🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 1, 1:39 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:19 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 1:43 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 29, 1:16 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > >        Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-
> > > > particles.
>
> > > > By Louis Nielsen,   Treatise:http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> > > > What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
> > > > where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
> > > > m and where c is the velocity of light?
>
> > > > In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
> > > > energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
> > > > consists.
>
> > > > The Uniton Postulate:
> > > > The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
> > > > quanta in the Universe.
> > > > All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
> > > > are consequences of
> > > > interacting unitons.
>
> > > > In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> > > > amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> > > > velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> > > > KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> > > > Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> > > > By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
> > > > understand that all matter,
> > > > regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
> > > > Einstein's famous equation.
>
> > > > Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise:  http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > Denmark
>
> > > It's actually a lot easier than that. E=mc^2 because it is the sum of
> > > the kinetic energies of the particles ejected during pair production
> > > of a positron and electron. E = 1/2 mv^2 + 1/2 mv^2 = mv^2 where v=c
> > > and m = mass of positron and electron.
>
> > > See: What Does E=mc^2 Really Mean?
>
> > >http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/emc.html
>
> > >fhuemc- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > 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 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 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 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.  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.

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.   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.  Remove just one of them and you'll not have a
new theory, just an inconsistent mess.