Re: A New Foundation for Physics

> Well so is m & c. These a 'placeholders' just like E.

It is true that m is a variable, but c is a constant with a specific
value and dimensions. But that isn't the point. An equation is a true
equality with both sides being equal. The E=mc^2 equation actually
refers to two completely different concepts, but interchanges certain
aspects of these concepts to develop a mistaken concept.

It is true that :

E = mv^2

In the above equation, for any system of units, one unit of energy is
equal to one unit of mass times one unit of length per one unit of time
squared. Thus in the MKS system of units:

joule = kg * (meter / sec)^2

In the second meaning of E=mc^2, it is stated that matter is converted
to photons. But m only refers to the mass of the matter and not its
other dimensions, and E only refers to the energy of photons and not
the actual dimensions of the photons themselves. And it is true that
an electron can be converted to a photon by exploding it to the speed
of light. But that is the only case for conversion of matter into
energy. You can't do the same thing with uranium, for example. If you
split uranium, you are not converting the whole isotope into energy,
you are dividing it into smaller pieces. In doing so, neutrons are
able to decay into protons and electrons, the electrons move at a
velocity near the speed of light and are called beta particles.
Sometimes electrons from the isotope convert to photons and are called
gamma rays. Sometimes the protons clump together in groups of four,
without electrons, and are called alpha particles. But no matter how
you slice it, you are still dealing with electrons, protons, and
photons. There is no such thing as mass and energy being converted.
That's just a poetic expression with no real meaning.

So the equation E=mc^2 tries to build on the dimensional equality, but
replaces the velocity term with the speed of light constant that only
applies to the special case of photons. And even then, it is just a
poetic description of the exchange of electrons, protons, and photons.
There is nothing about E=mc^2 that warrants it being used as the
foundation equation for a whole new branch of physics, which btw, is
incompatible with quantum mechanics even as taught in the Standard
Model.

>> 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?

To begin with, nuclear reactors gain mass, not lose it. That is why
breeder reactors were engineered to produce more fuel than they
consume.

You are so naive. You don't realize that nuclear reactors work based
on the mechanics of electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons. Do you
really believe that nuclear reactions are based on the exchange of
dimensions and units? The mass that you claim leaves the reactor would
only leave if an electron, proton, neutron, or photon left the reactor.
Mass is not separate from matter.

Further, mass is never separate from energy. You believe that energy
can be converted to mass. But mass is already a dimension of energy.
Mass never converts to anything. Mass is only a dimension. Energy is
constructed from the dimension of mass, but so are resistance, magnetic
flux, potential, and numerous other units.

> > 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.

No it isn't. The electron mass is measured. There is no definition of
mass (with regard to the electron) other than it is the quality of
inertia. The electron has a given inertia. That is all that can be
said about the mass of the electron. There are no mass particles that
make up the electron. You cannot separate the quality of mass from the
electron. Mass is not something that can be converted out of the
electron and made into something else.

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

> What are you asking? The quality of charge?

You are saying that mass can be converted to energy. An electron has
mass. How do you remove that mass from the electron and make energy?
It can't be done. It is pure nonsense. You think you know what E=mc^2
means, but when you closely examine what it is supposed to mean, it
makes no sense at all. E=mc^2 is a farce. It is not an equation and
it does not relate to reality.

> > 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.

Whether E=mc^2 is the foundation or the conclusion, it is still wrong.
E=mc^2 is not an equation that relates to the real world. It is an
illusion, as is the theory behind it.

> > 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.

The Universe is fact. SR is fiction. SR is the wrong explanation for
the facts. It is fudged to make it look like it fits the facts, but
that is why I call it a fraud. Part of the problem wasn't Einstein's,
however. Charge is not properly understood in any branch of science.
I explain charge properly in this paper:

http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

If charge had been properly understood, nobody would have tried to
incorrectly fudge the equations to make it look like charge had a
relativistic effect. If you examine the relativistic charge equations
thoroughly, you will see they produce values in the wrong dimensions.

Dave

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ken, need help with this
    ... > 2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy ... > directly proportional to its mass and momentum, ... Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the ... > pass energy on through waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ken, need help with this
    ... >> 2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy ... You just concluded, by your own analysis, that photons ... but the wad has both momemtum and mass equivalence. ... >> pass energy on through waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... Pound-Rebka and subsequent experiments of that nature ... for sound reasons states that the energy W of a photon ... There are two methods of measuring mass you either measure the ... The fact is photons have mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: REVISED: Ken, need help with this
    ... > 2) The First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy ... Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the ... > pass energy on through waves. ... What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational mass, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... made up of other smaller particles) have been proven ... that of the electron ... mass of the nucleons diminish accordingly. ... in with high energy scattering with known ...
    (sci.physics)