---

Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-
particles.

By Louis Nielsen, Treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis

What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
m and where c is the velocity of light?

In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
consists.

The Uniton Postulate:
The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
quanta in the Universe.
All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
are consequences of
interacting unitons.

In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.

By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
understand that all matter,
regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
Einstein's famous equation.


Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark

---

On Sep 29, 10:16 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-
> particles.
>
> By Louis Nielsen, Treatise:http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
> where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
> m and where c is the velocity of light?
>
> In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
> energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
> consists.
>
> The Uniton Postulate:
> The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
> quanta in the Universe.
> All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
> are consequences of
> interacting unitons.
>
> In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
> understand that all matter,
> regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
> Einstein's famous equation.
>
> Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

------------
very nice and right
but that is not an orriginal idea of yourse

i am preaching along yerars
and it is endlessly documented innet documents there

now you didnt mension that it showes that
even photons has rest mass that is in movement
you called it Unitins
i called it 'Circlons'
now i ddint see your site
and i wonder if you got to thje concusion that i got
that this basic particle
MUST MOVE NATURALLY IN A CLOSED CIRCLE !!??

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

---

On Sep 29, 1:16 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-
> particles.
>
> By Louis Nielsen, Treatise:http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
> where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
> m and where c is the velocity of light?
>
> In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
> energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
> consists.
>
> The Uniton Postulate:
> The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
> quanta in the Universe.
> All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
> are consequences of
> interacting unitons.
>
> In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
> understand that all matter,
> regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
> Einstein's famous equation.
>
> Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

It's actually a lot easier than that. E=mc^2 because it is the sum of
the kinetic energies of the particles ejected during pair production
of a positron and electron. E = 1/2 mv^2 + 1/2 mv^2 = mv^2 where v=c
and m = mass of positron and electron.

See: What Does E=mc^2 Really Mean?

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/emc.html

fhuemc

---

On Sep 29, 4:16 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
> Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-
> particles.
>
> By Louis Nielsen, Treatise:http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
> where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
> m and where c is the velocity of light?
>
> In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
> energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
> consists.
>
> The Uniton Postulate:
> The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
> quanta in the Universe.
> All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
> are consequences of
> interacting unitons.
>
> In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
> understand that all matter,
> regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
> Einstein's famous equation.
>
> Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> Best regards
> Louis Nielsen
> Denmark

You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
for kinetic energy?

---

On Sep 30, 1:43 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 29, 1:16 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-
> > particles.
>
> > By Louis Nielsen, Treatise:http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> > What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
> > where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
> > m and where c is the velocity of light?
>
> > In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
> > energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
> > consists.
>
> > The Uniton Postulate:
> > The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
> > quanta in the Universe.
> > All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
> > are consequences of
> > interacting unitons.
>
> > In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> > amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> > velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> > KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> > Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> > By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
> > understand that all matter,
> > regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
> > Einstein's famous equation.
>
> > Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> > Best regards
> > Louis Nielsen
> > Denmark
>
> It's actually a lot easier than that. E=mc^2 because it is the sum of
> the kinetic energies of the particles ejected during pair production
> of a positron and electron. E = 1/2 mv^2 + 1/2 mv^2 = mv^2 where v=c
> and m = mass of positron and electron.
>
> See: What Does E=mc^2 Really Mean?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/emc.html
>
> fhuemc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
for kinetic energy?

---

On Sep 30, 10:19 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 1:43 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 1:16 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-
> > > particles.
>
> > > By Louis Nielsen, Treatise:http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> > > What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
> > > where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
> > > m and where c is the velocity of light?
>
> > > In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
> > > energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
> > > consists.
>
> > > The Uniton Postulate:
> > > The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
> > > quanta in the Universe.
> > > All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
> > > are consequences of
> > > interacting unitons.
>
> > > In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> > > amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> > > velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> > > KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> > > Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> > > By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
> > > understand that all matter,
> > > regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
> > > Einstein's famous equation.
>
> > > Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> > > Best regards
> > > Louis Nielsen
> > > Denmark
>
> > It's actually a lot easier than that. E=mc^2 because it is the sum of
> > the kinetic energies of the particles ejected during pair production
> > of a positron and electron. E = 1/2 mv^2 + 1/2 mv^2 = mv^2 where v=c
> > and m = mass of positron and electron.
>
> > See: What Does E=mc^2 Really Mean?
>
> >http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/emc.html
>
> >fhuemc- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
> for kinetic energy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, one of the key aspects of how I calculate E=mc^2 is that
relatavistic formula for kinetic energy does not apply at this level.
The relatavistic formula cannot be correct since you get the correct
answer using the non-relatavistic equation.

The reason for this is that I believe that relatavistic effects are
due to masses moving THROUGH the aether (my sea of positron/electron
pairs). For reactions involving the aether itself, these rules do not
apply since the aether cannot move within itself and pair production
doesn't involve particles moving through or past any aether particles.
At this level, it breaks down into simple newtonian mechanics and E=
1/2mv^2 is completely applicable.

The proof is in the fact that the experimentally, the non-relatavistic
formula works to describe the energy required to do pair production,
not the relatavistic one which would assign much larger masses to the
positron/electron.

---

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:39:32 -0700, franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]

It never ceases to amaze me to see how many [apparently] functional
adults think they can come in and rewrite physics based upon what they
learned in high school.

---

<Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote
>
> In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.

As everybody knows different types of atoms have differrent energies,
but E=m*c^2 does not differentiate between different types of atoms,
therefore this formula cannot be correct. Q.E.D.

---

"quentin" <quentin@nowherecom.com> wrote in message
news:fdr4s8$1ko$1@aioe.org...
> <Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote
> >
> > In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> > amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> > velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> > KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> > Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> As everybody knows different types of atoms have differrent energies,
> but E=m*c^2 does not differentiate between different types of atoms,
> therefore this formula cannot be correct. Q.E.D.
>

Why?

Different atoms have different particle numbers and
binding energies. The rest mass, kinetic, and binding
energies of the constituents all contribute to the
mass, so it is not surprising that different atoms
have different energies. So what's the problem?

