A physicist on Wikipedia suggested I post here. He also said I would
get flamed, but such is life.

I had a thought, which I'm told is wrong, but no one has told me why
and where the problems in my logic/understandings lie. I would like to
learn and see if I can develop this line of thought in a more informed
manner.

Sorry about the length, but here it is:

When calculating the total energy of a moving object, physicists use
the equation E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2.

E is the total energy
m is the rest mass
p is the relativistic momentum
c is the speed of light.

This equation suggests that an object will gain energy as its relative
speed increases.

p is defined as γmv where γ is the relativistic element called the
Lorentz factor, defined to be 1/the square root of 1-v^2/c^2, v is the
relative velocity to the observer. This means that as v approaches the
value of c, γ will approach infinity. This takes the total energy
towards infinity.

The implication of this equation is that if a massive object is near a
relative speed of c, an impact with an object in the same inertial
frame as the observer could potentially release nearly an infinite
amount of energy. Equally, to accelerate an object to c would take an
infinite amount of energy.

Is it possible that this is not be the case?

An object moving relative to the observer will be observed to have
slower processes in accordance with the special theory of relativity.
Time, and thus an objects ability to express energy, appears to slow
down within any moving object. This means that if we accelerate an
object at a steady rate (according to the observer), the acceleration
within the observed object will be experienced as a steadily
increasing rate of acceleration.

For example, if the steady acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2 to the outside
observer, once time appears to be running at 1 second inside the
observed object for every 100 seconds for the observer, those within
the observed object will experience the acceleration at 980 m/s^2. As
the observer attempts to accelerate the object to a relative speed of
c, the acceleration experienced inside the observed object will be
nearly instantaneous.

This is why circular particle accelerators take so much power. As
objects approach very high relative speeds, any acceleration is going
to take more energy because we are effectively increasing the
acceleration. However, I must wonder whether the view that an object
is increasing its mass is the most accurate way of viewing this event.

So what about the first law of thermodynamics? Regardless of what is
going on within the observed object (the normality within) we, the
observers, are pouring in enormous amounts of energy to accelerate
even the tiniest particles to a large fraction of c. What work is
possibly being accomplished? Where is the energy going?

My suggestion is the work being done is changing the inertial frame.
The power necessary to actually change the rate of all the internal
process of every single particle of a massive object is enormous. But
this is exactly what the general theory of relativity suggests we are
doing every time we change the inertial frame of any massive object.

It is not unlike raising an object within a gravity field (putting
something on a hill). It is an act of turning kinetic energy into
potential energy.

For example, if an atomic bomb was detonated while passing an observer
at near the speed of light, its internal processes would be
experienced at a very different rate to that of the observer. (Note to
physicists: I realise that only a fraction of the bomb’s mass is
converted to energy (Per the physicist’s comment on my blog entry
(http://emergenceofus.blogspot.com/20...y-limits-when-
appearances.html), though I don’t understand why this is necessary to
stress.) Most likely, the observer will experience a mild increase in
heat, no dangerous levels radioactivity and certainly no shock waves
(from the explosion). This reason for this is time has slowed down so
much that the maximum rate of energy release will be drastically
slowed.

This is not unlike hibernation in complex animals: the energy
expenditure is minimised through the slowing of internal processes.

At the extreme, an object travelling at a relative speed of c can
release no energy from within because no processes can be observed
within an object travelling at c. This is not unlike the concept of
cryogenic freezing: no energy or change is expressed or experienced.

But what happens if we were to decelerate the detonating bomb into the
same inertial frame as the observer?

As the bomb approaches the same inertial frame as the observer, the
more quickly the internal process will appear to cycle. Energy can be
released at a much greater rate. As such the explosion becomes more
“noticeable�.

Note that the full extent of the proper energy, E=mc², can only be
fully experienced by the observer when the bomb and the observer are
within the same inertial frame.

So, what happens if our detonating atomic bomb is accelerated from c
into the same inertial frame as an observer?

The act of accelerating the bomb into the inertial frame of the
observer will bring into play the principles of the general theory of
relativity. Acceleration of any sort slows “time�, or the internal
processes. This means that the internal processes of our bomb are once
again slowed relative to the observer and the full power of E= mc² is
diminished. On the other hand, the potential energy from decelerating
the object into our inertial frame can be realised as kinetic energy.

At rest, a massive object has a maximum energy potential of mc². But
as soon as mass is in motion relative to an observer, the energy
derived from this part of the equation must be decreased even as the
potential energy from the change in inertial frame adds to the total
energy.

According the equation E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2, as an object approaches the
speed of light, the energy contained within will approach infinity. So
even if the rest mass energy is effectively reduced to zero, as an
object approaches c the energy potential of the momentum (p^2c^2) will
approach infinity. If v ever equals c, the denominator goes to zero.
The quotient dictates infinite energy.

