🚀 go-pugleaf

> > > 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.

>
> > 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.

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

>
> > 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!

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

>
> > 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

>
> - Show quoted text -

I really think that nature is very simple. The closer to simplicity we
get, the closer to truth we get. Any elementary student can understand
that 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2 = mv^2. The closeness of form of the newtonian
kinetic energy and the mass/energy formula cannot be a coincience. The
explanations for the Einstein supposed derivation of E=mc^2 are
incomprehensible at best and there is much to suspect that it was
wrongly derived. Not just me, but by people like Max Plank.

See:
http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma3.htm

The worst part of the mass/energy formula as derived by Einstein is
that it doesn't explain how mass is converted to energy and vice
versa. Do you know how that is done???? I didn't think so. Isn't that
a huge - giant - gaping hole in mass/energy fomula? Isn't it most
embarrasing that you say E=mc^2 but have no idea where the mass comes
from during pair production? It just pops out of nowhere - pretty
magical eh? I bet you believe in ghosts and gobblins as well.

The superiority of my derivation is that it does explain where the
mass comes from during pair production. It was there all along as a
position/electron bound pair. The energy to do pair production is the
energy required to break the bonds by accelerating the constituent
position/electron to the speed of light. Nothing magical at all. The
reverse is also true that when a position/electron collide and react,
they do not dissappear into a puff of pure energy - they simply go
back into the undetectable aether matrix. This fully maintains the
absolute conservation of mass and energy. How simple is that? In the
Einstein world you have to say that mass and energy appear/disappear
in a total violation of both the conservation of mass and energy.

My theory starts with the assumption of an aether consiting of a
position/electron sea. In so far as I have been able to investigate,
it produces a wholly understandable framework onto which we can
explain many physical phenomenon like charge and magnetism on the most
basic mechanical level.

If your theories are so good, then explain how and why charge works -
you can't - I can.

For my theory of everything, see:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html