wrote in message
oups.com...
"newedana" wrote in message
oups.com...


Now, assume the particle comes to rest, i.e., v = 0. How shall we
interpret E = mc^2? It's not an energy associated with speed and it's
not dependent on any model of the particle. We shall interpret it as a
latent energy. How latent energy is to be transformed into kinetic or
some other form of energy is separate question.

....

The real problem with E=Mc^2 is that this equation does not suggest any
information concerning the nuclear activities producing the nuclear
energy in the atomic nuclear structures.

That's because it's not an equation dependent on a particular atomic
theory or model. Furthermore, it's been shown to apply rigorously at
the subatomic level.


Leaving aside Relativism, which I regard as adolescent philosophy - one step
above infantilism (Absolutism- -Categoricalism) - and attempting to be
Effectuationist:

Re "E=mc^2": Let's start over; let's attempt to make our own formula.

Taking "E": Before quantification of something effects, the concept
effects - the identity emerges.

So, (perhaps somewhat the reverse of the equation) what is this energy -
which we want to address - which becomes packeted as mass?

Presumably, we talk of "latent energy" or, perhaps better, "the nuclear
activities producing the nuclear energy in the atomic nuclear structures".
So, what do we have there?

(Nothing ventured, nothing gained).

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ewr121905.php

Leaving aside for a while both the authorship and the validity of
E=mc2, it would be curious to see if the equation is really "a
prediction of Einstein's theory of special relativity". If it is, it
must be consistent with the concepts of reciprocal length contraction
and reciprocal time dilation (which are also predictions of special
relativity). But are those concepts non-contradictory? If they are
contradictory, special relativity is false and then how can a true
result be a prediction of a false theory?

An analogy. The frequency shift factor 1+phi/c^2 (a true result) is
consistent with Newton's principle of variability of speed of light
(the c+v principle) and inconsistent with Einstein's principle of
constancy of speed of light (the c principle). Einsteinians have
managed to camouflage the problem by declaring that the frequency shift
factor is a result of the general relativity, and in their zombie world
this means that the inconsistency between 1+phi/c^2 and the principle
of constancy of speed of light simply does not matter.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ewr121905.php

Leaving aside for a while both the authorship and the validity of
E=mc2, it would be curious to see if the equation is really "a
prediction of Einstein's theory of special relativity". If it is, it
must be consistent with the concepts of reciprocal length contraction
and reciprocal time dilation (which are also predictions of special
relativity). But are those concepts non-contradictory? If they are
contradictory, special relativity is false and then how can a true
result be a prediction of a false theory?

An analogy. The frequency shift factor 1+phi/c^2 (a true result) is
consistent with Newton's principle of variability of speed of light
(the c+v principle) and inconsistent with Einstein's principle of
constancy of speed of light (the c principle). Einsteinians have
managed to camouflage the problem by declaring that the frequency shift
factor is a result of the general relativity, and in their zombie world
this means that the inconsistency between 1+phi/c^2 and the principle
of constancy of speed of light simply does not matter.

As usual, Pentcho Valev does not understand when or where to apply SR.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

Pentcho Valev

The Origin of Unscientific Equation, E=Mc^2.

It starts from the special theory of relativity for mass,
m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. If you expand this to be a poly-nominal series,
it gives, m=m'[1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . . .].

Since v/c is negligibly small as in usual case, you can eliminate after
third term. Thus the simplified equation becomes, (m-m')c^2
=1/2m'v^2=E, and E=mc^2.

Do you think that this false equation can explain the Atomic Nuclear
Energy? Nonsense, absolutely! E=mc^2 is simply unscientific.

If you cannot neglect v/c, you should know another way of proving the
unscientific nature of E=mc^2.
Dr. Hansik Yoon disproved both deBroglei equation, λ=h/p, and one of
the key equations in the particle physics, E=hν.

From these two unscientific equations, another false equation, E=mc^2
is directly derived:

When deBroglei equation is applied to a photon(QM theorists defined
that photon has zero mass, so they defined arbitrarily, E=pc, pc=hν),
it becomes 1/ν=h/mc, where λ=1/ν, p=mc. Then the unscientific
equation, E=mc^2, is derived, combining with E=hν.

