On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:09:57 -0700, franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Oct 2, 11:34 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:52:00 -0700, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > > You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
>> >> > > for kinetic energy?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > Actually, one of the key aspects of how I calculate E=mc^2 is that
>> >> > relatavistic formula for kinetic energy does not apply at this level.
>>
>> >> Then, what is your justification for using E = mc^2? You can't just
>> >> pick and choose which of these equations you happen to decide is
>> >> true. If you deny the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, then
>> >> E= mc^2 is gone also. None of this exists in a proverbial vacuum.
>>
>> >The justification is in the experimental evidence that says that the
>> >energy required to do a pair production of a positron/electron is E =
>> >mc^2 where m = mass electron + mass positron. I am just trying to
>> >explain that experimental result. Denying the relativistic formula has
>> >nothing to do with justifying E=mc^2.
>>
>> Interesting. You keep one experimentally valid result [E = mc^2] while
>> still keeping an experimentally INVALID result [E = 1/2 mv^2].
>
>Actually, I use E=mc^2 to logically show that E=1/2mv^2 must be behind
>the pair production.
Uh huh...so you use a relativistic concept in order to "logically
show" that a Newtonian concept - which is replaced by a relativistic
concept - is actually correct for a quantum process.
I'm skeptical, but that's a physics education talking. If I stopped
learning physics at high school, I'd probably be ok with it.
>
>>
>> It still doesn't explain why you think your disjoint ramblings about
>> relativity and Newtonian mechanics are relevant to relativity.
>>
>They aren't. My primary objectives are to show that all that fancy
>relativity math is utterly unnecessary to explain the experimental
>facts. Simple addition will suffice.
Now do Compton scattering, photoelectric effect, v~c scattering, and
particle decay, and the v ~ c cyclotron. All without using relativity
theory.
If you don't know what any of these are or why I mention them, then
you have no business doing physics. I suggest Haliday and Resnick to
get up to a freshman physics level.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > The relatavistic formula cannot be correct since you get the correct
>> >> > answer using the non-relatavistic equation.
>>
>> >> What correct answer? You just threw it away. And, by the way, how
>> >> would you know it is correct without the rest of relativity to back it
>> >> up? You're being tremendously inconsistent here.
>>
>> >The correct answer is E=mc^2 by experimental result which just also
>> >happens to be the sum of the newtonian kinetic energy of a position
>> >and electron accelerated to the speed of light. What an interesting
>> >coincidence.
>>
>> Newton is wrong. A coincidence does not make good physics.
>>
>The mass/energy formula could have taken on many different forms. It
>might have been E=1/3mc^3 or = 2mc^2 or any number of other forms. But
>it did not, it came out to be exactly the same as the kinetic energy
>formula times a factor of 2. We know that in pair production, we get 2
>particles, not 3 or 2.5 or 4. Connect the dots and draw a conclusion.
>Finding very simple ways of explaining experimental results does make
>very good physics.
Except your "very simple way" is absolute shit that DOES NOT work for
even a small handful of results - and I'm not a particle physicist.
Compton scattering only works assuming conservation of /relativistic/
momentum and conservation of /relativistic/ energy.
The cyclotron would be able to accelerate particles way past light
speed in Newtonian mechanics. It can't, and the dynamics are described
by relativity correctly.
Try not operating on the principle that people in my field of study
are fucking morons.
>>
>>
>> >I have newtonian mechanics to back me up - which works well enough in
>> >the macroscopic level and also works at the sub-aether level.
>>
>> "sub-aether level" ?
>>
>> In a box somewhere a bullshit meter that wasn't even plugged in
>> managed to peak then explode.
>
>I know it is difficult for you to understand how reactions which are
>not mediated by the aether are exempt from the normal relativity
>formulas. But this is not an unreasonable assumption. Think about it
>for a minute - if a particle does not have to pass by other aether
>particles, it cannot be interfered with by running into particles. It
>is this action of "passing" by which explains dialation effects. An
>singular aether particle being torn apart by a photon passes by no
>neighbor aether particles.
Yea, and somehow the magical aether does not interact with planetary
orbits nor does it interact with itself like regular matter.
The aether is worthless and anyone who seriously suggests it is quite
frankly dumb as a brick and/or ignorant of everything learned since
the 19th century. This is 2007 - take note of what has been learned
since the 1800s.
>
>I know, you don't understand, this idea which a 1st grader could
>understand, is well beyond your capabilities.
Have you ever considered that just maybe science has found those first
grade level concepts to be found somewhat...wanting?