---

On Oct 1, 1:39 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:19 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 1:43 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 29, 1:16 pm, Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:
>
> > > > Interpretation of E = m*c^2 as kinetic energies of sub-
> > > > particles.
>
> > > > By Louis Nielsen, Treatise:http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> > > > What is the physical interpretation of Einstein's equation E = m*c^2
> > > > where E is the latent energy inside a portion of matter with the mass
> > > > m and where c is the velocity of light?
>
> > > > In my treatise I show that m*c^2 is equal to the total kinetic
> > > > energies of the sub-particles I call Unitons and of which all matter
> > > > consists.
>
> > > > The Uniton Postulate:
> > > > The unitons are the smallest and most fundamental energy-/matter
> > > > quanta in the Universe.
> > > > All matter consists of unitons and all interactions in the Universe
> > > > are consequences of
> > > > interacting unitons.
>
> > > > In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> > > > amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> > > > velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> > > > KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> > > > Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> > > > By the above recognition of our physical world it is not difficult to
> > > > understand that all matter,
> > > > regardless of its chemical appearance contains energy as given by
> > > > Einstein's famous equation.
>
> > > > Read more in section 13 and section 14 of my treatise: http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Louis Nielsen
> > > > Denmark
>
> > > It's actually a lot easier than that. E=mc^2 because it is the sum of
> > > the kinetic energies of the particles ejected during pair production
> > > of a positron and electron. E = 1/2 mv^2 + 1/2 mv^2 = mv^2 where v=c
> > > and m = mass of positron and electron.
>
> > > See: What Does E=mc^2 Really Mean?
>
> > >http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/emc.html
>
> > >fhuemc- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
> > for kinetic energy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Actually, one of the key aspects of how I calculate E=mc^2 is that
> relatavistic formula for kinetic energy does not apply at this level.

Then, what is your justification for using E = mc^2? You can't just
pick and choose which of these equations you happen to decide is
true. If you deny the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, then
E= mc^2 is gone also. None of this exists in a proverbial vacuum.

> The relatavistic formula cannot be correct since you get the correct
> answer using the non-relatavistic equation.

What correct answer? You just threw it away. And, by the way, how
would you know it is correct without the rest of relativity to back it
up? You're being tremendously inconsistent here.

> The reason for this is that I believe that relatavistic effects are
> due to masses moving THROUGH the aether (my sea of positron/electron
> pairs). For reactions involving the aether itself, these rules do not
> apply since the aether cannot move within itself and pair production
> doesn't involve particles moving through or past any aether particles.
> At this level, it breaks down into simple newtonian mechanics and E=
> 1/2mv^2 is completely applicable.

Both aether and newtonian mechanics at high speeds have already been
falsified by experiment, so that doesn't make any sense. You're lack
of understanding of the scientific method fails you.

> The proof is in the fact that the experimentally, the non-relatavistic
> formula works to describe the energy required to do pair production,
> not the relatavistic one which would assign much larger masses to the
> positron/electron.

What bizzarro world experiment provides those results? Pair
production only works in relativistic mechanics. Besides, without the
relativistic Dirac equation, the notion of antiparticles would have
never beern revealed. So you're just spinning your wheels and getting
nowhere.

You seem to think that you can take what a scientific theory has to
offer in a piecemeal fashion, keeping somethings and getting rid of
others. But that approach unravels the entire theory, since it's a
unified whole. Every theory begins with a set of assumptions (axioms
or postulates) and proceeds to derive equations based on those
statements. While the initial assumptions can often be tinkered with
in order to construct a new theory, none of the derived equations or
principles can be tampered with, since they are totally dependent on
the initial statements. Remove just one of them and you'll not have a
new theory, just an inconsistent mess.

---

On Oct 1, 11:47 am, "quentin" <quen...@nowherecom.com> wrote:
> <Loui...@edu.herlufsholm.dk> wrote
>
>
>
> > In my treatise I show that the total latent energy E inside a given
> > amount of matter with mass m is given by E = m*c^2 where c is the
> > velocity of light. And the expression m*c^2 is a measure of the TOTAL
> > KINETIC ENERGY OF THE UNITONS of which the matter consists.
> > Kinetic energy is the most fundamental form of energy.
>
> As everybody knows different types of atoms have differrent energies,
> but E=m*c^2 does not differentiate between different types of atoms,
> therefore this formula cannot be correct. Q.E.D.

The earth is round, therefore a vest has no sleeves. QED

---

> > > You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
> > > for kinetic energy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Actually, one of the key aspects of how I calculate E=mc^2 is that
> > relatavistic formula for kinetic energy does not apply at this level.
>
> Then, what is your justification for using E = mc^2? You can't just
> pick and choose which of these equations you happen to decide is
> true. If you deny the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, then
> E= mc^2 is gone also. None of this exists in a proverbial vacuum.

The justification is in the experimental evidence that says that the
energy required to do a pair production of a positron/electron is E =
mc^2 where m = mass electron + mass positron. I am just trying to
explain that experimental result. Denying the relativistic formula has
nothing to do with justifying E=mc^2.

>
> > The relatavistic formula cannot be correct since you get the correct
> > answer using the non-relatavistic equation.
>
> What correct answer? You just threw it away. And, by the way, how
> would you know it is correct without the rest of relativity to back it
> up? You're being tremendously inconsistent here.

The correct answer is E=mc^2 by experimental result which just also
happens to be the sum of the newtonian kinetic energy of a position
and electron accelerated to the speed of light. What an interesting
coincidence.

I have newtonian mechanics to back me up - which works well enough in
the macroscopic level and also works at the sub-aether level.

>
> > The reason for this is that I believe that relatavistic effects are
> > due to masses moving THROUGH the aether (my sea of positron/electron
> > pairs). For reactions involving the aether itself, these rules do not
> > apply since the aether cannot move within itself and pair production
> > doesn't involve particles moving through or past any aether particles.
> > At this level, it breaks down into simple newtonian mechanics and E=
> > 1/2mv^2 is completely applicable.
>
> Both aether and newtonian mechanics at high speeds have already been
> falsified by experiment, so that doesn't make any sense. You're lack
> of understanding of the scientific method fails you.

The aether has NOT be falsified by experiment - you say MMX disproved
it - you never read the original MMX or the follow on experiments did
you? No you didn't - you just read the one line in the physics books
falsely claiming that they saw no shift whatsoever. This is so wrong
it is fraudulent!

See:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/datonmiller.html
Dayton Miller performed 20 years of experiments proving aether drift.
These were never refuted during his lifetime, but are still ignored.

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
So very sophisticated recent experiments appear to have non NULL
results.

At the very least, this should put some doubt in your mnd about
whether the aether has been proven not to exist. In fact, the aether
seems to be making a comeback as things such as virtual particles,
vacuum energy and numerous other labels that all point to a substance
for space. It is your complete willingness to accept anything you see
in a physics text book that fails you and the true scientific method.

It is true that newtonian mechanics does not work for atomic particles
moving at high speed. This is a result of the aether. The effect of
the aether and the development of the relativistic formulas should be
credited to Lorentz for the Lorentz Ether Theory which dervived much
of the same formulas as Einstein using the assmption of an ether. So
you can come up with much of the same relavistic mechanics with or
without an ether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

>
> > The proof is in the fact that the experimentally, the non-relatavistic
> > formula works to describe the energy required to do pair production,
> > not the relatavistic one which would assign much larger masses to the
> > positron/electron.
>
> What bizzarro world experiment provides those results? Pair
> production only works in relativistic mechanics.

