Re: The Fifth Dimension
From: David McAnally (D.McAnally_at_i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au)
Date: 06/30/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Working on a book and need help"
- In reply to: Leonard Pardin: "Re: The Fifth Dimension"
- Next in thread: Leonard Pardin: "Re: The Fifth Dimension"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jun 2004 16:10:49 GMT
leoppard@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) writes:
<snip>
> That second one is easy. Watch how Einstein did it:
> All light radiation is energy.
> All body motion (kinetic) is energy.
> Therefore all light radiation energy is kinetic energy.
Here we have one of Pardin's basic problems exhibiting itself - i.e. the
fact that he has no formal training in classical mechanics.
In classical physics, one of the most important principles is the Law of
Conservation of Energy (recall, for example, that the First Law of
Thermodynamics is just Conservation of Energy under another name). In
classical physics, most physical processes involve a transfer of energy
and/or a conversion of energy from one type to another. For example, if
a body falls in classical mechanics, then potential energy is being
converted to kinetic energy, and similarly, while a body is ascending,
kinetic energy is being converted to potential energy. In the case of
friction, kinetic energy is converted into heat. Motors convert
electrical energy or chemical energy into mechanical energy, and
generators convert mechanical energy to electrical energy. For a mass on
a spring (the archetypal example of the simple harmonic oscillator), the
energy keeps converting from kinetic to potential, and back again, and for
a mass moving vertically on a spring, the energy keeps interchanging
between kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy and elastic
potential energy.
So the conversion of one type of energy to another type of energy is not
a strange idea to anybody who has a grounding in Newtonian mechanics. In
fact, the conversion of energy from one type to another is an idea which
is second nature to somebody with a grounding in Newtonian mechanics,
possibly to the extent that we forget that the idea might be foreign to
other people. Evidently Leonard Pardin is a person to whom the idea is
foreign.
Let us first look at what Pardin alleges Einstein claimed in his second
relativity paper of 1905. By his mock syllogism above which he wrote to
mock both Einstein and myself, Pardin states, wrongly (due to his
ignorance in these matters) that Einstein's logic led him to the
conclusion that "all light radiation energy is kinetic energy". Of
course, Einstein's logic led him to no such conclusion, but Pardin is an
uneducated boy, and, in spite of having been told several times that he
was wrong, I suppose that we have to make allowances for his lack of
education on the matter (a lack of education which, I might add, he has
stated he has no intention of ever rectifying).
Now let us look at what Einstein ACTUALLY wrote. In Einstein's paper, he
started with a body, and in its rest frame, the body emits a quantity of
radiation in one direction, and an equal quantity in the opposite
direction, simultaneously, so that the body remains stationary in the
frame (to exemplify Pardin's unfamiliarity with the laws of classical
mechanics, he wondered why Einstein complicated matters by having two
bursts of radiation instead of just one, the necessity of having the body
stationary after radiation and the requirements of the Law of Conservation
of Momentum having escaped him). Using conservation of energy, Einstein
concluded that the radiation energy is equal to the reduction in the
intrinsic energy of the body. Einstein then took a second reference frame
which was in motion compared to the rest frame of the body.
Relative to the rest frame, the system behaves in this manner:
1. The body is at rest.
2. The body radiates energy simultaneously in two bursts in
opposite directions.
3. The body is at rest.
Relative to the second frame, the system behaves in this manner:
1': The body is moving (at velocity v, say).
2': The body radiates energy simultaneously in two bursts.
3': The body is moving with the same velocity that it had before
it radiated (i.e. at velocity v).
Einstein had already calculated how radiation energy transforms between
frames (in his first relativity paper of 1905), and he demonstrated that
the energy radiated relative to the second frame is greater than the
energy radiated relative to the rest frame. By conservation of energy in
the second frame, Einstein concluded that the radiation energy relative to
the second frame is equal to the reduction in the total energy of the
body. Einstein then noted that the total energy of the body relative to
the second frame is greater than the intrinsic energy of the body by an
amount equal to the kinetic energy of the body relative to the second
frame. Einstein threw in a constant here to account for the possibility
that there was a discrepancy between the datum for the energy relative to
the rest frame and the datum for the energy relative to the second frame
(denoting the intrinsic energy of the body by E, the energy of the body
relative to the second frame by H, and the kinetic energy relative to the
second frame by K, Einstein expressed the relation as H-E = K+C for some
constant C which was introduced to account for the discrepancy between the
data for the intrinsic energy and for the energy relative to the second
frame). Using the most basic arithmetic, Einstein showed that the kinetic
energy of the body relative to the second frame decreases by an amount
equal to the difference between the radiated energy relative to the second
frame and the radiated energy relative to the rest frame (the constant C
cancels because any discrepancy between the data remains unchanged after
radiation and so it appears as C-C in the difference). On a side note,
here is another spot where Pardin has problems. Pardin has completely
misinterpreted the significance of the constant (he claimed that Einstein
introduced the constant to connect the kinetic energy with the radiation
energy, or to identify it with the radiation energy), and in spite of
corrections to his misinterpretation, he has persisted with the
misinterpretation, and he has attacked Einstein based on his (Pardin's)
incompetent misinterpretation of its significance.
So Einstein's assertion was that the kinetic energy relative to the second
frame decreased due to the radiation. In other words, some of the kinetic
energy of the body BEFORE the radiation becomes radiation energy AFTER the
radiation. In other words, relative to the second frame, some of the
kinetic energy is converted to radiation energy by the act of radiation.
Einstein then noted that the loss of kinetic energy was accompanied by no
change of velocity, which meant that the mass had decreased, and since
Einstein's work was quantitative throughout, he concluded that the mass
decreased by L/c^2, where L was the total energy radiated relative to the
rest frame. On a side note, this is another place where Pardin has
problems. Pardin insists on asserting that because Einstein introduced a
second frame in his proof that the mass decreases, then there can be no
experiment in the rest frame which demonstrates the decrease in mass, and
so there is no decrease of mass relative to the rest frame. Pardin cannot
see that the logic that leads him to such a conclusion is flawed.
So Einstein concludes that some of the kinetic energy of the body BEFORE
it radiates in converted to radiation energy AFTER it radiates. This is a
far cry from Pardin's assertion that, in the paper, Einstein's logic led
him to the conclusion that "all light radiation energy is kinetic energy".
So now we can see very plainly and clearly that Pardin's lack of the
proper educational background led him (Pardin) to a conclusion about
Einstein which was wrong. The mock syllogism, which Pardin devised to
mock both Einstein and myself, failed in its purpose. Instead, it serves
to highlight Pardin's ignorance and his lack of educational background.
The frustrating thing about this is that he has been informed many times
that Einstein did not write what he (Pardin) has falsely attributed to
him. But all such remonstrations have fallen on deaf ears, and Pardin
continues to propound his false conclusion in the face of all the evidence
to the contrary.
David
And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds,
to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before -
and thus was the Empire forged.
-----
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Working on a book and need help"
- In reply to: Leonard Pardin: "Re: The Fifth Dimension"
- Next in thread: Leonard Pardin: "Re: The Fifth Dimension"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