The real problem with E=Mc^2 is that this equation does not suggest any
information concerning the nuclear activities producing the nuclear
energy in the atomic nuclear structures.

This equation is nothing but the half of the kinetic energy of mass
moving at the speed of light.


Based on "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik Yoon
( http://www.yoonsatom.net and http://yoonsphysics.blogspot.com/ )

"newedana" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Origin of Unscientific Equation, E=Mc^2.

It starts from the special theory of relativity for mass,
m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. If you expand this to be a poly-nominal series,
it gives, m=m'[1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . . .].

Since v/c is negligibly small as in usual case, you can eliminate after
third term. Thus the simplified equation becomes, (m-m')c^2
=1/2m'v^2=E, and E=mc^2.



AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS

_______________________________

VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1. Jan 1965

_______________________________



Evidence Against Emission Theories

J.G. Fox

Another proof, more closely related to the present discussion, may be made
by the following modification of a demonstration due to Langevin. Consider
a source which is at rest with respect to an observer O and which radiates a
simultaneous, oppositely directed pair of equal quanta, hu, e.g.,
annihilation radiation. While the total energy radiated is ?E = 2hu, the
total momentum radiated is zero, so the source remains at rest with respect
to O.

Now, consider this phenomenon from the point of view of an observer O' who
moves with respect to O with the constant velocity v = bc along the line
defined by the radiation. On account of the first-order Doppler effect O'
observes two quanta with the frequencies hu (1 + b) and hu (1 - b). He thus
concludes that a net amount of momentum hu(1+b)/c - hu (1-b)/c = 2hub/c is
emitted in the direction in which the source and O appear to move with
respect to him. From the conservation principle for momentum he concludes
that the source loses this same quantity of momentum. Now the velocity of
the source with respect to O' does not change since it remains at rest with
respect to O, as has been seen. Thus O' is forced to conclude that the mass
of the source has decreased by an amount Dm, where (Dm)u = 2hub/c. Thus,
Dm = DE/c2.

Androcles.



Do you think that this false equation can explain the Atomic Nuclear
Energy? Nonsense, absolutely! E=mc^2 is simply unscientific.

If you cannot neglect v/c, you should know another way of proving the
unscientific nature of E=mc^2.
Dr. Hansik Yoon disproved both deBroglei equation, ?=h/p, and one of
the key equations in the particle physics, E=h?.

From these two unscientific equations, another false equation, E=mc^2
is directly derived:

When deBroglei equation is applied to a photon(QM theorists defined
that photon has zero mass, so they defined arbitrarily, E=pc, pc=h?),
it becomes 1/?=h/mc, where ?=1/?, p=mc. Then the unscientific
equation, E=mc^2, is derived, combining with E=h?.

The real problem with E=Mc^2 is that this equation does not suggest any
information concerning the nuclear activities producing the nuclear
energy in the atomic nuclear structures.

This equation is nothing but the half of the kinetic energy of mass
moving at the speed of light.


Based on "Natural Science Founded on A New Atomic Model" by Hansik Yoon
( http://www.yoonsatom.net and http://yoonsphysics.blogspot.com/ )

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Kinane wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
"newedana" wrote in message
oups.com...


Now, assume the particle comes to rest, i.e., v = 0. How shall we
interpret E = mc^2? It's not an energy associated with speed and it's
not dependent on any model of the particle. We shall interpret it as a
latent energy. How latent energy is to be transformed into kinetic or
some other form of energy is separate question.

....

The real problem with E=Mc^2 is that this equation does not suggest
any
information concerning the nuclear activities producing the nuclear
energy in the atomic nuclear structures.

That's because it's not an equation dependent on a particular atomic
theory or model. Furthermore, it's been shown to apply rigorously at
the subatomic level.


Leaving aside Relativism, which I regard as adolescent philosophy - one
step
above infantilism (Absolutism- -Categoricalism) - and attempting to be
Effectuationist:

Re "E=mc^2": Let's start over; let's attempt to make our own formula.

Taking "E": Before quantification of something effects, the concept
effects - the identity emerges.

So, (perhaps somewhat the reverse of the equation) what is this energy -
which we want to address - which becomes packeted as mass?

