David Thomson wrote: > Hi Harry, > > Thanks for posting the derivation.
You're welcome. > This is one of those cases where E=mc^2 appears to be true, because the math > predicts a value that is useful. As I pointed out, however, E=mc^2 is not > always true, such as in the case of nuclear binding and unbinding. > > Nuclear fission, regardless of what isotope is involved, results in the > unbinding of nuclei and hence should absorb energy and convert it to matter. > This is not the case. It is not the case because nuclei heavier than iron tend to be inherently unstable. But I am no expert in nuclear physics. > As for the ballistic example in Max Born's book, this is also derived in the > Aether Physics Model, but in a different form. > > Unlike the example in the book, where energy, mass, light waves, or > radiation are physically defined, I present a theory where the photon is > quantum and precisely defined, as is all matter. In the Aether Physics > Model, all physical existence traces back to three non-material things; > Gforce, dark matter, and singularity. From these three non-material things, > I can mathematically construct the entire physical Universe. The structural > theory even correctly predicts the binding energies of all 1s orbital > electrons, and will likely predict all the electron and nuclear binding > energies when the theory is finished. This is something that E=mc^2 cannot > do. > > In the mass/energy paradigm, mass, energy, photons, and light are spoken of > only in a general sense. There are no definitions for how these units > relate to physical objects, which is the subject of physics. The units of classical mechanics relate very well to the physical objects of the mechanical arts. > In fact, we > are explicitly told that mass is not the same thing as matter. As such, > there is no meaning to the equivalence of mass and energy. > > Yes, it is true that there are isolated cases where one can use E=mc^2 to > gain a useful result. These cases will always involve photons, since > photons are the only thing capable of traveling at the speed of light. The > equation cannot be used for dense matter, such as atomic nuclei. Another > case where E=mc^2 fails is the observation of energetic nuclei from stellar > blasts, or cosmic rays. Cosmic rays can be entire aluminum nuclei, stripped > of all electrons, and still travel at or near the speed of light. According > to E=mc^2, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approached > infinity. No such thing happens with cosmic rays. > > Another false prediction of SR is that it doesn't matter which object is > moving what velocity, since it is believed there is no fixed reference > frame. Yet, when cosmic rays come streaming through the Earth, the Earth's > mass does not approach infinity, either. In fact, there is no reference > frame that exhibits infinite mass increase. > > Dave I am not here to defend Einstein's relativism. In fact I even question Newton's and Galileo's relativism. Harry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR. > > > I scanned and uploaded a derivation of E = mc^2 which does not use > the mathematical formalism of Special Relativity. > > Four pages from Max Born's book _Einstein's Theory of Relativity_ > (about 1M): > > http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/derivation.html > > Harry >
