Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 01/11/05 

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:05:50 -0600

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:crtt7m$2ui$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> David Thomson wrote:
>> You didn't use the units on both sides. E^2 has units of c, too,
>
> What on earth do you mean with the statement that "E^2 has units of
> c"?

It started off with

E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4

By your own admission, E^2 is equal to p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 and therefore:

p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4

and if c=1 then,

p^2 + m^2 = p^2 + m^2

To begin with, you can't add unlike units. Second, you're now saying that p
and m are both equal to energy. So you have three different expressions for
energy which are E, p, and m. I'm sorry, but momentum and mass are not
equal to energy. They are specific units and dimensions, just as they are
defined.

With your logic, you should also be able to define the equality of
acceleration and frequency as:

A = F * c

Therefore acceleration is equal to frequency. Why wouldn't you define the
equality of acceleration and frequency if you can use the same method to
define the equality of energy, momentum and mass?

>> which you did not factor out. Also, you ended up with E^2 - p^2, which
>> is mathematically invalid.
>
> No, not in the least.

I need to qualify that, when you apply the true laws of mathematics, it is
invalid.

>> You can't subtract different units.
>
> 1) When c = 1, E and p have the same units.

No they don't. You did nothing at all to change the dimensions of E.
Therefore E is still in joule and p is a unit of momentum. You're trying to
have it both ways. In one breath you're saying it is okay to change just
one side of the equation, then in the next breath you're saying the other
side was changed also. If you tried this logic in a fifth grade algebra
class, you would flunk.

> 2) Mathematics says nothing about units, so something in
> which the units do not match up would not be *mathematically*
> invalid.

Pick up a fifth grade algebra book and look at the examples they give for
the exercises. The variables can be units with values just as much as they
can be simply values. You admit that E is not a unit, it is merely a
symbol, or in other words, a variable. Now your saying E and p are units.
Which way is it? You can't just keep changing the rules to suit your fancy.
We have to have one set of rules for everybody to play by.

Dave

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... and m are both equal to energy. ... Therefore acceleration is equal to frequency. ... >> is mathematically invalid. ... In one breath you're saying it is okay to change just ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... and m are both equal to energy. ... Therefore acceleration is equal to frequency. ... >> is mathematically invalid. ... In one breath you're saying it is okay to change just ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Radiation reaction and the equivalence principle (again!)
    ... the radiation reaction force on a charged particle. ... the radiation reaction force vanishes for uniform acceleration. ... the charge will be steadily radiating energy off into the surrounding ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Pioneer anomaly engineering questions
    ... What unit system are you in here? ... more clearly examine the really fundamental energy issues. ... energy being calculated as a function of transverse acceleration. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Cheap Access to Space
    ... Newton was wrong in his view of space time relativity and energy. ... Do we mean inertialess acceleration? ... equipped with a rocket, accelerates away - so that the spacecraft ... toward jupiter and away from jupiter at the same speeds. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading