. You
> >> are welcome.
> >>
> >> I used 'reductio ad absurdo' to prove Harnagel's position wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > indeed.
> > the correct is:
> >
> > E = dm c^2;
> > where dm is a mass deficit of a system.
> 
> mass deficit is not 'dm', but 'delta m'. ('d' denotes infinitesimal 
> small change).
> 
> In fact you need a minus sign, since mass is going down and energy is 
> positive.
> 
> So we get:
> E = - delta(m)* c²
> 
> 
> And if you would would read one of my first posts to this thread, you 
> would find that equation.
> 
> >
> > The: E = mc^2 is just another relativistic fallacy...
> >
> > dE = vdp
> >
> > then using: p = mv gamma:
> > E(v) = mc^2 gamma - mc^2
> >
> > therefore one stupid can conclude:
> >
> > E(v=0) = -mc^2
> >
> 
> in fact:
> E = - delta(m)* c²
> 
> 
> TH

Hello Mr Heger

I Agree, c^2 is Antagonistic to m

The Schwarzschild Radius Formula would Also lead one to believe Mass & c^2 are Antagonistic to each other 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/blkhol.html

Rs = (2*M*G)/c^2


mass seems to be The ENERGY DEBT of (Energy unavailable for use due to rising Entropy)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405468

Am 12.01.2017 20:34, schrieb David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller:

>>> indeed.
>>> the correct is:
>>>
>>> E = dm c^2;
>>> where dm is a mass deficit of a system.
>>
>> mass deficit is not 'dm', but 'delta m'. ('d' denotes infinitesimal
>> small change).
>>
>> In fact you need a minus sign, since mass is going down and energy is
>> positive.
>>
>> So we get:
>> E = - delta(m)* c²
>>
>>
>> And if you would would read one of my first posts to this thread, you
>> would find that equation.
>>
>>>
>>> The: E = mc^2 is just another relativistic fallacy...
>>>
>>> dE = vdp
>>>
>>> then using: p = mv gamma:
>>> E(v) = mc^2 gamma - mc^2
>>>
>>> therefore one stupid can conclude:
>>>
>>> E(v=0) = -mc^2
>>>
>>
>> in fact:
>> E = - delta(m)* c²
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Hello Mr Heger
>
> I Agree, c^2 is Antagonistic to m
>
> The Schwarzschild Radius Formula would Also lead one to believe Mass&  c^2 are Antagonistic to each other
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/blkhol.html
>
> Rs = (2*M*G)/c^2
>
>
> mass seems to be The ENERGY DEBT of (Energy unavailable for use due to rising Entropy)

You apparently love thermodynamics (- while I don't).

I had to learn this subject and had a really hard time with concepts 
like entropy.

So still I'm not really convinced, that 2nd law of thermodynamics is 
actually true.

(I have a different approach and base my ideas on the features of 
complex numbers.)


'energy debt' means:

things apparently 'suck in' energy.

These things bind the energy and gain mass.

If they had to spit it out again, they would loose mass.

But Einstein said: mass IS energy.

That is the wrong direction.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405471

On 1/12/2017 11:41 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> indeed.
> the correct is:
>
> E = dm c^2;
> where dm is a mass deficit of a system.
>
> The: E = mc^2 is just another relativistic fallacy...
>
> dE = vdp
>
> then using: p = mv gamma:
> E(v) = mc^2 gamma - mc^2
>
> therefore one stupid can conclude:
>
> E(v=0) = -mc^2

You have goofed. gamma=1 when v=0, not gamma=0 when v=0.

Your expression for dE=vdp, by the way, is only kinetic energy, not 
total energy. This you can see from your expression for E(v).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405588

W dniu piątek, 13 stycznia 2017 21:07:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 1/12/2017 11:41 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> > indeed.
> > the correct is:
> >
> > E = dm c^2;
> > where dm is a mass deficit of a system.
> >
> > The: E = mc^2 is just another relativistic fallacy...
> >
> > dE = vdp
> >
> > then using: p = mv gamma:
> > E(v) = mc^2 gamma - mc^2
> >
> > therefore one stupid can conclude:
> >
> > E(v=0) = -mc^2
> 
> You have goofed. gamma=1 when v=0, not gamma=0 when v=0.
> 
> Your expression for dE=vdp, by the way, is only kinetic energy, not 
> total energy. This you can see from your expression for E(v).

there is just an equation:
dE/dp = v

Newton:
E = 1/2 mc^2, p = mv then:
dE/dp = mv/m = v

the same for relaivistic:
E = mc^2 gamma, p = mv gamma 
then:
dE/dp = v, again.

But this is nothing, because for any function p = p(v),
there is some E(v), which preserves this relation.

For example, let: p = sinh(v), then:

dE = vdp = vcosh(v) dv;
u = v -> u' = 1
v' = coshv -> v = sinhv

so, the result is:
E(v) = vsinv - int sinv dv = vsinv - coshv
...
check:
dE/dp = [sinv + vcosv - sinv] / coshv = v
........

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405603

On 1/14/2017 12:29 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 13 stycznia 2017 21:07:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 1/12/2017 11:41 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>>> indeed.
>>> the correct is:
>>>
>>> E = dm c^2;
>>> where dm is a mass deficit of a system.
>>>
>>> The: E = mc^2 is just another relativistic fallacy...
>>>
>>> dE = vdp
>>>
>>> then using: p = mv gamma:
>>> E(v) = mc^2 gamma - mc^2
>>>
>>> therefore one stupid can conclude:
>>>
>>> E(v=0) = -mc^2
>>
>> You have goofed. gamma=1 when v=0, not gamma=0 when v=0.
>>
>> Your expression for dE=vdp, by the way, is only kinetic energy, not
>> total energy. This you can see from your expression for E(v).
>
> there is just an equation:
> dE/dp = v
>
> Newton:
> E = 1/2 mc^2, p = mv then:
> dE/dp = mv/m = v
>
> the same for relaivistic:
> E = mc^2 gamma, p = mv gamma
> then:
> dE/dp = v, again.

Sorry, but again I want to point out you're talking about kinetic energy 
when you write Newton E = 1/2 mv^2.

Moreover, as I pointed out, gamma=1 when v=0.

>
> But this is nothing, because for any function p = p(v),
> there is some E(v), which preserves this relation.
>
> For example, let: p = sinh(v), then:
>
> dE = vdp = vcosh(v) dv;
> u = v -> u' = 1
> v' = coshv -> v = sinhv
>
> so, the result is:
> E(v) = vsinv - int sinv dv = vsinv - coshv
> ...
> check:
> dE/dp = [sinv + vcosv - sinv] / coshv = v
> ........
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web