But the problem is that the slower internal process of any massive
object will also affect what is now considered momentum energy,
especially as the rest mass m is once again included in this part of
the equation. (p^2c^2 where p=γmv)

None of this is reflected in the current equation.

This energy can only be experienced by capturing the relative speed
and converting it into energy. Once again, general relativity tells us
that any massive object experiencing the forces of acceleration will
slow the internal processes. Therefore, the maximum amount of
potential energy contained within the momentum of any mass is reduced.

One physicist (see comments on previous blog entry) felt the need to
distinguish the kinetic state of an object verse the actual energy
that can be experienced in reality by an observer. I cautiously
suggest that a theoretical energy state that cannot be experienced in
reality is not really part of reality. It is possible that the
faultless math is taking us to something similar to the ultra violet
catastrophe.

In reality, we lose energy in the very act of trying to access it. The
only question is: will the energy loss exceed the gain predicted by an
equation that suggests infinite energy?

The most violent collision possible for anyone to observe within our
universe is two objects colliding head-on at just under the speed of
light. For the purposes of examining the extremes, let’s just assume
the two objects are both travelling at exactly c relative to an
observer.

It will seem to the observer that no time is passing within either
moving object. As such, there is no rest mass energy available. Even
infinite mass will yield no energy because no processes can be
expressed. However, the moment we begin the deceleration process, not
only do we gain some energy from the mass, we can begin to access the
enormous energy contained in the inertial frames. But the more we
access the potential energy, the more we the forces of acceleration
act upon the internal processes of the object, robbing it of its full
proper energy potential (E= mc²). The general theory of relativity
tells us that the processes needed to express the energy are being
slowed which reduces the amount of energy that can be expressed at any
given moment.

A collision between two equally massive objects will bring both of
them into the inertial frame of the observer nearly instantly. There
would be so much going on within such a collision that the math would
be incredibly convoluted.

However, consider the extreme: if both colliding objects were
converted totally into energy by the collision, what would the result
be? I would suggest that the maximum amount of energy released in such
an collision would be E=(m1+m2)c^2.

My suggestion is that mc^2 is the maximum amount of energy that can be
expressed in our universe by any massive object regardless of its
inertial frame.

Thus:

Postulate 1: Energy must be inside the same inertial frame as the
observer before it becomes relevant. Postulate 2: E=mc² is a universal
energy maximum for any given amount of mass, regardless of its
inertial frame of reference and its associated momentum. Thus

(mass at rest)c^2 – (mass in motion)c^2 = p (easily testable with the
right equipment)

It could be that the act of creating relative movement is simply an
act of translating proper energy into a potential energy in the form
of a different inertial frame. The system as a whole neither gains nor
loses energy. The energy expended to create acceleration is spent by
doing the work of slowing the processes down within the system. That
is why the special theory of relativity is only relevant to observed
objects. Regardless of how an object may appear to an observer (nearly
infinite mass, no time, no length) the experience within that object
is one of normality.

Thank you very much for looking at this. I look forward to the flames
of learning.

Tim

Dear curiouseeker:

wrote in message
ups.com...
....
The implication of this equation is that if a massive
object is near a relative speed of c, an impact with
an object in the same inertial frame as the observer
could potentially release nearly an infinite amount
of energy. Equally, to accelerate an object to c
would take an infinite amount of energy.

Is it possible that this is not be the case?

Anything is possible, however this can be experimentally verified
and is correct. Electrons have been accelerated to the point
that they are as difficult to accelerate along the path as
protons (relativistic mass roughly equal), yet are moving slower
than c. And all the energy is delivered up upon "capture".

David A. Smith

wrote in message
ups.com...
A physicist on Wikipedia suggested I post here. He also said I would
get flamed, but such is life.

I had a thought, which I'm told is wrong, but no one has told me why
and where the problems in my logic/understandings lie. I would like to
learn and see if I can develop this line of thought in a more informed
manner.

Sorry about the length, but here it is:

When calculating the total energy of a moving object, physicists use
the equation E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2.

E is the total energy
m is the rest mass
p is the relativistic momentum
c is the speed of light.

This equation suggests that an object will gain energy as its relative
speed increases.

p is defined as ?mv where ? is the relativistic element called the
Lorentz factor, defined to be 1/the square root of 1-v^2/c^2, v is the
relative velocity to the observer. This means that as v approaches the
value of c, ? will approach infinity. This takes the total energy
towards infinity.

The implication of this equation is that if a massive object is near a
relative speed of c, an impact with an object in the same inertial
frame as the observer could potentially release nearly an infinite
amount of energy. Equally, to accelerate an object to c would take an
infinite amount of energy.

Is it possible that this is not be the case?

