🚀 go-pugleaf

>
> > 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?
>
What are you talking about? Newtonian mechanics says nothing about c
being infinite - where on earth do you get that from? C is a measured
quantity = 3×10^8 m/s measured in an inertial frame. You can plug that
C into the kinetic energy formula = 1/2mv^2 just like any other
velocity.

Are you perhaps confusing the infinity that you would get for mass if
you assume that the relativistic mass increases to infiinity as you
approach c? This is mass going to infinity, not C.

Plain newtonian mechanics adding up the kinetic energy of 2 particles
at the speed of light produces the correct result. What I am arguing
is that at the level of an aether particle, relativistic mass increase
does not occur . At the level of the particles that make up a single
aether particle, the positron/electron can be accelerated to the speed
of light and maintain constant rest mass. Attempting to go beyond
light speed causes the aether particle to break apart.

Particles only behave on a relativistic basis when they are travelling
through the aether - which is the vast, vast majority of the case. All
the cases cited by Eric about cyclotrons/scattering and such are all
cases where particles travel through and interact with the aether and
therefore have relativistic effects described by Lorentz Ether Theory.
I am arguing that pair production is a special case where normal
kinetic energy formula rules. Outside of that, relativistic rules
apply and even further out into the macroscopic level the kinetic
energy rules apply again.

It has such a simplicity, it just has to be true - doesn't science
seek simplicity.

Also, like I asked Eric, explain where the matter comes from in pair
production. You can't explain it - therefore, I can explain things you
can't and generally speaking if one theory can explain more than the
other, it is better.

>
> 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.
>

What contradictions do you refer to? Seems that relativivity has lots
of contraditions like the twin paradox.
Relativity also assumes matter pops out of nowhere - a pretty big
wrong assumption I'd say.