Hi Stephen, > I'm no historian of science, but what Einstein appears to have contributed to SR is the insight to realize that the math could be made to stand on its own, without a hypothetical "ether".
It is true that Einstein made the claim when he was younger that SR did not need an "ether," but changed his mind after 1919. Later in life he realized that there had to be some kind of Aether in order for GR to work. Also, Einstein did not consider Aether to be "hypothetical," as evidenced by his earlier writing. http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf > See: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > Footnote 5: "The equations of the Lorentz transformation..." Gosh, he admitted right there, in print, that they were Lorentz's... My apologies for not getting my information from the source. I accepted an obviously incorrect position made by someone else in a previous discussion. > > E=mc^2 > > mc^2=mc^2 > > for c=1; m=m > OK, so if E=mc^2 and our units are such that c=1, then m=m. Is that a contradiction? Do you want to say m is _not_ equal to itself? My presentation of the equation is not a contradiction. The standard presentation is: E=mc^2 for c=1; E=m The standard presentation for the equivalence of energy and mass is where the contradiction lies, not my view. If you are going to change one side of an equation, you have to change the other side, too, in order to maintain the equality. Do you disagree? > > There is no equivalence of mass and energy, except if you make > > special provisions for breaking the rules of algebra. > So I gather you feel e=mc^2 is false. > I have the impression that would come as a surprise to a lot of particle physicists. I have argued this point with many physicists, and yes, it is a point of contention with them. In order to pass their classes involving SR, they had to accept that one side of the equation could be altered, while not altering the other side. For them, there is no questioning the "fact" that energy is equivalent to mass, even when it is pointed out the basic math is wrong. > Actually modern QM is based rather heavily on SR, or so I've been led to believe in conversations with quantum physicists. And your point is what? That just because people use SR that it has to be correct? What about the rules of math, do they count for anything? >> Further, with regard to SR, if we use the equation as it is given, > then the energy of a photon should be zero, because it has zero mass > (unless you try to fix the problem by inventing a new kind of > "thought mass"). >The photon has no _rest_ mass. It carries energy and can be said -- and is said, by some physicists -- to carry mass as well. Nonsense!!! Absolute nonsense!!! The mass=energy equation is false, yet you use the equation as proof that itself must be correct. Moreover, there is no such empirically observed thing as "rest mass." This is more nonsense designed to befuddle the masses. Try doing physics based upon real science instead of science fiction. There is no such thing as "rest mass" that is different from any other kind of mass. There is only one kind of mass and it is the dimension of inertia. > The "m" in mc^2 is the rest mass only when the body is at rest, and in that case the "E" is the rest energy. If the body is moving the equation is actually You are seriously deluded. You are believing in fantasies. Your belief has left the realm of science and is a religious belief. There is no such thing as "rest mass" or "rest energy" except in your mind. The rest of SR falls like a house of cards. But that does not mean there isn't another mathematically correct view that can replace relativity and make QM work. The Aether Physics Model shows that: A.u * e.emax^2 / w.C = m.e * c^2 The Aether constant (16pi^2 * Coulomb's constant) times electron strong charge divided by the Compton wavelength is equal to the mass of the electron times the speed of light squared. Instead of using mass times velocity squared in QM equations, physicists could be using the Aether times the strong charge of matter divided by the distance between the strong charges. It is just a coincidence that energy can be described in terms of the dimension of mass as speed of light, but it is a matter of physics that charge relative to Aether is the real motivating factor for all energy. When this second type of charge is recognized as being distinctly different from electrostatic charge, and all units are properly expressed in terms of distributed charge instead of single dimension charge, then all the forces are easily unified. All of quantum structure is easily quantified. All the nonsense about probability functions, wave/particle duality and force particles dissolves into the fictional vapor that it always was. >> Another big problem with the equivalence of mass and energy is that > one is said to convert to the other in the case of nuclear mass > deficit. The missing mass is said to have been converted to energy. > But the equation shows that as mass decreases, the energy should > also decrease. It is impossible that the same equation that equates > mass and energy could predict that mass could be converted into > energy, or that energy could be converted into mass. You can't have > it both ways. > You don't seem to be making sense here. Me? It's modern physics that is trying to have it both ways. This is more of your religious persecution technique at work. Instead of using logic, you accuse the other person of not making sense. It worked during the Inquisition, too. Stick to the math and the logic will follow. Explain in your own words the equations that show how energy is equivalent to mass and allows for the existence of rest mass as opposed to relativistic mass (or any other kind of mass). You can't just go making up different kinds of mass like magic. [POOF - there is rest mass] [POOF - Aether is gone] It doesn't work that way. You need to use real physics if you are going to discuss physics. > After a nuclear event which > gives off energy, the sum of the rest masses of the remaining nuclei > is smaller, the mass-equivalent went off as gamma rays or appeared as > kinetic energy. Where's the alleged disconnect? Gamma rays are not energy, they are photons. Electrons are not energy, they are electrons. Helium nuclei are not energy, they are helium nuclei. Where is the energy that mass was converted to? Are you saying that mass was converted to velocity squared? Velocity squared is on the same side of the equation as mass! Energy is the thing mass is being converted to, where is the energy? > The mass of an iron nucleus is less than the sum of the masses of the nucleons, if we use hydrogen and helium for our "standard" to figure out what nucleons weigh. Fusion releases energy, and the "ash" which is left behind has less mass. Makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense to science, however. If the sum of the individual protons and neutrons mass is greater than the combined mass, then that means the nucleus has less mass than the sum of the individual parts, right? E=mc^2 If the mass decreases, the energy decreases, right? Where is the "sense" you refer to? It looks like nonsense to me. One would have to believe the exact opposite effect occurs when nuclei are unbound than when they are bound. If they gave up energy when being bound, then they must absorb energy when being split, otherwise the protons and neutrons would be short of mass. If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. > When you convert a lot of hydrogen to iron all at once, there's a whalloping big bang. Just because that is empirically true does not mean the silly "equation" of E=mc^2 predicts it. The equation has to obey the rules of math and also be consistent with fact before you can link empirical observation with the theoretical math. >> Now I have just presented you with rock solid fatal flaws in > Einstein's mass/energy equivalence theory. There was no equation to > begin with, and even when the so-called E=mc^2 equation is used to > explain mass deficit, it predicts the opposite of what we are told. >Not as far as I can see -- you asserted it does, but your assertion is senseless, as far as I can see. End of discussion. You are irrational and brainwashed. There can be no meaningful discussion with you on SR until you learn to apply logic and the basic rules of math to it. >> And if you choose to believe in SR, then the discussion has degraded > from one of science to one of religion and I will not violate your > right to freedom of religion. > That's how the cranks always end it -- SR is your religion, you must be just taking it all on faith because nobody could understand it. That's how cult followers make their point if the opposition doesn't agree, call them a derogatory name and curse them. Dave