No, of course not. Then you wouldn't be able to rationalize your
piss-poor education.
>
>>
>> Newtonian mechanics is trivially false in the strong [and weak, in
>> certain circumstances] gravitational and v ~ c regime.
>>
>
>Didn't you see where I explained the normal relativity formulas do
>apply in the v ~c regime as derived by LET and based on the existence
>of the aether?
LET is mathematically indistinguishable from relativity and adds a
crapload of mathematical baggage while suffering from the lack of
general covariance/Lorentz invariance.
LET brings nothing to the table for physics. The only reason cranks
like you are interested in it is because it allows you to sidestep the
"Well...relativity is experimentally valid but nobody takes the aether
seriously..." problem.
When confronted with quantum processes or gravitation, all you can do
is shrug your shoulders because you have no idea what you are talking
about.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > The reason for this is that I believe that relatavistic effects are
>> >> > due to masses moving THROUGH the aether (my sea of positron/electron
>> >> > pairs). For reactions involving the aether itself, these rules do not
>> >> > apply since the aether cannot move within itself and pair production
>> >> > doesn't involve particles moving through or past any aether particles.
>> >> > At this level, it breaks down into simple newtonian mechanics and E=
>> >> > 1/2mv^2 is completely applicable.
>>
>> >> Both aether and newtonian mechanics at high speeds have already been
>> >> falsified by experiment, so that doesn't make any sense. You're lack
>> >> of understanding of the scientific method fails you.
>>
>> >The aether has NOT be falsified by experiment - you say MMX disproved
>> >it - you never read the original MMX or the follow on experiments did
>> >you? No you didn't - you just read the one line in the physics books
>> >falsely claiming that they saw no shift whatsoever. This is so wrong
>> >it is fraudulent!
>>
>> A century of followup experiments. Only a handful of which managed to
>> "detect" ether - all of which were proven to be wrong either in theory
>> or error analysis [or lack thereof, for that matter]. Those handful
>> aren't even consistent with the _much larger_ body of experiments that
>> are soundly inconsistent with an ether.
>>
>
>OK, name five experiments soundly inconsistent with an ether.
Only 5?
"Lorentz Invariance on Trial" - Physics Today 57(7), 2004. Page 40-46
http://ptonline.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHTOAD&Volume=57&Issue=7
The entire listing here:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
>>
>>
>> >See:
>> >
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/datonmiller.html
>> >Dayton Miller performed 20 years of experiments proving aether drift.
>> >These were never refuted during his lifetime, but are still ignored.
>>
>> Actually they were refuted.
>>
>> Not looking for the refutation does not mean the refutation does not
>> exist. Google groups + Dayton Miller + Tom Roberts. Try it.
>>
>Yes, I've seen Tom Roberts stuff, I've also done my own research -
>even if you look at the original MMX experiment data, you can see the
>signal for yourself. Contray to popular culture, the original MMX
>experiment showed massive fringe shifts. The finges would shift 30
>times even as you got back to your original position. This was seen as
>a systematic drift or error, but I think this was actually measuring
>the fringe shifts due to the much larger effect of the Earth rotating
>on its axis. The act of spinning the instrument was nearly
>inconsequential to the effect of the Earth spinning through the
>aehter.
Good for you - you have taken century old data that predates modern
techniques and have done no error analysis, all while reaching claims
that are unsupported by a century of experiments.
I'm somewhat skeptical.
>
>>
>>
>> >
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
>> >So very sophisticated recent experiments appear to have non NULL
>> >results.
>>
>> Yea, gotta love those already-discredited experiments or the one sigma
>> signal experiments.
>>
>You can ignore experimental results by discrediting them with poor
>logic - but that would be poor physics. You may disagree, but I see
>more than enough evidence.
More than enough for you because you /want/ there to be.
The relevant phrase here is "confirmation bias". You ignore the
massive body of evidence discrediting the idea and focus purely on the
small number of experiments that appear to support the idea, then
ignore the subsequent analysis by those more competent [eg, not Van
Flandern or Cahill] because then you couldn't use those experiments.
There would be an instant Nobel for anyone who conclusively
demonstrated the existence of the aether.
>
>>
>>
>> >At the very least, this should put some doubt in your mnd about
>> >whether the aether has been proven not to exist. In fact, the aether
>> >seems to be making a comeback as things such as virtual particles,
>> >vacuum energy and numerous other labels that all point to a substance
>> >for space. It is your complete willingness to accept anything you see
>> >in a physics text book that fails you and the true scientific method.
