Re: Einstein's Sep27 1905 paper


valls@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ken S. Tucker ha escrito:

valls@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ken S. Tucker ha escrito:

In kookgle...


Let's do Eq.(21), skip the crap...
do you agree with it or NO?
Ken
Let's follow the evolution. 1905 is earlier than 1916. Is there exist
some "crap" before 1916, we must identify it in order to be skipped.
That is precisely my goal here. How can I skip some "crap" before its
detection? No sense at all for me to do that. Tell me what crap are you
talking about. I have no doubt that if you qualify as crap something,
you can explain the reasons you have to do that.
RVHG

As per your suggestion RVHG, I think it's a good thing
to review the evolution and along the way ideas and
bench-mark theories are superseded and rendered
obsolete, I'm sorry if the term "crap" was offensive.

Not offense at all! The subject here is an Einstein's paper and I don't
care which adjective you use, "crap" or any other. What I want is to
detect in the more detailed possible way what is considered wrong,
inadequate, bad,...in Einstein's paper taking into account any new
development.

See the end of the of the paper "radiation conveys inertia".
In the best of my ability I've set that into GR and it's
still ok the componets are ok but harder to understand.

As I mention in other thread, basically the paper take for
granted only two principles, the conservation of energy one (as
understood in 1905) and the 1905 Principle of Relativity. Not an easy
matter to put an objection to any of these principles, that normally
any today physicist take for full granted, but this is precisely the
cause i am so interested in this subject.

Me too, but I was most impressed by the fact the
sun shines, and there is a need for a source of energy
to do that, so as a youth I bought into E=mc^2.

It seems to me, some very high order thinkers have
spent a few years to define the issue you're addressing.
In this case, the bench-mark is the ref'd eq.(21).

I think it's very reasonable to reconsider Eq.(21).

For example, I have issues with "goth t^nu _sigma"
as I think fields are unreal invented operators and
do NOT have any intrinsic energy that contributes
to the g-field.

If I don't interpret you bad, you are making a possible objection to
the 1916 paper and not to the 1905 one. If that were the case, then I
do not understand why you are refering the 1916 paper as making
obsolete the 1905 one. Please, make this more clear to me.

Yeah sure. The apitamy of the developement of
AE's conservation Laws are embodied in his
1916 paper "HAMILTON"S PRINCIPLE" that
is based on a continuum, (That's in Dover's
Principle of Relativity), I would call Eq.(21)
a bench-mark. It also assumed a field that
can store energy, and that's the tough one.

Beyond that you need to consider the relation
of GR, EM and Qt.

Regards
Ken
....

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einsteins Sep27 1905 paper
    ... proportional factor) and Einstein used it in his 1905 work. ... to conservation of mass-energy and momentum. ... We share the desire to follow the evolution. ... some "crap" before 1916, we must identify it in order to be skipped. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evolution needs air time
    ... governmental agency to educate the American people about the FACT of ... Instead of saying "Teach creationism/ID in Sunday School" we ... This ignoramus spews such utter crap, ... redefine micro and macro evolution in public schools. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Hoax called Evolution
    ... Theory of Evolution, at some point in time long ago there ... more icing on the loon cake full of nuts crap you post. ... So Lloyd get a life or provide some empirical evidence ... that meets the canons of science instead of science fiction. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Evolution needs air time
    ... This ignoramus spews such utter crap, ... redefine micro and macro evolution in public schools. ... McCain decided my vote recently. ... However, since he picked a fundie bozo for his running mate, I now ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How can I link to "alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++" use news tools like outlook
    ... >>crap, MessengerPro is not crap nor is Evolution. ... >>these 4 are prone to virus attacks due to sloppy programming. ... Given Evolution is open source, you would have thought it very much prone ...
    (comp.security.misc)