Re: A New Foundation for Physics

On 12 Sep 2005 17:56:24 -0700, "David Thomson" <google@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> Special Relativity cannot make a valid prediction. It is not based on
>>> sound math.
>
>> That's a remarkable statement. You suppose that particle accelerator
>> design operates within experimental error of nonrelativistic physics?
>
> SR begins with an expression with an arbitrarily named variable, which
> is mistakenly confused as an equation:
>
> E=mc^2
>
> That is not an equation. It is merely an expression;
>
> m*c^2 = X
>
> X is a variable,

Well so is m & c. These a 'placeholders' just like E. You're
'at best' quibbling over semantics but it is just as much an
'equation' as any of the following,

F = ma
P = mv
E = mv^2/2
E = ¿kT

So, I'd say you're NOT in the 'at best' category and are flat
wrong!

> there is no gaurantee that X will be in measurements of joules
> unless m is specifically in dimensions of mass (as opposed to
> electron volts or some other energy expression according to
> relativistic physics).

So what?

> Also, there is no such thing as mass existing separate from matter.

Tell that to all nuclear reactors around the world. They
'lose' mass all the time. Does it vanish?

> Einstein treated the mass dimension as though it were an objective
> thing.

Yea, so?

> Mass doesn't accelerate, move a velocity, or do anything else,
> other than provide the quality of inertia. There is mass in
> the unit of resistance, just as there is in the unit of energy.
> Einstein couldn't tell the difference between mass and matter, at
> least, not in his theory.
>
> If mass is treated as an independent entity that can be accelerated,
> then why can't we count how many of these entities make up an electron?

What entities? The electron's rest mass is well defined.

> What is it that differentiates between an electron and its mass?

What are you asking? The quality of charge?

> The foundation of SR, that E=mc^2, is a farce. That is why SR
> cannot make a valid prediction.

I hate to burst your bubble but, SR isn't founded upon E = mc^2.

> There is no Special Relativity Theory. It's all fairy dust.

Now this statement is ludicrous. SR philosophy may be not
to my or your liking BUT! it is founded upon solid
observational fact. In our universe all physical processes
ARE! local Lorentz covariant.

Paul Stowe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reaching Light Speed,
    ... >>Ah, but we have, because the accelerator experiment itself is one that ... And the results of taking the sum in both cases ends up ... > accelerating charges to high speeds is not due to a mass increase at all. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Reaching Light Speed,
    ... >>Ah, but we have, because the accelerator experiment itself is one that ... And the results of taking the sum in both cases ends up ... > accelerating charges to high speeds is not due to a mass increase at all. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Reaching Light Speed,
    ... >>Ah, but we have, because the accelerator experiment itself is one that ... And the results of taking the sum in both cases ends up ... > accelerating charges to high speeds is not due to a mass increase at all. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... EVERY particle accelerator in the world would stop working instantly IF the ... If you can demonstrate c'=c+v photons exist, ... Stick with Maxwell's electrodynamics and muck about with our concepts of space, mass and time. ... Q -What speed will the arrow fly at? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: interesting math problem
    ... > We are not necessarily expelling anything, ... > accelerator, or even a simple car (a very fast ... change in momentum is not zero but ... A mass conversion rate equation will probably ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)