Re: Proof for E=mc2

From: Zigoteau (zigoteau_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/16/05 

Date: 16 Jan 2005 01:53:34 -0800

Hi, Androcles,

> I cannot agree with that. Newtonian physics readily accepts potential
> energy, given up as kinetic. The cork bobbing on water or the mass on
> a spring are examplars.

Nobody is denying it.

> We accept the sun is constantly pouring away
> enormous quantities of energy, the potential form of which is it's
> mass,

?? That's a relativistic concept.

> > and mass is measured as force.

?? No it's not

> The potential energy (mass)
> concentrates into a small space by some force we call gravity,
> (again in NM)

OK

> and the resultant pressure at the core gives rise to
> the release of the mass as radiation.

No

> Finding an equation relating
> the two was not something Newton did, that is agreed, but Newton's
> physics didn't end with Newton. They continued once experiments
> with electricity and magnetism were made, and diverged when
> Einstein began guessing with his "thought" experiments.

They . . Newtonian physics? . . started running into trouble at the
end of the 18th century with various discoveries, including
radioactivity.

> Any equations you write are intended to represent the world
> in which we live,

Absolutely

> not a wild imagination where time, previously
> invariant, and distance, previously invariant, give up those
> properties in favour of light's speed being invariant, and gives
> up the PoR as well.

Since when has imagination been a bad thing per se? Are you taking
pride in your lack of it?

> Einstein states:
> "But this result comes into conflict with the principle of
> relativity set forth in Section V. "
> ref. http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
> He is in fact stating that the velocty of A with respect to B
> differs from the velocity of B with respect to A.

Isn't that something to be bothered by?

And I do like the story about Einstein imagining himself sitting on a
light beam, which would then apparently have an impossible distribution
of electric and magnetic fields.

> How can you reconcile the collision energy? Does the stationary
> car do less damage to the moving car than the moving car
> does to the stationary?

The risk of death or serious injury in a road accident is much greater
in a SUV than in an ordinary car. (Just to join in the spirit of the
thing and bring in a completely irrelevant fact.)

Cheers,

Zigoteau.

Relevant Pages

  • What its like to Travel on a Light Beam
    ... Galilean limit of gauge theories, ... (mass), then it is necessary to include an 11th generator into the ... were Poincare' invariant; that energy and matter are fully ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Is the mass of a free falling body increasing?
    ... a very small but non zero mass, that constant C will remain the same. ... >> where that something should be invariant. ... Comparing that to the classical free particle ... >> mass M has energy E. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the mass of a free falling body increasing?
    ... > where that something should be invariant. ... Comparing that to the classical free particle ... > Thus we see that a rest particle of mass M is equivalent to energy E = M ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Proof for E=mc2
    ... >> energy, given up as kinetic. ... The cork bobbing on water or the mass on ... >> the two was not something Newton did, that is agreed, but Newton's ... >> car do less damage to the moving car than the moving car ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Teaching GR right after intermediate mechanics
    ... Well then Einstein phones up God and tells him ... Energy so He set energy proportional to frequency, ... Well I do SR with respect to "c" being an invariant ... Time and Mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)