Pair production doesn't care about relativistic mechanics, it merely
happens as an experimental result and would continue to happen even if
humans were not around to come up with theories. My derivation
produces the same E=mc^2 as relativistic mechanics.

Besides, without the
> relativistic Dirac equation, the notion of antiparticles would have
> never beern revealed. So you're just spinning your wheels and getting
> nowhere.
>
That Dirac first came up with the idea of antipartices is nice, but
they would have eventually been discovered without the help of
relativity.

> You seem to think that you can take what a scientific theory has to
> offer in a piecemeal fashion, keeping somethings and getting rid of
> others. But that approach unravels the entire theory, since it's a
> unified whole.

OK, you show me how my theory unravels instead of generically babbling
about theories....

Every theory begins with a set of assumptions (axioms
> or postulates) and proceeds to derive equations based on those
> statements. While the initial assumptions can often be tinkered with
> in order to construct a new theory, none of the derived equations or
> principles can be tampered with, since they are totally dependent on
> the initial statements.

What can be totally tampered with is how the equations are derived and
what their physical meaning is. So whie you can't tamper with E=mc^2
or the relativistic formulas, but you can most certainly completely
reassign how you get them as I have.

Remove just one of them and you'll not have a
> new theory, just an inconsistent mess.- Hide quoted text -

Once again, show me how my derivation of E=mc^2 leads to an
inconsistent mess.

>
> - Show quoted text -

I really think that nature is very simple. The closer to simplicity we
get, the closer to truth we get. Any elementary student can understand
that 1/2mv^2 + 1/2mv^2 = mv^2. The closeness of form of the newtonian
kinetic energy and the mass/energy formula cannot be a coincience. The
explanations for the Einstein supposed derivation of E=mc^2 are
incomprehensible at best and there is much to suspect that it was
wrongly derived. Not just me, but by people like Max Plank.

See:
http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma3.htm

The worst part of the mass/energy formula as derived by Einstein is
that it doesn't explain how mass is converted to energy and vice
versa. Do you know how that is done???? I didn't think so. Isn't that
a huge - giant - gaping hole in mass/energy fomula? Isn't it most
embarrasing that you say E=mc^2 but have no idea where the mass comes
from during pair production? It just pops out of nowhere - pretty
magical eh? I bet you believe in ghosts and gobblins as well.

The superiority of my derivation is that it does explain where the
mass comes from during pair production. It was there all along as a
position/electron bound pair. The energy to do pair production is the
energy required to break the bonds by accelerating the constituent
position/electron to the speed of light. Nothing magical at all. The
reverse is also true that when a position/electron collide and react,
they do not dissappear into a puff of pure energy - they simply go
back into the undetectable aether matrix. This fully maintains the
absolute conservation of mass and energy. How simple is that? In the
Einstein world you have to say that mass and energy appear/disappear
in a total violation of both the conservation of mass and energy.

My theory starts with the assumption of an aether consiting of a
position/electron sea. In so far as I have been able to investigate,
it produces a wholly understandable framework onto which we can
explain many physical phenomenon like charge and magnetism on the most
basic mechanical level.

If your theories are so good, then explain how and why charge works -
you can't - I can.

For my theory of everything, see:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

---

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:52:00 -0700, franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>> > > You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
>> > > for kinetic energy?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Actually, one of the key aspects of how I calculate E=mc^2 is that
>> > relatavistic formula for kinetic energy does not apply at this level.
>>
>> Then, what is your justification for using E = mc^2? You can't just
>> pick and choose which of these equations you happen to decide is
>> true. If you deny the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, then
>> E= mc^2 is gone also. None of this exists in a proverbial vacuum.
>
>The justification is in the experimental evidence that says that the
>energy required to do a pair production of a positron/electron is E =
>mc^2 where m = mass electron + mass positron. I am just trying to
>explain that experimental result. Denying the relativistic formula has
>nothing to do with justifying E=mc^2.

Interesting. You keep one experimentally valid result [E = mc^2] while
still keeping an experimentally INVALID result [E = 1/2 mv^2].

It still doesn't explain why you think your disjoint ramblings about
relativity and Newtonian mechanics are relevant to relativity.

>
>>
>> > The relatavistic formula cannot be correct since you get the correct
>> > answer using the non-relatavistic equation.
>>
>> What correct answer? You just threw it away. And, by the way, how
>> would you know it is correct without the rest of relativity to back it
>> up? You're being tremendously inconsistent here.
>
>The correct answer is E=mc^2 by experimental result which just also
>happens to be the sum of the newtonian kinetic energy of a position
>and electron accelerated to the speed of light. What an interesting
>coincidence.

Newton is wrong. A coincidence does not make good physics.

>
>I have newtonian mechanics to back me up - which works well enough in
>the macroscopic level and also works at the sub-aether level.

"sub-aether level" ?

In a box somewhere a bullshit meter that wasn't even plugged in
managed to peak then explode.

Newtonian mechanics is trivially false in the strong [and weak, in
certain circumstances] gravitational and v ~ c regime.

>
>>
>> > The reason for this is that I believe that relatavistic effects are
>> > due to masses moving THROUGH the aether (my sea of positron/electron
>> > pairs). For reactions involving the aether itself, these rules do not
>> > apply since the aether cannot move within itself and pair production
>> > doesn't involve particles moving through or past any aether particles.
>> > At this level, it breaks down into simple newtonian mechanics and E=
>> > 1/2mv^2 is completely applicable.
>>
>> Both aether and newtonian mechanics at high speeds have already been
>> falsified by experiment, so that doesn't make any sense. You're lack
>> of understanding of the scientific method fails you.
>
>The aether has NOT be falsified by experiment - you say MMX disproved
>it - you never read the original MMX or the follow on experiments did
>you? No you didn't - you just read the one line in the physics books
>falsely claiming that they saw no shift whatsoever. This is so wrong
>it is fraudulent!

A century of followup experiments. Only a handful of which managed to
"detect" ether - all of which were proven to be wrong either in theory
or error analysis [or lack thereof, for that matter]. Those handful
aren't even consistent with the _much larger_ body of experiments that
are soundly inconsistent with an ether.

>
>See:
>http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/datonmiller.html
>Dayton Miller performed 20 years of experiments proving aether drift.
>These were never refuted during his lifetime, but are still ignored.

Actually they were refuted.

Not looking for the refutation does not mean the refutation does not
exist. Google groups + Dayton Miller + Tom Roberts. Try it.

>
>http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
>So very sophisticated recent experiments appear to have non NULL
>results.

Yea, gotta love those already-discredited experiments or the one sigma
signal experiments.

>
>At the very least, this should put some doubt in your mnd about
>whether the aether has been proven not to exist. In fact, the aether
>seems to be making a comeback as things such as virtual particles,
>vacuum energy and numerous other labels that all point to a substance
>for space. It is your complete willingness to accept anything you see
>in a physics text book that fails you and the true scientific method.

