Re: Potential energy in Einstein's 1905 Relativity

On 2 mayo, 09:32, karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 2, 4:23 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:





On 26 abr, 11:19, karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:05 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 24 abr, 11:29, karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 24, 5:30 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 14 abr, 12:12, karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 13, 4:25 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 29 mar, 19:34, karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 27, 4:09 pm, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 23 mar, 09:29, karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 23, 4:12 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx ha escrito:

On Mar 21, 7:09 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx ha escrito:

On Mar 19, 6:04 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 17 mar, 18:43, x...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 16, 8:47 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

(skip)

One more thing, russki: the mass variation as derived by Einstein in
1905 has since been proven by multiple experiments. So stop dry
humping up Castro's leg. Looky here:

Electron Relativistic Mass Variations
W Kaufmann, "Uber die Konstitution des Elektrons" Ann. Physik 19 ,495
(1906) ( first historical experiment);
W. Kaufmann, "Uber die Konstitution des Elektrons", Sitzungsberichte
der preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1915, Part 2.
There were several discussions about the conclusions from Kaufmann's
experiments and his data analysis. See for instance:
M. Planck, "Die Kaufmannschen Messungen der Ablenkbarkeit der beta-
Strahlen in ihrer Bedeutung fur die Dynamik der Electron",
Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 8, 1906.
M. Planck, "Nachtrag zu der Besprechung der Kaufmannschen
Ablenkungsmessungen", Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen
Gesellschaft, 9, 1907.
A.H. Bucherer, Phyz. Zeitschr. 9 (1908), pg 755; Ber. d. deutschen
Phys. Ges. 6 (1908), pg 688.
A. Bucherer, "Die experimentelle Bestatigung des
Relativitatsprinzips", Annalen der Physik, 28, 1909.
-
E. Hupka, Ann. Phys. 31 (1910), pg 169.
-
Cl. Schaefer and G. Neumann, Phys. Zeitschr. 14 (1913), pg 1117.
-
Ch.E. Guye and Ch. Lavanchy, Comptes rendus 161 (1915), pg 52.
-
Zahn and Spees, Phys. Rev. 53 (1938), p511.
-
Rogers et al. Physical Review 57 (1940), p379.
Measurement of m/e and v for three beta-particles (electrons) from
Radium. Supports the Lorentz model over the Abraham model by >10
sigma.
Meyer et al. Helv. Physica Acta 36 , pg 981 (1963).
-
W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys. 32, 551 (1964).
Measurements of speed vs energy for 0.5--15 MeV electrons.
Geller and Kollarits, Am. J. Phys. 40 (1972), p1125.
-

Proton Relativistic Mass Variations
Zrelov, Tiapkin, Farago Soviet Physics JETP, Vol. 34, pg 384 (1958)
-

Calorimetric Test of Special Relativity
D.R. Walz, H.P. Noyes and R.L. Carezani, Physical Review A29 (1984),
pg 2110.
The beam power at SLAC is measured using temperature rise in a
calorimeter, for electrons of ~17 and 20 GeV/c and beam currents up to
~15 microamperes. Their results confirm SR with a resolution of about
30%, and are "many orders of magnitude larger than predicted by the
theory of autodynamics", of which Carezani is the author (and also
member of this experimental group).

Thank you for your very detailed references supporting relativistic
mass variation with speed. You seem thinking that I am refusing that
very well-know experimental fact.

No, old fart. You are disputing the validity of the derivation. You
are doing that based on a strawman argument. You somehow got a bee
under your bonnet that Einstein may have used potential enery in his
derivation. He didn't. Get with the program.

I am not disputing the validity of Einstein's derivation in 1905. You
are the one trying to change what Einstein did. In that epoch the
unique valid interpretation of the Principle of Energy Conservation
was total energy equal potential energy plus kinetic energy. You can't
change history. I showed you already in all detail (using his own 1905
words) how Einstein manages potential energy referring to their
characteristic arbitrary additive constants and adding it to kinetic
energy K to obtain total energy H.
What kind of energy is for you the E in Einstein's 1905 writing?

Total energy of course. This does NOT support your idea of potential
energy, though.
There is no explicit mention of potential energy, contrary to all your
efforts.

