Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!

From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 01/20/05 

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:04:12 -0600

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106025169.401710.234640@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>> matter. And don't tell me that E=mc^2 is not the true form of the
>> equivalency equation, because that is exactly what is taught in the
>> mainstream.
>>
>> > It is a formula used to determine the amount of
>> > energy in a given mass.
>>
>> That's the problem, isn't it? There is no energy in a given mass! Energy
>> is work. There is no work being done prior to the work being done.
>
>Well, since you put it that way, let me put it another way: It is a
>formula used to determine the amount of _potential_ energy inherent in
>a given mass.

The unit of resistance in the MKS system is the Ohm. It is equal to 1kg *
(1m)^2 / 1sec * (1coul)^2. Using your famous expression, calculate the
amount of energy in one Ohm of resistance.

>> What's more, mass is merely a dimension. There is no such physical
>> thing as mass.
>> The illusion of massive objects arises from the dimension of mass being
>> acted upon by force.

>No, mass in physics is not a dimension. A dimension is a "property
>defining physical quantity: any of a group of properties or magnitudes,
>such as mass or time, that collectively define a physical
>quantity."(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
>Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved).

Let me help you read the above definition you just posted for dimension:

"A dimension is a property defining physical quantity: any of a group of
properties or magnitudes, such as **mass** or time, that collectively define
a physical quantity." Mass, according to the definition you just gave, is a
dimension.

> Thus, Dave, mass has
> dimension, but it is not _a_ dimension because dimension is the
> property of a mass which defines its physical quantity.

You've got it right, Tom, but you're saying exactly what I said. A quantity
of a dimension gives a measurment. The dimension is still just a quality,
it is not a quantity. Therefore, mass is merely a dimension. It is not
something that can be converted to the unit of energy. Mass is one of the
dimensions of energy, just as it is also one of the dimensions of
resistance.

> In physics, mass is a physical quantity.

No, now you're twisting things around. Mass is a quality, not a quantity.
Measurement is a quantity of dimension.

> "It is the property of an object that is a measure of its inertia, the
> amount of matter it contains, and its influence in a gravitational
> field."(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
> Corporation.All rights reserved.)

Even this definition of mass is twisted. In this case, mass is both the
quality and the measurement. This is exactly why people are easily confused
when physicists throw the m word around. To paraphrase the definition just
given, "mass is the quantity of mass." It's easy to see the error in that
definition of mass. Mass is merely a dimension in the expression of E=mc^2.
Mass is not equal to matter, therefore there is no real meaning to m in such
an expression.

I go to great length in clarifying the definitions of dimensions,
measurements, and units in my book.

>> When there is a nuclear exposion, the mass dimension doesn't disappear
>> into
>> energy. It gets transferred out in photons, gamma rays, beta particles,
>> alpha particles, neutrinos, and various isotopes. Energy does not exist
>> as
>> a real thing. Energy is merely the intensity of the action of the
>> photons,
>> gamma rays, beta particles, alpha particles, neutrinos, and various
>> isotopes.

> Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.

Wrong. That would be the definition of *potential* energy. Energy is the
unit of actual work done.

> Capacity is the ability
to do or experience something. So you are correct in saying that
energy does not exist as a real thing.

But you are incorrect to say that energy is the capacity to do work. The
reason energy does not exist as a real thing is because energy is not a
material existence. It is the property of a materially existing object. If
there is no object, then there is no energy. If there is energy, then there
must be an object. And if the object is a massless photon (according to the
SM), how do you say the object has energy if it has zero mass? You would
say the mass was converted to energy. And yet, one of the dimensions of
energy is mass. But the photon has no mass, and around you go. The
mass/energy thing does not work.

> But to say that energy is an
> intensity of action is defining the magnitude or strength of its
> source. It is not a definition of energy, it is only defining
> quantities of energy.

Energy can only exist if it has a source. Something has to be moving in
order for energy to be a quality of it. Energy is not a thing of itself.
That's what I've been saying all along.

>> > The relationship it reveals between mass and
>> > energy is not that they are equivalent, but that they are
>> > interdependent. Thus the extent of what the formula claims is that
>> > where there is energy, there must also be mass, and vice-versa.
>
>> This is pure nonsense. Calculate the energy in 40 ohms of resistance.
>> Resistance also has mass.

>That's news to me. Resistance is a math construct,

Look, you are making up the rules as you go along, even if you quote from a
dictionary. Energy is a unit and resistance is a unit. They are both math
constructs, but they are both math constructs based upon empirical data.
Energy and resistance are concepts about real phenomena. Neither energy nor
resistance exists as matter or a thing of itself. Energy is the property of
an object as it moves, resistance is the property of an object as it meets
another object and experiences a force.

If you are going to treat resistance as a math construct, then you must
treat energy the same way. That was the purpose of challenging you to
calculate the energy of resistance. You agree that you cannot take the mass
dimension of resistance and calculate energy from it. Yet, that is exactly
what you are doing with the unit of energy. You are taking the mass
dimension of energy itself and calculating energy from it.

>> > It's too bad that scientists pushed the idea of equivalency to their
>> > students instead of calling the formula what is really is. I think
>> > that was because they themselves thought it was an equivalency
>> > equation, which shows how stupid they were (and some still are). Goes
>> > to show how dumb some teachers are who never question what they have
>> > been taught.
>
>> Exactly. That's my beef, right there. There is no harm in setting up an
>> expression. But you can't turn around and use the expression as an
>> equation. I'm glad we are in agreement on this point.
>
>Yes, me too.

Do you also agree that mass is merely a dimension in the equations below?

R = 1kg * (1m)^2 / 1sec * (1coul)^2
E = 1kg * (1m)^2 / (1sec)^2

If you agree that mass is merely a dimension in the equations above, how
does mass suddenly become something other than a dimension in:

E = mc^2

?

Dave
 

Relevant Pages