Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 01/04/05 

Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:03:34 -0600

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cre0i8$flm$6@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>>>>If you're going to make c = 1, you have to do it on both sides of the
>>>>equation.
>
> Obviously. Your point? There is no "c" on the left hand side
> of the equation E = m c^2.

My point is that if E=mc^2 is an equality, then there IS an implied c^2 on
the left hand side of the equation. But if there is an implied c^2 on the
left hand side of the equation, then E cannot be the unit of joule. It is
merely an empty variable since a joule is a specific quantity of energy.
And if E is an empty variable, then E=mc^2 is not an equation, but a mere
formula. So that any further mathematical treatments of E=mc^2 where it is
treated as an equation are based on error. In other words, relativity
theories based on the non-equation of E=mc^2, or which resolve to it, are
also in error.

>>>>And if you say that E doesn't really equal mc^2, then you didn't
>>>>have an equation to begin with.
>
> Actually, E = gamma m c^2, or E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.

Even still, E cannot be the unit of energy since the c is a constant with
dimensions of velocity and a value other than one. Also, even if c could
be made to equal "one" on just the right side of the equation, you can't add
unlike units. No matter how you present this, it violates the basic laws of
math. Not only is the above equation not an equation, but is also not a
formula since E^2 is not a variable. It is pure nonsense.

>>>>Do you see the nonsense of c=1 now?
>
> I see only that you do not understand what setting c to 1 means.

It is obvious that you have no rational argument for setting c=1, because
you don't adhere to the law of equalities. You don't treat both sides of
the equation as being equal to each other. You artificially change one side
of the equation without changing the other. Relativity theory is based on
the violation of simple mathematics. Therefore, relativity theory is
nothing more than a basic mistake.

>>> You left off the momentum:
>>>
>>> E^2 - p^2 = m^2
>>
>> Hey, did you take algebra in grade school? You can't subtract momentum
>> squared from energy squared because the dimensions don't agree.
>
> The dimensions do agree when one chooses the units accordingly.

LOL. Dream on.

>> Can't you explain anything without violating the simple laws of math?
>
> Err, "dimensions" (in the sense above) is a concept of physics,
> not of math.

Wrong. It is a concept of algebra applied to physics. The dimensions could
just as easily be variable such as:

X = y * (3 x 10^8 z)^2

In the above example applied to MKS units, X is given the unit of one joule,
y is given the unit of one kilogram, and z is given the unit of one meter
per second. In order for the above equation to remain vailid, whether it is
in pure algebra or in physics, the rules apply to algebra must be adhered
to. In your case of c=1, it is the same thing as replacing 3 x 10^8 z with
one. If you do that using algebra, the correct way to do it is:

X / (3 x 10^8z) = y

or in your equation:

E / c^2 = m

Now if it is correct that E is equal to mc^2, then we can simplify to:

m = m

But if E is just a variable, then you have to keep the previous value of c
on the left side of the equation such that if c=1 only on the right side of
the equation, then:

E / (3 x 10^8v)^2 = m

The above equation is the correct way to make c=1 on just the right side.

Dave

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... My point is that if E=mc^2 is an equality, then there IS an implied c^2 on ... Therefore, relativity theory is ... >> squared from energy squared because the dimensions don't agree. ... It is a concept of algebra applied to physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... My point is that if E=mc^2 is an equality, then there IS an implied c^2 on ... Therefore, relativity theory is ... >> squared from energy squared because the dimensions don't agree. ... It is a concept of algebra applied to physics. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Why Octonions 1: Introduction
    ... a mathematically interesting algebra, but with little ... Superstring theory jumped from 4 dimensions straight to 10 dimensions, ... Quaternions or the Octonions. ... Symmetry groups used in crystallography, molecular modeling, etc. rely ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What databases have taught me
    ... There is ambiguity caused by multiple equality signs. ... While that sort of thing might make sense for the internal algebra used by the dbms, I prefer something that yells loudly when I type anything that is almost certainly an error -- especially when the error would likely cause the query to run for orders of magnitude longer duration than expected. ... I suggest there is a difference between the best formalism for a machine and the best formalism for a human, which is why compilers often start by converting programs into some sort of DAG as a first step. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: "dimensional analysis"?
    ... exponents to be at least rationals. ... The implementations in programming languages of all number types ... an algebra. ... and the product of any two dimensions is again a dimension. ...
    (alt.usage.english)