None of those things are what is commonly known as the ether and all
of those things have been demonstrated to be consistent with
experiment/observation.

>
>It is true that newtonian mechanics does not work for atomic particles
>moving at high speed. This is a result of the aether. The effect of
>the aether and the development of the relativistic formulas should be
>credited to Lorentz for the Lorentz Ether Theory which dervived much
>of the same formulas as Einstein using the assmption of an ether. So
>you can come up with much of the same relavistic mechanics with or
>without an ether.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Theories indistinguishable from SR are not interesting.
>
>>
>> > The proof is in the fact that the experimentally, the non-relatavistic
>> > formula works to describe the energy required to do pair production,
>> > not the relatavistic one which would assign much larger masses to the
>> > positron/electron.
>>
>> What bizzarro world experiment provides those results? Pair
>> production only works in relativistic mechanics.
>
>Pair production doesn't care about relativistic mechanics, it merely
>happens as an experimental result and would continue to happen even if
>humans were not around to come up with theories. My derivation
>produces the same E=mc^2 as relativistic mechanics.

I find it curious that you aren't mentioning the true energy-momentum
relation E^2 = [pc]^2 + [mc^2]^2 which has been verified far more
often through processes like Compton scattering.

>
>Besides, without the
>> relativistic Dirac equation, the notion of antiparticles would have
>> never beern revealed. So you're just spinning your wheels and getting
>> nowhere.
>>
>That Dirac first came up with the idea of antipartices is nice, but
>they would have eventually been discovered without the help of
>relativity.

Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. The discovery would have
happened anyway but the understanding of why it exists does not happen
without relativity.

>
>> You seem to think that you can take what a scientific theory has to
>> offer in a piecemeal fashion, keeping somethings and getting rid of
>> others. But that approach unravels the entire theory, since it's a
>> unified whole.
>
>OK, you show me how my theory unravels instead of generically babbling
>about theories....

NEWTON IS WRONG.

THAT is how your theory unravels, along with the entire host of
complaints about tossing Lorentz invariance, the stupidity of the
ether, and your general ignorance of a large set of results.

>
>Every theory begins with a set of assumptions (axioms
>> or postulates) and proceeds to derive equations based on those
>> statements. While the initial assumptions can often be tinkered with
>> in order to construct a new theory, none of the derived equations or
>> principles can be tampered with, since they are totally dependent on
>> the initial statements.
>
>What can be totally tampered with is how the equations are derived and
>what their physical meaning is. So whie you can't tamper with E=mc^2
>or the relativistic formulas, but you can most certainly completely
>reassign how you get them as I have.

There is more to relativity than E=mc^2, idiot.

[snip remaining, unread]

---

On Oct 2, 11:34 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:52:00 -0700, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > > You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
> >> > > for kinetic energy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > Actually, one of the key aspects of how I calculate E=mc^2 is that
> >> > relatavistic formula for kinetic energy does not apply at this level.
>
> >> Then, what is your justification for using E = mc^2? You can't just
> >> pick and choose which of these equations you happen to decide is
> >> true. If you deny the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, then
> >> E= mc^2 is gone also. None of this exists in a proverbial vacuum.
>
> >The justification is in the experimental evidence that says that the
> >energy required to do a pair production of a positron/electron is E =
> >mc^2 where m = mass electron + mass positron. I am just trying to
> >explain that experimental result. Denying the relativistic formula has
> >nothing to do with justifying E=mc^2.
>
> Interesting. You keep one experimentally valid result [E = mc^2] while
> still keeping an experimentally INVALID result [E = 1/2 mv^2].

Actually, I use E=mc^2 to logically show that E=1/2mv^2 must be behind
the pair production.

>
> It still doesn't explain why you think your disjoint ramblings about
> relativity and Newtonian mechanics are relevant to relativity.
>
They aren't. My primary objectives are to show that all that fancy
relativity math is utterly unnecessary to explain the experimental
facts. Simple addition will suffice.

>
>
> >> > The relatavistic formula cannot be correct since you get the correct
> >> > answer using the non-relatavistic equation.
>
> >> What correct answer? You just threw it away. And, by the way, how
> >> would you know it is correct without the rest of relativity to back it
> >> up? You're being tremendously inconsistent here.
>
> >The correct answer is E=mc^2 by experimental result which just also
> >happens to be the sum of the newtonian kinetic energy of a position
> >and electron accelerated to the speed of light. What an interesting
> >coincidence.
>
> Newton is wrong. A coincidence does not make good physics.
>
The mass/energy formula could have taken on many different forms. It
might have been E=1/3mc^3 or = 2mc^2 or any number of other forms. But
it did not, it came out to be exactly the same as the kinetic energy
formula times a factor of 2. We know that in pair production, we get 2
particles, not 3 or 2.5 or 4. Connect the dots and draw a conclusion.
Finding very simple ways of explaining experimental results does make
very good physics.

>
>
> >I have newtonian mechanics to back me up - which works well enough in
> >the macroscopic level and also works at the sub-aether level.
>
> "sub-aether level" ?
>
> In a box somewhere a bullshit meter that wasn't even plugged in
> managed to peak then explode.

I know it is difficult for you to understand how reactions which are
not mediated by the aether are exempt from the normal relativity
formulas. But this is not an unreasonable assumption. Think about it
for a minute - if a particle does not have to pass by other aether
particles, it cannot be interfered with by running into particles. It
is this action of "passing" by which explains dialation effects. An
singular aether particle being torn apart by a photon passes by no
neighbor aether particles.

I know, you don't understand, this idea which a 1st grader could
understand, is well beyond your capabilities.

>
> Newtonian mechanics is trivially false in the strong [and weak, in
> certain circumstances] gravitational and v ~ c regime.
>

Didn't you see where I explained the normal relativity formulas do
apply in the v ~c regime as derived by LET and based on the existence
of the aether?

>
>
> >> > The reason for this is that I believe that relatavistic effects are
> >> > due to masses moving THROUGH the aether (my sea of positron/electron
> >> > pairs). For reactions involving the aether itself, these rules do not
> >> > apply since the aether cannot move within itself and pair production
> >> > doesn't involve particles moving through or past any aether particles.
> >> > At this level, it breaks down into simple newtonian mechanics and E=
> >> > 1/2mv^2 is completely applicable.
>
> >> Both aether and newtonian mechanics at high speeds have already been
> >> falsified by experiment, so that doesn't make any sense. You're lack
> >> of understanding of the scientific method fails you.
>
> >The aether has NOT be falsified by experiment - you say MMX disproved
> >it - you never read the original MMX or the follow on experiments did
> >you? No you didn't - you just read the one line in the physics books
> >falsely claiming that they saw no shift whatsoever. This is so wrong
> >it is fraudulent!
>
> A century of followup experiments. Only a handful of which managed to
> "detect" ether - all of which were proven to be wrong either in theory
> or error analysis [or lack thereof, for that matter]. Those handful
> aren't even consistent with the _much larger_ body of experiments that
> are soundly inconsistent with an ether.
>

OK, name five experiments soundly inconsistent with an ether.