Presumably, we talk of "latent energy" or, perhaps better, "the nuclear
activities producing the nuclear energy in the atomic nuclear
structures".
So, what do we have there?

Is your question rhetorical? If you really want me to tell you what
energy is, from what formal point of view shall I reply, given that you
have dissed the relativistic point of view?


I am interested in attempting to engage about this, as a matter of
exploration.

Effectuationist Principle:
"Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship 'of forces' -
'forces' indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted".

(This is rather analogous to a floor of people of a disco dance. Groups
begin to form. They (the groups) remain somewhat open - have some
interchange - so effectively are indefinite and dynamic. This group
emergence is reliant upon trial and error of potential FoR in the initial
comparative chaos - indeed, inferentially, many potential FoRs.
In any such emerging group - emerging through somewhat recurrence - the
frame of reference too remains somewhat open - variations of mood, for
example. Of course, inferentially, there are many frames of reference -
effectively each dancer, and with somewhat different inter-change with other
groups. So, effectively, the group is indefinite and dynamic and so too the
FoR-dancer, quite apart from inferentially. And so there is a range of
potential of the buzz which effects - again, even apart from the inferential
clause).

1. Dance to effect emerging concept of E (energy).
2. Emerging concept will be doubly indefinite and dynamic: somewhat open
tension of relationship 'of forces' and somewhat open emerging frame of
reference.

Concept E having fairly well crystallized, we can experiment with various
potential forms - to effect a buzz to our liking.

That can be either to define different masses or to explore potential masses
or to ...

Perhaps this premise has the potential to take our relationship with E into
new paradigms - though Rome was not built in a day. (If not, blame the DJ).

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com

newedana alias Hansik Yoon:
It starts from the special theory of relativity for mass,
m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2.

Before criticizing what you obviously do not understand get you facts
straight
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

Bill

newedana wrote:
The Origin of Unscientific Equation, E=Mc^2.

It starts from the special theory of relativity for mass,
m=m'(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. If you expand this to be a poly-nominal series,
it gives, m=m'[1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . . .].

Since v/c is negligibly small as in usual case, you can eliminate after
third term. Thus the simplified equation becomes, (m-m')c^2
=1/2m'v^2=E, and E=mc^2.

Do you think that this false equation can explain the Atomic Nuclear
Energy? Nonsense, absolutely! E=mc^2 is simply unscientific.

Equations don't explain; theories explain. The correct way to do this
is as follows:

Let m be the rest mass of a particle. The relativistic energy of the
particle is given as

E = \gamma mc^2,

where \gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2 and v is the speed of the particle in
some inertial frame.

Now, \gamma expands in a binomial series as

1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . .

So, substituting in, we get

E = [1+1/2(v/c)^2 + 3/8(v/c)^4 +. . . .]mc^2

or

E = mc^2+(1/2)mv^2 + higher-order terms in v^2

Now, assume the particle comes to rest, i.e., v = 0. How shall we
interpret E = mc^2? It's not an energy associated with speed and it's
not dependent on any model of the particle. We shall interpret it as a
latent energy. How latent energy is to be transformed into kinetic or
some other form of energy is separate question.

.....

The real problem with E=Mc^2 is that this equation does not suggest any
information concerning the nuclear activities producing the nuclear
energy in the atomic nuclear structures.

That's because it's not an equation dependent on a particular atomic
theory or model. Furthermore, it's been shown to apply rigorously at
the subatomic level.

EMCC is based on the second Newton's law which I find to be incorrect.
The law of lever states: F_1/M_1=F_2/M_2=G. It's sort of insisting
G=const in F=GM. Force and mass make analogy what a ****ing anal orgy
that excludes the use of mass when you get the lever in your ass.
http://dedanoe.tripod.com

"dedanoe" wrote in message
oups.com...
EMCC is based on the second Newton's law which I find to be incorrect.

Since Newton's second law is basically a definition you are obviously
mistaken.

The law of lever states: F_1/M_1=F_2/M_2=G.

That is not Newton's second law. Learn the basics then repost.

Bill

It's sort of insisting
G=const in F=GM. Force and mass make analogy what a ****ing anal orgy
that excludes the use of mass when you get the lever in your ass.
http://dedanoe.tripod.com