---------------
Harald writes:
Anything is possible. However, accelerator experiments up to collossal
energies do agree.
---------------

An object moving relative to the observer will be observed to have
slower processes in accordance with the special theory of relativity.
Time, and thus an objects ability to express energy, appears to slow
down within any moving object. This means that if we accelerate an
object at a steady rate (according to the observer), the acceleration
within the observed object will be experienced as a steadily
increasing rate of acceleration.

For example, if the steady acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2 to the outside
observer, once time appears to be running at 1 second inside the
observed object for every 100 seconds for the observer, those within
the observed object will experience the acceleration at 980 m/s^2. As
the observer attempts to accelerate the object to a relative speed of
c, the acceleration experienced inside the observed object will be
nearly instantaneous.

This is why circular particle accelerators take so much power. As
objects approach very high relative speeds, any acceleration is going
to take more energy because we are effectively increasing the
acceleration. However, I must wonder whether the view that an object
is increasing its mass is the most accurate way of viewing this event.

-----------------
Mass increase is a convenient way to look at it. But that has more to do
with customs and philosophy than with accuracy: people still use the same
mathematics.
-----------------

So what about the first law of thermodynamics? Regardless of what is
going on within the observed object (the normality within) we, the
observers, are pouring in enormous amounts of energy to accelerate
even the tiniest particles to a large fraction of c. What work is
possibly being accomplished? Where is the energy going?

----------------
For an electron some explain it as follows: the energy goes into building
up its magnetic "field". The increase of its relativistic mass measures its
increased field energy.
----------------

My suggestion is the work being done is changing the inertial frame.

-------------
It costs no energy at all to change the reference: you are free to choose
any inertial "frame" for your calculation, just as in Newtonian mechanics.

Good luck with the flames. :-)

Harald

On Aug 8, 7:35 am, wrote:

At rest, a massive object has a maximum energy potential of mc².
My suggestion is that mc^2 is the maximum amount of energy that
can be expressed in our universe by any massive object regardless of its
inertial frame.


It *has* been written that invariant properties are fundamentally
"real" and invariant (relative) properties are "fictional".

mc^2 is invariant ("real"), pc is relative ("fictional"), so there are
fundamentally sound philosophical grounds for considering mc^2 to be
both the maximum *and* minimum (i.e. invariant) energy of a massive
object.

Postulate 1: Energy must be inside the same inertial frame as the
observer before it becomes relevant. Postulate 2: E=mc² is a universal
energy maximum for any given amount of mass, regardless of its
inertial frame of reference and its associated momentum. Thus

(mass at rest)c^2 - (mass in motion)c^2 = p (easily testable with the
right equipment)


Effectively, what you seem to be suggesting doing is to treat rest
energy as an invariant 4-vector (magnitude mc^2) with temporal and
spatial components in any given inertial frame.

(m_rest*c^2)^2 = (m_relativistic*c^2)^2 + (pc)^2

in place of the conventional:

E^2= (m_rest*c^2)^2+(pc)^2

which can be written as:

(m_rest*c^2)^2 = -E^2+(pc)^2.

or

(m_rest*c^2)^2 = -E^2+(pc)^2.

Effectively you've transformed

-E^2 into (m_relativistic*c^2)^2

which, when written as:

E = i(m_relativistic)*c^2

is somewhat analogous to a Wick rotation,

Such a treatment is mathematically as consistent as SR, with some
interesting geometric results.

For example, Newton's law (Force= ma) becomes transformed in such a
way that a constant force on an object causes a constant angular
rotation of the energy 4-vector away from the time axis.

At 90 degrees, we get E = 0, m_relative = 0, v_relative = c and


(m_rest*c^2)^2 = -E^2+(pc)^2 =(pc)^2

For v 90 degrees, v_relative c, making c the maximum velocity for
an object relative to any inertial frame.

And so on...

Love,
Jenny

On Aug 8, 8:35 am, wrote:
A physicist on Wikipedia

What's a "physicist on Wikipedia"? Do you just mean some
person in a Wikipedia discussion group, where the page
under discussion was on a physics topic?

suggested I post here. He also said I would
get flamed, but such is life.

Newbie questions, if that's what this is, don't
generally get flamed here.

This will be an exercise in critical reading. You will
get serious, knowledgeable answers, and you will get
crackpot answers. You are going to have to figure out
which is which.

I had a thought, which I'm told is wrong, but no one has told me why
and where the problems in my logic/understandings lie. I would like to
learn and see if I can develop this line of thought in a more informed
manner.

Sorry about the length, but here it is:

When calculating the total energy of a moving object, physicists use
the equation E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2.

E is the total energy
m is the rest mass
p is the relativistic momentum
c is the speed of light.

This equation suggests that an object will gain energy as its relative
speed increases.

p is defined as γmv where γ is the relativistic element called the
Lorentz factor, defined to be 1/the square root of 1-v^2/c^2, v is the
relative velocity to the observer. This means that as v approaches the
value of c, γ will approach infinity. This takes the total energy
towards infinity.

