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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476480

Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity

Show all headers | View raw

Am 06.11.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 17.10.2018 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Folmsbee:
>>> In 1919. the proton was discovered by Rutherford.
>>> Einstein never included a proton in his General Theory of R.
> 
> And why should he?
> 
>>> What causes gravity? Protons.
> 
> Not only.  There are many more particles other than protons …
> 
>> Or as Einstein guessed: mass.
> 
> … and most of them have non-zero mass.  Also, mass (density) is not the only
> contributor to the effect of gravity.  That is precisely why Newton’s theory
> of gravitation is wrong inasfar as it cannot explain a number of other
> observations, for example the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (there
> is no other planet that causes it).
> 
>> As far as I can tell, Einstein assumed that 'curved spacetime' causes
>> gravity and mass curves spacetime.
> 
> Wow, a correct (if incomplete) statement by *you* about relativity, and
> *general* relativity on top of that.
> 
> Your statement is correct because according to general relativity
> (mathematically sound and confirmed numerous times by observation,
> so NOT merely an assumption), gravity is just an apparent force, an
> observable effect on the motion of objects, due the _curvature of_
> spacetime.  (Like when you move on a curved path if you travel in
> a straight line on a sphere, which is a curved surface.)
> 
> Your statement is incomplete because it is not so that “mass curves
> spacetime” (that is just the simplified version), but that the *density*
> of *energy* and *momentum* is *equivalent* to the curvature of spacetime.
> 
> And as rest energy is equivalent to mass (see below), the mass _density_ of
> an object in spacetime contributes to the curvature of spacetime, too.  (The
> first component of the energy–momentum tensor that appears in the field
> equations is the energy density of space.)
> 
>>> E = mcc
>>>
>>> m is not the initial for matter, m is mass.
>>
>> Actually I think, the equation is wrong, since the terms E, m and c are
>> absolute, but the effect is 'relative'.
> 
> Damn.  You had come so far.
> 
> The equation is *correct*, because there is nothing relative about any "effect".

The radioactive decay is something, what I would call 'effect'.

'Phenomenon' or 'observation' are also possible phrases, but 'effect' is 
imho better.

But English is a second language for me, hence I could make occasional 
mistakes.


Second: 'relative' has a meaning, too, in common language. That is 'in 
comparison to something'.

So the radioactive decay is altering a certain state from 'before decay' 
to 'after decay'.

The decay is therefor relative to that state (which it alters).

If you leave out this relation, you mess up the entire thing.



>> IOW the decrease in mass in radioactive decay is balanced by emitted
>> energy.
> 
> That much is true.
> 
>> And that is 'relative' (actually it is changing a certain state)
>> and that would require 'deltas'.
> There *are* deltas (what’s with the quotation marks all the time?):

There are NO deltas in E=m*c² !!!

You cannot assume, what is not there.



These 'quotation marks' have a different meaning than what you think.

First I use '"' for quotes.

The ' is meant as separator between the sentence itself and some other 
level of meaning of a certain object or phrase.

E.g. the comma (',') is put into these signs ('), because the sentence 
can have commas in it, but if the sign itself is meant, you need to 
separate it somehow.

In this case I have put 'deltas' in such signs, since I wanted to hint, 
that not a Greek letter was missing, but a reference to the evolution in 
time (delta = state_ after - state_ before).

It is questionable in this case. But UseNet writing is different to 
other types of writing, since UseNet is Ascii-only and a little 
'rougher' than other kinds of communication.

Here 'rough' is put in such 'quotation marks', because I wanted to give 
a hint, that not the roughness of a surface was meant.

> 
>    ∆m = ∆E/c²
> 
> ∆m is the mass that the radioactive specimen loses when it emits radiation
> of the energy ∆E.
> 
> This is actually the equation that corresponds to Einstein’s analysis in his
> second paper on special relativity, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon
> Its Enery Content?”).  But he used words to describe his conclusion, and
> because it was only 1905, he wrote L/V² instead; “L” presumably for German
> „Lichtenergie“ (“light energy”).

I do not agree, since a text stands as it is, not as it is meant.

So a certain statement - like in this case Einstein's 1905 article - is 
as it is. You cannot say, that he actually had such deltas in mind, 
since later he added them somewhere.

TH

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

Thread

The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:08 -0700
  Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-17 20:11 -0500
    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 13:53 -0700
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-23 17:54 -0700
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 11:06 -0700
          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-26 14:09 -0500
            Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-26 19:27 -0700
            Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 10:06 +0100
            Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-04 19:49 -0800
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 +0000
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-05 19:00 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 03:38 +0000
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-06 17:50 -0800
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-26 14:01 -0700
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-26 14:09 -0700
  Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-06 09:14 +0100
    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-06 07:45 -0800
    Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 22:25 +0100
      Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-07 09:57 +0100
        Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 08:47 -0800
          Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-07 21:58 +0100
            Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:04 -0800
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-08 15:58 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 15:31 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-09 17:03 -0800
              Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-10 21:16 +0100
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 22:31 +0100
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 15:29 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-12 03:45 +0100
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-12 04:27 +0100
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:52 -0800
                Re: The Particulate Theory of Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-13 19:46 +0100

csiph-web