See my first post opening this thread. I am the first saying that
there exist no explicit mention of potential energy in the Sep 27 1905
Einstein's paper. But potential energy is implicit very clearly. The
Principle of Energy Conservation has in 1905 a unique meaning: total
energy equal potential energy plus kinetic energy. This is an historic
fact, you can't change it in any way, in the paper Einstein used it
very clearly. I will repeat for you here (once more) Einstein's own
words.
"H and E are energy values of the same body referred to two systems of
co-ordinates which are in motion relatively to each other, the body
being at rest in one of the two systems (system S). Thus it is clear
that the difference H-E can differ from the kinetic energy K of the
body, with respect to the other system S', only by an additive
constant C, which depends on the choice of the arbitrary additive
constants of the energies H and E. Thus we may place H-E=K+C"
In system S', total energy is H, equal to potential energy (E+C) plus
kinetic energy K. In system S, where the body is at rest, kinetic
energy is zero, being in this case total energy equal to potential
energy.
Can you claim that E is total energy in system S'? E is ALWAYS
potential energy, being equal to total energy only if kinetic energy
is zero, as is the case in system S. Your answer can't support what
you want. E is total energy only when kinetic energy is zero, being
then E equal to potential energy also in that case.
Only potential energies have arbitrary additive constants in 1905.
Don't try to convince me that you don't know that, you are well
educated. And Einstein manages very explicitly the arbitrary additive
constants related with potential energies. That potential energy is
present in 1905 Relativity is an historic fact, no person can change
what Einstein wrote.

Have you any other alternative (different from the potential one) valid in
1905? Of course that you haven't because it doesn't exist at all.

Because it isn't mentioned at all. Only your deluded mind that keeps
constructing strawmen.

Only the words "potential energy" are absent in the paper. E is always
potential energy there, as I showed you already in all detail. A body
at rest can have only potential energy in 1905. Only potential
energies have arbitrary additive constants in 1905, if Einstein
manages them, he is managing potential energies no matter if he use or
not the word "potential".> > I skip the rest. No sense at all trying to show you consequences of
something that you don't understand yet.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo Gato)

OK, you can *** off now, tovarishch- Ocultar texto de la cita -

Don't try to hide again your lack of arguments with insults. If you
haven't any other valid interpretation for E different from the
potential one, simply stop posting.

Cretin, for the 5-th time E is the total energy.
You are contradicting yourself, in your first cretinoid post you said
E=K+U , where U WAS the potential energy. Now, you claim that E is the
potential energy? You must be getting desperate.

We are talking about potential energy in 1905 Relativity. The E=K+U
formula that I put in my first post is only a generic expression of
the principle of Energy Conservation valid in 1905 as total energy E
equal kinetic energy K plus potential energy U (the letter U is not
used at all in Einstein's paper).

Yes, Einstein DOES NOT use U in the paper. This is it, no need to
embarass yourself any further by attributing things that never
happened. You got so low as to claim that E is the potential energy.
Take your medications, lie down and ponder about other things, like
when is your pension coming this month.

<rest of Hidalgo's idiocies snipped>- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

I am the one who introduced the letters E and U in my first post to
denote total energy E and potential energy U in a generic expression
for the Principle of Energy Conservation. From where do you take the
idea that if Einstein don't use the letter U in his 1905 paper he is
not managing potential energy? You don't know that the use of letters
is completely arbitrary? You are a well-educated person, you know what
Algebra is about. You know perfectly that when I am refering to the
presence of potential energies E's in Einstein's paper I am referring
to E_0 and E_1, because a single E without a sub-index is not present
at all in the paper. You confuse the things because you have no answer
to my crucial question: what kind of energy is E_0 and E_1 in
Einstein's paper? The unique valid answer using 1905 knowledge is
potential energy. I challenge you again to specify what kind of energy
is E_0 and E_1 in Einstein's paper. I am not asking you about E or U,
I am asking you about E_0 and E_1. The formulas H_0 - E_0 = K_0 + C
and H_1 - E_1 = K_1 + C are explained by Einstein with all detail in
his paper. Don't try to change the meaning of what Einstein wrote. The
H's are total energies, the E's are potential energies, the K's are
kinetic energies, and the C is the arbitrary additive constant
characteristic of potential energies (in 1905 and also in our days).
The unique kind of energy with an arbitrary additive constant is
potential energy in all Physics history. If Einstein manages arbitrary
additive constants, he is managing potential energies. Do not exist
any other alternative.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

.

Quantcast