Re: E = mc^2 VIOLATES Conservation of Energy Law.

On Dec 9, 11:56 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear PD: I'm not asking ANYTHING of you! You and "Doug" are the
mongrels nipping at my heels. Do you have a single post of your own
which you would like to brag about? If not, then you haven't gotten
to square one to claim to pass on anything that I say in my
thoughtful
posts. — NoEinstein —

On Dec 8, 5:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

4/19/08

Conservation of Energy Law Invalidates Einstein (is Copyrighted.)

“Energy can be converted to other energy forms, but the total quantity
of energy never changes.  In some atomic processes, mass can be
converted to energy, or energy to mass, but the total energy and mass
sum never changes.”

The crux of the above Energy Conservation Law is that an increase in
one energy form can happen ONLY if there is a decrease in the energy
of the source.

Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has energy, E, increasing solely
as the result of an increase in the velocity of a mass.  His complete
SR equation is:  E = mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^½.  The only variable in that
equation is the object’s velocity, v.

The ‘text’ of Einstein’s SR theory purports that as an object’s
velocity increases, its mass, also, increases.  That rather spurious
rationale results from observations that some charged particles show a
greater ‘inertia’—and thus a greater implied mass—in resisting
magnetic-induced deviation off of their line of travel at increasingly
high velocities.  And because it was well known that mass can be
converted to energy—as in burning fuel, and later in atomic processes—
Einstein over generalized and said: “Mass and energy are equivalent..”
And his ‘theory’ became, by inference: “Matter can be converted to any
form of energy; and any form of energy can be converted back into
matter.” (sic)

The earlier stated Conservation of Energy Law allows that mass may be
converted to energy, or energy into mass, in “some” atomic processes.
But such law doesn’t generalize that ANY energy form can be converted
to mass…

Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has ‘velocity’ as the only
variable.  And the sole manifestation of energy due to velocity is an
object’s kinetic energy.  Obviously, KE increases as the velocity
increases.  But does KE increase exponentially with velocity
increase?  The 1830 Coriolis equation, KE = 1/2mv^2—on which Einstein
based his E = mc^2—was “derived” (term used loosely) based on
observations that falling objects “seem” to cause exponentially
greater changes in the deformations of the receiving structures or
materials, with respect to unit increases in the falling objects’
velocities.

My own experiments, with various impact force measuring devices that I
designed and built, show that Coriolis erred, big time!  He erred
because he wrote an equation that attributed ALL of the
“observed” (term used loosely) impact effects, solely, to the falling
objects’ velocities.

An early velocity effect that was in evidence well before Coriolis’s
day, was how a plank foot bridge can be broken if a person jumps up
from the middle of the bridge, and then lands on it.  Suppose a plank
bridge is strong enough to support three grown men standing in the
middle of it without the bridge breaking.  Now, let two of those men
get off of the bridge, and have the remaining man jump up as high as
he can and come back down on the bridge.  And as a result, the bridge
breaks.  [Note: A harmonic build-up of the force by repeatedly jumping
up and down is assumed to be unnecessary to illustrate this strictly
hypothetical point.]

Shallow-minded persons might suppose that it’s the increased velocity
of the feet of the man impacting the bridge that caused a destructive
effect greater than the weight of three grown men.  Like Coriolis,
those shallow-minded persons choose to attribute ALL of the plank-
breaking effects to the velocity of the man’s feet.

I’m an architect, and I majored in structural design.  The
deformations and strengths of beams MUST consider the materials and
the geometries of the beams.  If a falling object’s velocity “causes”
a beam to fail, such failure is largely determined by the particulars
of the beam itself, and is NOT solely determined by the velocity.

From the above, I have realized that the strength drop-off of, say, a
plank bridge, must be at least partially the result of the plank
having strength characteristics which VARY depending upon the speed of
application of the loads.  But to my knowledge, most structural design
texts make allowances for impacts by increasing the “design loads”
only, NOT by decreasing the strengths of the materials being
impacted!  The latter is part of my contribution to science, and part
of my complete and total disproof of Einstein’s theories of
relativity!

Falling objects have constituted the most easily observable, and
repeatable, experiments relating to impact effects.  Coriolis’s KE =
1/2mv^2 was written solely to “predict” the impact effects due to a
falling object’s velocity.  That man had no notion that mankind might
one day be traveling to the Moon, or to other places in or beyond the
Solar System.  Sadly, his errant equation is being used for most
velocity related KE approximations.

Though Einstein’s Special Relativity equation seems most apt to space
travel, such equation, and Coriolis’s KE equation on which Einstein’s
was based, must also relate to ANY increasing velocity of objects.
And, more particularly, that must apply to all free-falling objects.
The latter is because “the science” of kinetic energy was derived from
observations of free-falling objects, NOT from observations of
spaceships.

So, when I keep writing about Coriolis’s dropped objects, that’s
because his errant observations are one of the main reasons that
Einstein has been allowed to screw-up science for over a century…

What are Coriolis’s errors?  (1.) He correctly observed that the
distance of fall of objects increases parabolically with respect to
time.  But he didn’t realize that those distances include a constantly
varying, huge COASTING component!  (2.) He didn’t know that a
uniformly COASTING object will impact a fixed object with an identical
force regardless of how far, or for how long the object COASTED.  (3.)
He didn’t realize that an object’s KE can ONLY increase at the rate at
which energy is being applied to the object by the force of gravity.
(4.) He didn’t realize that by making his KE equation exponential, he
was simultaneously requiring that the force of GRAVITY on every unique
object must increase exponentially, too!  And… (5.) He didn’t
understand that because the energy input by gravity must always be
greater for faster falling objects, that gravity must have some as yet
unexplained mechanism for sensing the velocity of every single falling
object, and discriminately applying just the right, ever-changing
additional force to the make the myriad falling objects’ KEs agree
with his contrived equation!

