Why E does not equal mc^2
03-14-2017, 04:36 PM,
#1
Why E does not equal mc^2
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2014062310185719.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-14-2017, 05:00 PM,
#2
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
I have a bachelors of arts in Physics and a minor in Math from back in 2000, with 4 calculuses, linear algebra, and this still goes over my head.

Perhaps I've forgotten most of it.

There is an anthro somewhere who needs me and I need them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-14-2017, 05:02 PM,
#3
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
It's beyond me as well. Was hoping someone could decipher into more understandable terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-14-2017, 05:15 PM,
#4
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
From a physics buddy who is not an Olympic speller;

The predictions of this hypothesis have not been verified.

If they are verified then they are not universally applicable but only at the planck length , they are postulatind lorentz invariancr of the planck length which is the smallest possible length. This is an attempt reconcile this quantum principle with relativity. This also gives the idea of a priviledged viewpoit but again only at quantum lengths.

In the macro world e=mc^w holds and there is plenty of experimental evidence.

What is interseting is the relativistic notion of contraction and at what velocity a likely particle is contracted to the planck length. The solution of this is something possible to calculate and I have a sneaking suspicion it is very high energy so much so that the particle is a quantum gravitational entity. But what do I kno
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2017, 12:22 AM,
#5
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
I read the begining. Basically the lorentz factor can be used in equations to measure the time dilation of objects when moving at relavistic speeds. This has been applied to einsteins famous equations.

Quantum mechanics is far more complicated than we realize.

When you dont understand something read it over and over and break down what you do not understand. Then google 
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2017, 12:56 AM,
#6
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
I'm working on it. Kind of like learning a foreign language, and this isn't a quick or easy read even if one is familiar with mainstream physics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2017, 08:33 AM,
#7
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
A unit of Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel, in a vacuum, a single unit of Planck length. Taken together, they form part of the larger system of natural units known as Planck units.

I might be completely wrong here, but it appears that when Einstein came up with general relativity he presumed a universe where everything moved at the same speed, not one that was in variable motion and certainly not involving quantum forces like black holes.

Still working through this. My physics buddy is starting to get pretty excited and he's the math whiz.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-20-2017, 07:29 PM,
#8
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
The problem with this paper is the writing style. It's egotistical, self-indulgent and - in many ways - obtuse in intent.

Disregarding all the fluff, the math is sound.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 07:08 AM,
#9
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
I don't understand your problem...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 09:31 AM,
#10
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2
Science is supposed to be objective, not self-promoting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-15-2017, 11:36 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-16-2017, 08:08 PM by Dekalb_Blues.)
#11
RE: Why E does not equal mc^2 -- w/ spec. ref. to supposed light-speed invariance
~
[Image: o9zgl.gif?w=433&h=325]

Old-paradigm-supporter Pop-thought theorist-Diva M. Carey touts the party line:

[Image: 5164298101_f3c6c48b5e_z.jpg]

... while avant-garde musico-thinkologist L. Anderson enigmatically adumbrates the complex of paradigm-challenging ideas resident in the E ≠ mc^2 notion by returning to the basics:





Lately my research into this thorny question has been informed by the findings of the avant-garde postmodern minimalist philosopher Keith Ferreira* regarding what he has determined to be the "Genesis Equation", i.e.:

"... 0=0/0=X=0/0=0, where 0 equals zero and X equals anything and everything possible, always was and always will be. Amen."

This amazing formula is implicit in Ferreira's electronico-cybernetical conception of God:

"For all practical purposes, God is a nonlinear information processing black box. I believe that God (G)=Zero (0), in other words, I believe that G=0, and existence is represented mathematically by the equation, 0=0/0=X=0/0=0, where 0 equals zero and X equals existence. In other words, everything (X) is zero (0), and zero (0) is everything (X).... In retrospect, it seems obvious that there is nothing more fundamental nor more complicated than zero. Therefore, zero has to be God, and God has to be any and everything. In other words, everything consists of one fundamental substance or nonsubstance as the ancient philosophers hypothesized, and that one fundamental substance or nonsubstance is zero, which was obvious from the beginning of philosophy, but too difficult to comprehend or accept.... Zero is the subconscious mind, and it is also one and many at the same time. However, zero is also the conscious mind according to the [Genesis] equation.... [which] is my favorite mathematical equation of all time, and I am the one who discovered (Formulated) it when I was a teenager in Trinidad & Tobago.... The Genesis Equation is the equation from which everything originated, including The Genesis Equation itself. Believe it or not!"