>
>
> >See:
> >http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/datonmiller.html
> >Dayton Miller performed 20 years of experiments proving aether drift.
> >These were never refuted during his lifetime, but are still ignored.
>
> Actually they were refuted.
>
> Not looking for the refutation does not mean the refutation does not
> exist. Google groups + Dayton Miller + Tom Roberts. Try it.
>
Yes, I've seen Tom Roberts stuff, I've also done my own research -
even if you look at the original MMX experiment data, you can see the
signal for yourself. Contray to popular culture, the original MMX
experiment showed massive fringe shifts. The finges would shift 30
times even as you got back to your original position. This was seen as
a systematic drift or error, but I think this was actually measuring
the fringe shifts due to the much larger effect of the Earth rotating
on its axis. The act of spinning the instrument was nearly
inconsequential to the effect of the Earth spinning through the
aehter.

>
>
> >http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
> >So very sophisticated recent experiments appear to have non NULL
> >results.
>
> Yea, gotta love those already-discredited experiments or the one sigma
> signal experiments.
>
You can ignore experimental results by discrediting them with poor
logic - but that would be poor physics. You may disagree, but I see
more than enough evidence.

>
>
> >At the very least, this should put some doubt in your mnd about
> >whether the aether has been proven not to exist. In fact, the aether
> >seems to be making a comeback as things such as virtual particles,
> >vacuum energy and numerous other labels that all point to a substance
> >for space. It is your complete willingness to accept anything you see
> >in a physics text book that fails you and the true scientific method.
>
> None of those things are what is commonly known as the ether and all
> of those things have been demonstrated to be consistent with
> experiment/observation.
>
>
>
> >It is true that newtonian mechanics does not work for atomic particles
> >moving at high speed. This is a result of the aether. The effect of
> >the aether and the development of the relativistic formulas should be
> >credited to Lorentz for the Lorentz Ether Theory which dervived much
> >of the same formulas as Einstein using the assmption of an ether. So
> >you can come up with much of the same relavistic mechanics with or
> >without an ether.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>
> Theories indistinguishable from SR are not interesting.
>

They are interesting to the extent that they were dervied assuming
that the aether exists. I think it is much more plausible to dervive
formulas from things that exist, rather then plucking them out of thin
air as SR does.

>
>
> >> > The proof is in the fact that the experimentally, the non-relatavistic
> >> > formula works to describe the energy required to do pair production,
> >> > not the relatavistic one which would assign much larger masses to the
> >> > positron/electron.
>
> >> What bizzarro world experiment provides those results? Pair
> >> production only works in relativistic mechanics.
>
> >Pair production doesn't care about relativistic mechanics, it merely
> >happens as an experimental result and would continue to happen even if
> >humans were not around to come up with theories. My derivation
> >produces the same E=mc^2 as relativistic mechanics.
>
> I find it curious that you aren't mentioning the true energy-momentum
> relation E^2 = [pc]^2 + [mc^2]^2 which has been verified far more
> often through processes like Compton scattering.
>
>
>
> >Besides, without the
> >> relativistic Dirac equation, the notion of antiparticles would have
> >> never beern revealed. So you're just spinning your wheels and getting
> >> nowhere.
>
> >That Dirac first came up with the idea of antipartices is nice, but
> >they would have eventually been discovered without the help of
> >relativity.
>
> Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. The discovery would have
> happened anyway but the understanding of why it exists does not happen
> without relativity.
>
>
>
> >> You seem to think that you can take what a scientific theory has to
> >> offer in a piecemeal fashion, keeping somethings and getting rid of
> >> others. But that approach unravels the entire theory, since it's a
> >> unified whole.
>
> >OK, you show me how my theory unravels instead of generically babbling
> >about theories....
>
> NEWTON IS WRONG.
>
> THAT is how your theory unravels, along with the entire host of
> complaints about tossing Lorentz invariance, the stupidity of the
> ether, and your general ignorance of a large set of results.
>

Once again, LET (not newton) explains the behavior of particles
through the aether. But kinetic energy E=1/2mv^2 always applies as a
foundation where there is no interference from adjacent particles.

>
>
> >Every theory begins with a set of assumptions (axioms
> >> or postulates) and proceeds to derive equations based on those
> >> statements. While the initial assumptions can often be tinkered with
> >> in order to construct a new theory, none of the derived equations or
> >> principles can be tampered with, since they are totally dependent on
> >> the initial statements.
>
> >What can be totally tampered with is how the equations are derived and
> >what their physical meaning is. So whie you can't tamper with E=mc^2
> >or the relativistic formulas, but you can most certainly completely
> >reassign how you get them as I have.
>
> There is more to relativity than E=mc^2, idiot.

I'm not trying to explain relativity - only that it is not relevant to
explaining E=mc^2

Practically everything else in relativity can be explained through
Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) which is generally indistingishable form
SR. However both LET and my kinetic energy derivation of E=mc^2 are
based on the aether which serves as a solid foundation for my
theories.

>
> [snip remaining, unread]- Hide quoted text -
>

I see you have no response to my argument about how pair prodution
happens - where does matter come from during pair production? Until
you can explain that, your precious SR E=mc^2 means nothing. It is a
castle in the air.

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

---

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:09:57 -0700, franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Oct 2, 11:34 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:52:00 -0700, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > > You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
>> >> > > for kinetic energy?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > Actually, one of the key aspects of how I calculate E=mc^2 is that
>> >> > relatavistic formula for kinetic energy does not apply at this level.
>>
>> >> Then, what is your justification for using E = mc^2? You can't just
>> >> pick and choose which of these equations you happen to decide is
>> >> true. If you deny the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, then
>> >> E= mc^2 is gone also. None of this exists in a proverbial vacuum.
>>
>> >The justification is in the experimental evidence that says that the
>> >energy required to do a pair production of a positron/electron is E =
>> >mc^2 where m = mass electron + mass positron. I am just trying to
>> >explain that experimental result. Denying the relativistic formula has
>> >nothing to do with justifying E=mc^2.
>>
>> Interesting. You keep one experimentally valid result [E = mc^2] while
>> still keeping an experimentally INVALID result [E = 1/2 mv^2].
>
>Actually, I use E=mc^2 to logically show that E=1/2mv^2 must be behind
>the pair production.

Uh huh...so you use a relativistic concept in order to "logically
show" that a Newtonian concept - which is replaced by a relativistic
concept - is actually correct for a quantum process.