If one takes out COASTING, the “distance vs. time” plot becomes a
straight line.  The velocity equation (as Randy Poe correctly
cookbooks) says: V = (v sub 0) + a(t).  So, you mathematicians out
there know that the velocity of a falling object increases linearly.
And those of you who have ever heard of “momentum” know that its
“classic” equation F = mv has the impact force of a unit mass
increasing linearly with respect to velocity, too.

With all of the above quantities increasing LINEARLY, then why does
Coriolis’s equation have the KE increasing exponentially?  Because
Coriolis goofed, that’s why!  His equation was WRONG from the day it
was written!

Einstein supposed that a moving object in outer space will not only
have its KE increase exponentially according to Coriolis’s equation,
but that his own SR equation will increase the object’s MASS to
infinity at velocity ‘c’.  (sic, sic!)

Einstein describes “flattening” forces that will be placed on every
object accelerating to velocity ‘c’.  But in order for any object to
be increasingly flattened, it must have two things: (1.) An increasing
FORCE; and (2.) and increasing RESISTANCE!

Newton’s law states: “For every action, there must be an equal and
opposite reaction.”  That law KILLS Einstein’s theories!  That’s
because in outer space an object’s INERTIA is only the opposing
reaction that might be available to flatten it.  And the force being
experienced by every object that is undergoing a CONSTANT acceleration
DOESN’T change at all—with respect to time, nor with respect to the
distance traveled!  So, there can be NO increasing force to cause an
increasing flattening!

In a nutshell: Moronic Einstein didn’t know that acceleration is a
UNIFORM increase in velocity EACH second.  Because the “old”
definition of the acceleration due to gravity had been written: g =
32.2 ft. per sec.^2, Einstein saw the “square” and WRONGLY assumed
that the forces—like the distance of fall, and the KE (sic)—would
increase exponentially, too.

The force of gravity is equal to any object’s static weight in all
near Earth distances of fall.  In a given second the “work” done by
gravity is that required to increase the object’s velocity, acting
against its own inertia, by 32.174 ft. per second, and associatively,
to increase the distance of fall by 16.087 feet.  Those two things are
ALL that an acceleration of ‘g’ will do to an object!

Now, suppose that instead of accelerating vertically ‘down’ due to the
force of gravity, that a spaceship that’s heading out of the Solar
System accelerates at 32.174 ft. per second EACH second.  Since that
rate is the base acceleration state we all feel on Earth, those
astronauts will be pushed back in their seats with just their constant
static weight, as if they are still on Earth!  If the floor of the
spaceship was designed to be perpendicular to the distance of travel,
those astronauts could walk around on the floor without experiencing
any weightlessness!

Einstein believed it was perfectly OK to suppose that KE increases—
whether exponential or otherwise—could create extra mass.  But no
amount of KE, without a receptor mass or resistance of the pending
impact, would create any compressive force whatsoever on the speeding
object.  So, if there is no force, then there would be no impetus for
changing the object in any way!

Obviously, Einstein’s laughable theories CREATE energy that hasn’t
been imparted from anywhere.  And THAT violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy!  Unless one of you Einsteiniacs out there can
find mechanisms in physics that will increase force, without there
being an increasing resistance; and increase energy, exponentially,
with only a uniform input of force, then Einstein’s theories, and all
of its off-shoots, are summarily invalidated.

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —

I invite those who are interested to read:

Dropping Coriolis Like a Featherhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/11e51...
Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci..physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
__________

You've made a number of grievous errors in basic physics in the above.
As a result of those errors, the quality of the post as a whole
suffers.

Now, I suppose the question remains: What is your purpose of your
making a post of such poor physical quality?
Are you inviting discussion on the physics content of your post?
Are you asking for an explanation, for your educational benefit, on
how E=mc^2 could possibly be considered consistent with energy
conservation?
Are you hoping that someone who doesn't know better will be snookered
by what you've written and just comment, "Well, THERE'S a thoughtful
fellow!"?
Or are you just inspired to post a thought that crossed your mind and
you like to see your thoughts up in public?

The last four questions are yes/no questions. If the answer to all
four is "no", then I invite you to answer the first question, which
requires a bit more thought on your part.

PD

Dear PD: I'm not asking ANYTHING of you!  You and "Doug" are the
mongrels nipping at my heels.  Do you have a single post of your own
which you would like to brag about?  If not, then you haven't gotten
to square one to claim to pass on anything that I say in my thoughtful
posts.  — NoEinstein —

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... The *correct* expression for the kinetic energy ... frame of the mass). ... > velocity v, and being relativists, we immediately invoke the Lorentz ... > relativistic mass but such does not exist). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... The *correct* expression for the kinetic energy ... frame of the mass). ... > velocity v, and being relativists, we immediately invoke the Lorentz ... > relativistic mass but such does not exist). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: RELATIVISTIC MASS
    ... Velocity is distance per time. ... As to your misconception of R-mass vs invariable mass, Kinetic energy ... But you can't have motion without energy, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Logical inconsistency in Lorentzs theory
    ... It doesn't matter which velocity you want, ... people that cannot discuss energy, mass, gravity, electromagnetism, ... I'm just trying to help you over your misconceptions, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: circ motion question
    ...  The instantaneous velocity of the object ... components, as you did the projectile motion, then the centripetal ... that no energy is required for the operation. ... we must make a difference between a mass being ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading