🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 3, 1:52 am, 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.

That's very perverse.  Apparently you still don't get it.  And just
what value of c are you going to use when the very same Newtonian
mechanics you insist on using says it can't be less than infiinite?


>
>
> > > 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.


Again, that experimental result is nonsensical in Newtonian terms.  So
there's no coincidence at all.  And once more I need to ask you just
how a finite value for c fits into a purely Newtonian model.


> I have newtonian mechanics to back me up - which works well enough in
> the macroscopic level and also works at the sub-aether level.

Whatever.  But Newtonian mechanics also insists that c is infinite.
Finite values for c lead to relativity.  You can't have it both ways.

>
>
> > > 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!

It doesn't matter whether that's true or not.  Relativity made the
aether irrelevant.  And necessarily so, since it was a ridiculous and
contradictory concept to begin with.


> 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.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
> So very sophisticated recent experiments appear to have non NULL
> results.
>
> 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.
>
> 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


Obviously you don't understand the subtleties here.  Relativity has an
edge on the aether concept in that it requires less assumptions and
doesn't get bogged down in contradictions.

>
>
> > > 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.

Except that it would need to be infinite.  So I think that rules it
all out from the start.

> 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.

Give up.  You're in way over your head and going down for the third
time.

> > 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....
>
> 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.

Still not getting it, I see.  Then tamper with them all you want,
using whatever perverse nonsensical methods you wish to.  Garbage in,
garbage out.  You must love beating your head against the wall because
it feels so good when you stop.

> Remove just one of them and you'll not have a
>
> > new theory, just an inconsistent mess.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Once again, show me how my derivation of E=mc^2 leads to an
> inconsistent mess.

The Newtonian value for c is inifinite, for staters.