I'm skeptical, but that's a physics education talking. If I stopped
learning physics at high school, I'd probably be ok with it.

>
>>
>> It still doesn't explain why you think your disjoint ramblings about
>> relativity and Newtonian mechanics are relevant to relativity.
>>
>They aren't. My primary objectives are to show that all that fancy
>relativity math is utterly unnecessary to explain the experimental
>facts. Simple addition will suffice.

Now do Compton scattering, photoelectric effect, v~c scattering, and
particle decay, and the v ~ c cyclotron. All without using relativity
theory.

If you don't know what any of these are or why I mention them, then
you have no business doing physics. I suggest Haliday and Resnick to
get up to a freshman physics level.

>
>>
>>
>> >> > The relatavistic formula cannot be correct since you get the correct
>> >> > answer using the non-relatavistic equation.
>>
>> >> What correct answer? You just threw it away. And, by the way, how
>> >> would you know it is correct without the rest of relativity to back it
>> >> up? You're being tremendously inconsistent here.
>>
>> >The correct answer is E=mc^2 by experimental result which just also
>> >happens to be the sum of the newtonian kinetic energy of a position
>> >and electron accelerated to the speed of light. What an interesting
>> >coincidence.
>>
>> Newton is wrong. A coincidence does not make good physics.
>>
>The mass/energy formula could have taken on many different forms. It
>might have been E=1/3mc^3 or = 2mc^2 or any number of other forms. But
>it did not, it came out to be exactly the same as the kinetic energy
>formula times a factor of 2. We know that in pair production, we get 2
>particles, not 3 or 2.5 or 4. Connect the dots and draw a conclusion.
>Finding very simple ways of explaining experimental results does make
>very good physics.

Except your "very simple way" is absolute shit that DOES NOT work for
even a small handful of results - and I'm not a particle physicist.

Compton scattering only works assuming conservation of /relativistic/
momentum and conservation of /relativistic/ energy.

The cyclotron would be able to accelerate particles way past light
speed in Newtonian mechanics. It can't, and the dynamics are described
by relativity correctly.

Try not operating on the principle that people in my field of study
are fucking morons.

>>
>>
>> >I have newtonian mechanics to back me up - which works well enough in
>> >the macroscopic level and also works at the sub-aether level.
>>
>> "sub-aether level" ?
>>
>> In a box somewhere a bullshit meter that wasn't even plugged in
>> managed to peak then explode.
>
>I know it is difficult for you to understand how reactions which are
>not mediated by the aether are exempt from the normal relativity
>formulas. But this is not an unreasonable assumption. Think about it
>for a minute - if a particle does not have to pass by other aether
>particles, it cannot be interfered with by running into particles. It
>is this action of "passing" by which explains dialation effects. An
>singular aether particle being torn apart by a photon passes by no
>neighbor aether particles.

Yea, and somehow the magical aether does not interact with planetary
orbits nor does it interact with itself like regular matter.

The aether is worthless and anyone who seriously suggests it is quite
frankly dumb as a brick and/or ignorant of everything learned since
the 19th century. This is 2007 - take note of what has been learned
since the 1800s.

>
>I know, you don't understand, this idea which a 1st grader could
>understand, is well beyond your capabilities.

Have you ever considered that just maybe science has found those first
grade level concepts to be found somewhat...wanting?

No, of course not. Then you wouldn't be able to rationalize your
piss-poor education.


>
>>
>> Newtonian mechanics is trivially false in the strong [and weak, in
>> certain circumstances] gravitational and v ~ c regime.
>>
>
>Didn't you see where I explained the normal relativity formulas do
>apply in the v ~c regime as derived by LET and based on the existence
>of the aether?

LET is mathematically indistinguishable from relativity and adds a
crapload of mathematical baggage while suffering from the lack of
general covariance/Lorentz invariance.

LET brings nothing to the table for physics. The only reason cranks
like you are interested in it is because it allows you to sidestep the
"Well...relativity is experimentally valid but nobody takes the aether
seriously..." problem.

When confronted with quantum processes or gravitation, all you can do
is shrug your shoulders because you have no idea what you are talking
about.

>
>>
>>
>> >> > The reason for this is that I believe that relatavistic effects are
>> >> > due to masses moving THROUGH the aether (my sea of positron/electron
>> >> > pairs). For reactions involving the aether itself, these rules do not
>> >> > apply since the aether cannot move within itself and pair production
>> >> > doesn't involve particles moving through or past any aether particles.
>> >> > At this level, it breaks down into simple newtonian mechanics and E=
>> >> > 1/2mv^2 is completely applicable.
>>
>> >> Both aether and newtonian mechanics at high speeds have already been
>> >> falsified by experiment, so that doesn't make any sense. You're lack
>> >> of understanding of the scientific method fails you.
>>
>> >The aether has NOT be falsified by experiment - you say MMX disproved
>> >it - you never read the original MMX or the follow on experiments did
>> >you? No you didn't - you just read the one line in the physics books
>> >falsely claiming that they saw no shift whatsoever. This is so wrong
>> >it is fraudulent!
>>
>> A century of followup experiments. Only a handful of which managed to
>> "detect" ether - all of which were proven to be wrong either in theory
>> or error analysis [or lack thereof, for that matter]. Those handful
>> aren't even consistent with the _much larger_ body of experiments that
>> are soundly inconsistent with an ether.
>>
>
>OK, name five experiments soundly inconsistent with an ether.

Only 5?

"Lorentz Invariance on Trial" - Physics Today 57(7), 2004. Page 40-46

http://ptonline.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHTOAD&Volume=57&Issue=7

The entire listing here:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

>
>>
>>
>> >See:
>> >http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/datonmiller.html
>> >Dayton Miller performed 20 years of experiments proving aether drift.
>> >These were never refuted during his lifetime, but are still ignored.
>>
>> Actually they were refuted.
>>
>> Not looking for the refutation does not mean the refutation does not
>> exist. Google groups + Dayton Miller + Tom Roberts. Try it.
>>
>Yes, I've seen Tom Roberts stuff, I've also done my own research -
>even if you look at the original MMX experiment data, you can see the
>signal for yourself. Contray to popular culture, the original MMX
>experiment showed massive fringe shifts. The finges would shift 30
>times even as you got back to your original position. This was seen as
>a systematic drift or error, but I think this was actually measuring
>the fringe shifts due to the much larger effect of the Earth rotating
>on its axis. The act of spinning the instrument was nearly
>inconsequential to the effect of the Earth spinning through the
>aehter.

Good for you - you have taken century old data that predates modern
techniques and have done no error analysis, all while reaching claims
that are unsupported by a century of experiments.

I'm somewhat skeptical.

