🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:52:00 -0700, franklinhu@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.

Interesting. You keep one experimentally valid result [E = mc^2] while
still keeping an experimentally INVALID result [E = 1/2 mv^2].

It still doesn't explain why you think your disjoint ramblings about
relativity and Newtonian mechanics are relevant to relativity.

>
>>
>> > 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.

Newton is wrong. A coincidence does not make good physics.

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

"sub-aether level" ?

In a box somewhere a bullshit meter that wasn't even plugged in
managed to peak then explode.

Newtonian mechanics is trivially false in the strong [and weak, in
certain circumstances] gravitational and v ~ c regime.

>
>>
>> > 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!

A century of followup experiments. Only a handful of which managed to
"detect" ether - all of which were proven to be wrong either in theory
or error analysis [or lack thereof, for that matter]. Those handful
aren't even consistent with the _much larger_ body of experiments that
are soundly inconsistent with an ether.

>
>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.

Actually they were refuted.

Not looking for the refutation does not mean the refutation does not
exist. Google groups + Dayton Miller + Tom Roberts. Try it.

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

Yea, gotta love those already-discredited experiments or the one sigma
signal experiments.

>
>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.

None of those things are what is commonly known as the ether and all
of those things have been demonstrated to be consistent with
experiment/observation.

>
>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

Theories indistinguishable from SR are not interesting.
>
>>
>> > 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.

I find it curious that you aren't mentioning the true energy-momentum
relation E^2 = [pc]^2 + [mc^2]^2 which has been verified far more
often through processes like Compton scattering.

>
>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.

Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. The discovery would have
happened anyway but the understanding of why it exists does not happen
without 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....

NEWTON IS WRONG. 

THAT is how your theory unravels, along with the entire host of
complaints about tossing Lorentz invariance, the stupidity of the
ether, and your general ignorance of a large set of results.

>
>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.

There is more to relativity than E=mc^2, idiot. 

[snip remaining, unread]