Other thought-provoking observations by this enigmatic savant:

"The British and the Americans might have given me high security clearances a long time ago, but I don't remember exactly."

"All that we perceive might not mean a damn thing in the larger scheme of things, because we could all be in the mind of the same desktop nonclassical computer, which would make all that we perceive as insignificant as a mouse or cockroach in the larger scheme of things."

"Despite what anyone says, including me, anything is possible. Believe it or not!"

"Microwave oven beats Beethoven (Beethoven=Beat Oven) anyday. Believe it or not!"

"Despite opinions to the contrary, physical existence is an unproven and an unprovable hypothesis, because all that we perceive are characteristics of our own minds."

"I believe that I was the inspiration for Paul McCartney's song: 'Let 'Em In' when I was in the military in the early seventies. Believe it or not!"

* Quotations passim from Keith N. Ferreira, A New Breed of Philosophers (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2007) https://books.google.com/books?id=d8NPdQkV0gkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Keith+N+Ferreira%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiElMmRrqzUAhUGPz4KHa-qBMQ4ChDoAQghMAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Image: s-l300.jpg] The man with the plan, amen. Believe it or not!


Fun bit of odd data: The conventionally-accepted light-velocity c is approximately 670 million mph, or 1 standard unit of pgggf (pretty-goddamn-gotta-go-fastitude).

[Image: fcRztuJ.gif] 1 tfpgggf unit (Terrestrial feline pgggf)

Weitere Beispiele für rebellische pseudowissenschaftliche Geisteskrankheit, von denen die ordnungsgemäß ernannte Autorität uns schützt!:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V16NO3PDF/V16N3GIF.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO4PDF/V14N4HAM.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO3PDF/V18N3SHA.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08N1/V08N1THA.PDF
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO3PDF/V19N3BU2.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO2PDF/V13N2DMI.pdf
http://twinparadox.net/
http://redshift.vif.com/book_catalog.htm Old Physics for New: a worldview alternative to Einstein's relativity theory By Thomas E. Phipps Jr.

... und so weiter.

(All sampled from that online hotbed of naughtily irresponsible sciento-kooky heterodoxy, Apeiron: Studies in Infinite Nature -- http://redshift.vif.com/ )

Funny how pulling at any thread in the (as it were) Imperial garb of ideology tends to unravel the whole invisible garment, which for all its invisible insubstantiality is nonetheless a heavily smothering thing. The controlling Standard False Narrative in most conventional sectors of thought is maintained by the same dense hyper-rational cloud of hair-splitting, legalistically-approached fallacious-thought mechanisms, enforced through repetitive systemic reward and/or punishment as required, and designed to serve a Cryptarchy's helotistic aims using their closely-held psychoanthropological insights into how ultra-conditionable Homo sapiens in the mass actually works (as opposed to the [you guessed it!] appropriate Pollyana-ish Standard False Narrative). Compare the same sort of thing in the public-economics sector:
https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/





Philip Glass, The Light (1987)
Performed by the Vienna Radio Symphony Orchestra conducted by Dennis Russell Davies
Written to commemorate the anniversary of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
[Uh-oh!: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html, http://www.oocities.org/gssandhu_1943/invalidation_mmexp.pdf]

From the liner notes:
In The Light, Mr. Glass depicts the light itself, and the inspired minds of the two scientists, by means of his most scintillating orchestration, strong on piccolo, trumpet, and violin arpeggios. Discovered by Americans, these light waves and particles seem to be dancing a foxtrot. Mr. Glass comments:
"In a way, these experiments formed in my mind an almost 'before and after' sequence. The 'before' represented something like 19th-century physics. The 'after' marks the onset of modern scientific research."
Painting by Frederic Edwin Church, Aurora Borealis (1865)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)