>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
>> >So very sophisticated recent experiments appear to have non NULL
>> >results.
>>
>> Yea, gotta love those already-discredited experiments or the one sigma
>> signal experiments.
>>
>You can ignore experimental results by discrediting them with poor
>logic - but that would be poor physics. You may disagree, but I see
>more than enough evidence.

More than enough for you because you /want/ there to be.

The relevant phrase here is "confirmation bias". You ignore the
massive body of evidence discrediting the idea and focus purely on the
small number of experiments that appear to support the idea, then
ignore the subsequent analysis by those more competent [eg, not Van
Flandern or Cahill] because then you couldn't use those experiments.

There would be an instant Nobel for anyone who conclusively
demonstrated the existence of the aether.

>
>>
>>
>> >At the very least, this should put some doubt in your mnd about
>> >whether the aether has been proven not to exist. In fact, the aether
>> >seems to be making a comeback as things such as virtual particles,
>> >vacuum energy and numerous other labels that all point to a substance
>> >for space. It is your complete willingness to accept anything you see
>> >in a physics text book that fails you and the true scientific method.
>>
>> None of those things are what is commonly known as the ether and all
>> of those things have been demonstrated to be consistent with
>> experiment/observation.
>>
>>
>>
>> >It is true that newtonian mechanics does not work for atomic particles
>> >moving at high speed. This is a result of the aether. The effect of
>> >the aether and the development of the relativistic formulas should be
>> >credited to Lorentz for the Lorentz Ether Theory which dervived much
>> >of the same formulas as Einstein using the assmption of an ether. So
>> >you can come up with much of the same relavistic mechanics with or
>> >without an ether.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>>
>> Theories indistinguishable from SR are not interesting.
>>
>
>They are interesting to the extent that they were dervied assuming
>that the aether exists. I think it is much more plausible to dervive
>formulas from things that exist, rather then plucking them out of thin
>air as SR does.

Again, this is your lack of understanding talking rather than a
definitive statement about physics.

Maxwell's equations are only invariant under transformation in special
relativity - not Newtonian mechanics or /anything else/. Only those
who are completely ignorant of the history of physics would make a
claim like "SR was plucked out of thing air".

>
>>
>>
>> >> > The proof is in the fact that the experimentally, the non-relatavistic
>> >> > formula works to describe the energy required to do pair production,
>> >> > not the relatavistic one which would assign much larger masses to the
>> >> > positron/electron.
>>
>> >> What bizzarro world experiment provides those results? Pair
>> >> production only works in relativistic mechanics.
>>
>> >Pair production doesn't care about relativistic mechanics, it merely
>> >happens as an experimental result and would continue to happen even if
>> >humans were not around to come up with theories. My derivation
>> >produces the same E=mc^2 as relativistic mechanics.
>>
>> I find it curious that you aren't mentioning the true energy-momentum
>> relation E^2 = [pc]^2 + [mc^2]^2 which has been verified far more
>> often through processes like Compton scattering.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Besides, without the
>> >> relativistic Dirac equation, the notion of antiparticles would have
>> >> never beern revealed. So you're just spinning your wheels and getting
>> >> nowhere.
>>
>> >That Dirac first came up with the idea of antipartices is nice, but
>> >they would have eventually been discovered without the help of
>> >relativity.
>>
>> Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. The discovery would have
>> happened anyway but the understanding of why it exists does not happen
>> without relativity.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You seem to think that you can take what a scientific theory has to
>> >> offer in a piecemeal fashion, keeping somethings and getting rid of
>> >> others. But that approach unravels the entire theory, since it's a
>> >> unified whole.
>>
>> >OK, you show me how my theory unravels instead of generically babbling
>> >about theories....
>>
>> NEWTON IS WRONG.
>>
>> THAT is how your theory unravels, along with the entire host of
>> complaints about tossing Lorentz invariance, the stupidity of the
>> ether, and your general ignorance of a large set of results.
>>
>
>Once again, LET (not newton) explains the behavior of particles
>through the aether. But kinetic energy E=1/2mv^2 always applies as a
>foundation where there is no interference from adjacent particles.

Too bad 1/2mv^2 is trivially wrong for anything above 10% c.

>
>>
>>
>> >Every theory begins with a set of assumptions (axioms
>> >> or postulates) and proceeds to derive equations based on those
>> >> statements. While the initial assumptions can often be tinkered with
>> >> in order to construct a new theory, none of the derived equations or
>> >> principles can be tampered with, since they are totally dependent on
>> >> the initial statements.
>>
>> >What can be totally tampered with is how the equations are derived and
>> >what their physical meaning is. So whie you can't tamper with E=mc^2
>> >or the relativistic formulas, but you can most certainly completely
>> >reassign how you get them as I have.
>>
>> There is more to relativity than E=mc^2, idiot.
>
>I'm not trying to explain relativity - only that it is not relevant to
>explaining E=mc^2
>
>Practically everything else in relativity can be explained through
>Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) which is generally indistingishable form
>SR. However both LET and my kinetic energy derivation of E=mc^2 are
>based on the aether which serves as a solid foundation for my
>theories.

Let us see LET's take Lorentz invariance. Hard to have global Lorentz
invariance when all you care about is the aether frame.

>
>>
>> [snip remaining, unread]- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>I see you have no response to my argument about how pair prodution
>happens - where does matter come from during pair production? Until
>you can explain that, your precious SR E=mc^2 means nothing. It is a
>castle in the air.

There is more to SR than E=mc^2 and the Lorentz transformations, which
you don't seem to understand or appreciate.

>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

---

On Oct 3, 1:52 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > You do understand that you are using the wrong relativistic formula
> > > > for kinetic energy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Actually, one of the key aspects of how I calculate E=mc^2 is that
> > > relatavistic formula for kinetic energy does not apply at this level.
>
> > Then, what is your justification for using E = mc^2? You can't just
> > pick and choose which of these equations you happen to decide is
> > true. If you deny the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, then
> > E= mc^2 is gone also. None of this exists in a proverbial vacuum.
>
> The justification is in the experimental evidence that says that the
> energy required to do a pair production of a positron/electron is E =
> mc^2 where m = mass electron + mass positron. I am just trying to
> explain that experimental result. Denying the relativistic formula has
> nothing to do with justifying E=mc^2.

That's very perverse. Apparently you still don't get it. And just
what value of c are you going to use when the very same Newtonian
mechanics you insist on using says it can't be less than infiinite?


>
>
> > > The relatavistic formula cannot be correct since you get the correct
> > > answer using the non-relatavistic equation.
>
> > What correct answer? You just threw it away. And, by the way, how
> > would you know it is correct without the rest of relativity to back it
> > up? You're being tremendously inconsistent here.
>
> The correct answer is E=mc^2 by experimental result which just also
> happens to be the sum of the newtonian kinetic energy of a position
> and electron accelerated to the speed of light. What an interesting
> coincidence.