>>
>> None of those things are what is commonly known as the ether and all
>> of those things have been demonstrated to be consistent with
>> experiment/observation.
>>
>>
>>
>> >It is true that newtonian mechanics does not work for atomic particles
>> >moving at high speed. This is a result of the aether. The effect of
>> >the aether and the development of the relativistic formulas should be
>> >credited to Lorentz for the Lorentz Ether Theory which dervived much
>> >of the same formulas as Einstein using the assmption of an ether. So
>> >you can come up with much of the same relavistic mechanics with or
>> >without an ether.
>>
>> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>>
>> Theories indistinguishable from SR are not interesting.
>>
>
>They are interesting to the extent that they were dervied assuming
>that the aether exists. I think it is much more plausible to dervive
>formulas from things that exist, rather then plucking them out of thin
>air as SR does.
Again, this is your lack of understanding talking rather than a
definitive statement about physics.
Maxwell's equations are only invariant under transformation in special
relativity - not Newtonian mechanics or /anything else/. Only those
who are completely ignorant of the history of physics would make a
claim like "SR was plucked out of thing air".
>
>>
>>
>> >> > The proof is in the fact that the experimentally, the non-relatavistic
>> >> > formula works to describe the energy required to do pair production,
>> >> > not the relatavistic one which would assign much larger masses to the
>> >> > positron/electron.
>>
>> >> What bizzarro world experiment provides those results? Pair
>> >> production only works in relativistic mechanics.
>>
>> >Pair production doesn't care about relativistic mechanics, it merely
>> >happens as an experimental result and would continue to happen even if
>> >humans were not around to come up with theories. My derivation
>> >produces the same E=mc^2 as relativistic mechanics.
>>
>> I find it curious that you aren't mentioning the true energy-momentum
>> relation E^2 = [pc]^2 + [mc^2]^2 which has been verified far more
>> often through processes like Compton scattering.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Besides, without the
>> >> relativistic Dirac equation, the notion of antiparticles would have
>> >> never beern revealed. So you're just spinning your wheels and getting
>> >> nowhere.
>>
>> >That Dirac first came up with the idea of antipartices is nice, but
>> >they would have eventually been discovered without the help of
>> >relativity.
>>
>> Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. The discovery would have
>> happened anyway but the understanding of why it exists does not happen
>> without relativity.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You seem to think that you can take what a scientific theory has to
>> >> offer in a piecemeal fashion, keeping somethings and getting rid of
>> >> others. But that approach unravels the entire theory, since it's a
>> >> unified whole.
>>
>> >OK, you show me how my theory unravels instead of generically babbling
>> >about theories....
>>
>> NEWTON IS WRONG.
>>
>> THAT is how your theory unravels, along with the entire host of
>> complaints about tossing Lorentz invariance, the stupidity of the
>> ether, and your general ignorance of a large set of results.
>>
>
>Once again, LET (not newton) explains the behavior of particles
>through the aether. But kinetic energy E=1/2mv^2 always applies as a
>foundation where there is no interference from adjacent particles.
Too bad 1/2mv^2 is trivially wrong for anything above 10% c.
>
>>
>>
>> >Every theory begins with a set of assumptions (axioms
>> >> or postulates) and proceeds to derive equations based on those
>> >> statements. While the initial assumptions can often be tinkered with
>> >> in order to construct a new theory, none of the derived equations or
>> >> principles can be tampered with, since they are totally dependent on
>> >> the initial statements.
>>
>> >What can be totally tampered with is how the equations are derived and
>> >what their physical meaning is. So whie you can't tamper with E=mc^2
>> >or the relativistic formulas, but you can most certainly completely
>> >reassign how you get them as I have.
>>
>> There is more to relativity than E=mc^2, idiot.
>
>I'm not trying to explain relativity - only that it is not relevant to
>explaining E=mc^2
>
>Practically everything else in relativity can be explained through
>Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) which is generally indistingishable form
>SR. However both LET and my kinetic energy derivation of E=mc^2 are
>based on the aether which serves as a solid foundation for my
>theories.
Let us see LET's take Lorentz invariance. Hard to have global Lorentz
invariance when all you care about is the aether frame.
>
>>
>> [snip remaining, unread]- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>I see you have no response to my argument about how pair prodution
>happens - where does matter come from during pair production? Until
>you can explain that, your precious SR E=mc^2 means nothing. It is a
>castle in the air.
There is more to SR than E=mc^2 and the Lorentz transformations, which
you don't seem to understand or appreciate.
>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>