Again, that experimental result is nonsensical in Newtonian terms. So
there's no coincidence at all. And once more I need to ask you just
how a finite value for c fits into a purely Newtonian model.


> I have newtonian mechanics to back me up - which works well enough in
> the macroscopic level and also works at the sub-aether level.

Whatever. But Newtonian mechanics also insists that c is infinite.
Finite values for c lead to relativity. You can't have it both ways.

>
>
> > > The reason for this is that I believe that relatavistic effects are
> > > due to masses moving THROUGH the aether (my sea of positron/electron
> > > pairs). For reactions involving the aether itself, these rules do not
> > > apply since the aether cannot move within itself and pair production
> > > doesn't involve particles moving through or past any aether particles.
> > > At this level, it breaks down into simple newtonian mechanics and E=
> > > 1/2mv^2 is completely applicable.
>
> > Both aether and newtonian mechanics at high speeds have already been
> > falsified by experiment, so that doesn't make any sense. You're lack
> > of understanding of the scientific method fails you.
>
> The aether has NOT be falsified by experiment - you say MMX disproved
> it - you never read the original MMX or the follow on experiments did
> you? No you didn't - you just read the one line in the physics books
> falsely claiming that they saw no shift whatsoever. This is so wrong
> it is fraudulent!

It doesn't matter whether that's true or not. Relativity made the
aether irrelevant. And necessarily so, since it was a ridiculous and
contradictory concept to begin with.


> See:http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/datonmiller.html
> Dayton Miller performed 20 years of experiments proving aether drift.
> These were never refuted during his lifetime, but are still ignored.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
> So very sophisticated recent experiments appear to have non NULL
> results.
>
> At the very least, this should put some doubt in your mnd about
> whether the aether has been proven not to exist. In fact, the aether
> seems to be making a comeback as things such as virtual particles,
> vacuum energy and numerous other labels that all point to a substance
> for space. It is your complete willingness to accept anything you see
> in a physics text book that fails you and the true scientific method.
>
> It is true that newtonian mechanics does not work for atomic particles
> moving at high speed. This is a result of the aether. The effect of
> the aether and the development of the relativistic formulas should be
> credited to Lorentz for the Lorentz Ether Theory which dervived much
> of the same formulas as Einstein using the assmption of an ether. So
> you can come up with much of the same relavistic mechanics with or
> without an ether.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory


Obviously you don't understand the subtleties here. Relativity has an
edge on the aether concept in that it requires less assumptions and
doesn't get bogged down in contradictions.

>
>
> > > The proof is in the fact that the experimentally, the non-relatavistic
> > > formula works to describe the energy required to do pair production,
> > > not the relatavistic one which would assign much larger masses to the
> > > positron/electron.
>
> > What bizzarro world experiment provides those results? Pair
> > production only works in relativistic mechanics.
>
> Pair production doesn't care about relativistic mechanics, it merely
> happens as an experimental result and would continue to happen even if
> humans were not around to come up with theories. My derivation
> produces the same E=mc^2 as relativistic mechanics.

Except that it would need to be infinite. So I think that rules it
all out from the start.

> Besides, without the> relativistic Dirac equation, the notion of antiparticles would have
> > never beern revealed. So you're just spinning your wheels and getting
> > nowhere.
>
> That Dirac first came up with the idea of antipartices is nice, but
> they would have eventually been discovered without the help of
> relativity.

Give up. You're in way over your head and going down for the third
time.

> > You seem to think that you can take what a scientific theory has to
> > offer in a piecemeal fashion, keeping somethings and getting rid of
> > others. But that approach unravels the entire theory, since it's a
> > unified whole.
>
> OK, you show me how my theory unravels instead of generically babbling
> about theories....
>
> Every theory begins with a set of assumptions (axioms
>
> > or postulates) and proceeds to derive equations based on those
> > statements. While the initial assumptions can often be tinkered with
> > in order to construct a new theory, none of the derived equations or
> > principles can be tampered with, since they are totally dependent on
> > the initial statements.
>
> What can be totally tampered with is how the equations are derived and
> what their physical meaning is. So whie you can't tamper with E=mc^2
> or the relativistic formulas, but you can most certainly completely
> reassign how you get them as I have.

Still not getting it, I see. Then tamper with them all you want,
using whatever perverse nonsensical methods you wish to. Garbage in,
garbage out. You must love beating your head against the wall because
it feels so good when you stop.

> Remove just one of them and you'll not have a
>
> > new theory, just an inconsistent mess.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Once again, show me how my derivation of E=mc^2 leads to an
> inconsistent mess.

The Newtonian value for c is inifinite, for staters.

---

>
> > The justification is in the experimental evidence that says that the
> > energy required to do a pair production of a positron/electron is E =
> > mc^2 where m = mass electron + mass positron. I am just trying to
> > explain that experimental result. Denying the relativistic formula has
> > nothing to do with justifying E=mc^2.
>
> That's very perverse. Apparently you still don't get it. And just
> what value of c are you going to use when the very same Newtonian
> mechanics you insist on using says it can't be less than infiinite?
>
What are you talking about? Newtonian mechanics says nothing about c
being infinite - where on earth do you get that from? C is a measured
quantity = 3×10^8 m/s measured in an inertial frame. You can plug that
C into the kinetic energy formula = 1/2mv^2 just like any other
velocity.

Are you perhaps confusing the infinity that you would get for mass if
you assume that the relativistic mass increases to infiinity as you
approach c? This is mass going to infinity, not C.

Plain newtonian mechanics adding up the kinetic energy of 2 particles
at the speed of light produces the correct result. What I am arguing
is that at the level of an aether particle, relativistic mass increase
does not occur . At the level of the particles that make up a single
aether particle, the positron/electron can be accelerated to the speed
of light and maintain constant rest mass. Attempting to go beyond
light speed causes the aether particle to break apart.

Particles only behave on a relativistic basis when they are travelling
through the aether - which is the vast, vast majority of the case. All
the cases cited by Eric about cyclotrons/scattering and such are all
cases where particles travel through and interact with the aether and
therefore have relativistic effects described by Lorentz Ether Theory.
I am arguing that pair production is a special case where normal
kinetic energy formula rules. Outside of that, relativistic rules
apply and even further out into the macroscopic level the kinetic
energy rules apply again.

It has such a simplicity, it just has to be true - doesn't science
seek simplicity.

Also, like I asked Eric, explain where the matter comes from in pair
production. You can't explain it - therefore, I can explain things you
can't and generally speaking if one theory can explain more than the
other, it is better.

>
> Obviously you don't understand the subtleties here. Relativity has an
> edge on the aether concept in that it requires less assumptions and
> doesn't get bogged down in contradictions.
>

What contradictions do you refer to? Seems that relativivity has lots
of contraditions like the twin paradox.
Relativity also assumes matter pops out of nowhere - a pretty big
wrong assumption I'd say.