Yes.

The implication of this equation is that if a massive object is near a
relative speed of c, an impact with an object in the same inertial
frame as the observer could potentially release nearly an infinite
amount of energy.

What's "near infinite"? You have to think about what it
means to "approach infinity". It's true that gamma
increases without bound as v approaches c. But it's
also true that at any particular value of v, gamma is
a fixed, finite number, say 1000. Is 1000 "near infinite"?

Equally, to accelerate an object to c would take an
infinite amount of energy.

Yes, so the implication is that v is always some
value strictly less than c, and gamma is some finite
number.

Is it possible that this is not be the case?

No, it is the case. It is approximately as hard (in terms
of the work expended) to accelerate an object from a
gamma of 5 to a gamma of 6, as to accelerate from a
gamma of 1000 to a gamma of 1001. If you work out
the corresponding velocities, you'll find that the
second involves much less of a change of velocity.

But it still isn't a "nearly infinite momentum" or
a "nearly infinite energy".

An object moving relative to the observer will be observed to have
slower processes in accordance with the special theory of relativity.

Imprecision in such statements leads to a lot of
trouble and confusion. You have to be careful to
describe the experiment precisely enough to say
how this observation is taking place, and who is doing
the observing.

Aboard a moving spacecraft (for example) things appear
to be normal. The time dilation effect kicks in when
you want to compare events which spacecraft passengers
think are one second apart, to events on earth.

Time, and thus an objects ability to express energy, appears to slow
down within any moving object.

According to who? Not according to people on the object.
That may be the source of your confusion.

This means that if we accelerate an
object at a steady rate (according to the observer), the acceleration
within the observed object will be experienced as a steadily
increasing rate of acceleration.

For example, if the steady acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2 to the outside
observer, once time appears to be running at 1 second inside the
observed object for every 100 seconds for the observer, those within
the observed object will experience the acceleration at 980 m/s^2.

No. Again, you have to define your experiment
more carefully. Generally, such accelerated thought
experiments are defined so that there is a constant
rocket thrust. But that's not a constant acceleration
in terms of rate of change of velocity.

Suppose you are at 299792457 m/sec, 1 m/sec away from
c. If you continue accelerating at 1 g (i.e. so that
it feels like 1 g inside the spacecraft), you aren't
going to accelerate to 299792457+9.8 m/sec in the
next second, which would be larger than c. Instead,
in the next second your speed will be just slightly
closer to c.

As
the observer attempts to accelerate the object to a relative speed of
c, the acceleration experienced inside the observed object will be
nearly instantaneous.

Here you're being sloppy with starting to talk about
approaching c, then suddenly saying you're at c.

Objects with mass can't move at c. Velocity is always
some value less than c.

This is why circular particle accelerators take so much power. As
objects approach very high relative speeds, any acceleration is going
to take more energy because we are effectively increasing the
acceleration.

Sort of. What I said above about accelerating from a gamma
of 1000 to a gamma of 1001.

But that doesn't translate into "effectively increasing
the acceleration."

The correct way to treat a constant force is to use the
equation F = dp/dt, which is not the same as F = ma.

However, I must wonder whether the view that an object
is increasing its mass is the most accurate way of viewing this event.

It's not.

I think that's enough misconceptions for now.

- Randy

On Aug 8, 7:35Â*am, wrote:
A physicist on Wikipedia suggested I post here. He also said I would
get flamed, but such is life.

I had a thought, which I'm told is wrong, but no one has told me why
and where the problems in my logic/understandings lie. I would like to
learn and see if I can develop this line of thought in a more informed
manner.

Sorry about the length,

I'm going to proceed to the first couple of places where there is a
significant problem and isolate that, and let you decide what you want
to do with the lengthy remainder.

but here it is:

When calculating the total energy of a moving object, physicists use
the equation E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2.

E is the total energy
m is the rest mass
p is the relativistic momentum
c is the speed of light.

This equation suggests that an object will gain energy as its relative
speed increases.

p is defined as γmv where γ is the relativistic element called the
Lorentz factor, defined to be 1/the square root of 1-v^2/c^2, v is the
relative velocity to the observer. This means that as v approaches the
value of c, γ will approach infinity. This takes the total energy
towards infinity.

The implication of this equation is that if a massive object is near a
relative speed of c, an impact with an object in the same inertial
frame as the observer could potentially release nearly an infinite
amount of energy. Equally, to accelerate an object to c would take an
infinite amount of energy.

Is it possible that this is not be the case?

If it were flat out not the case, we would have seen that a long, long
time ago. Particle accelerators from the time of the first cyclotron
over 60 years ago have measured this increase in energy, and it is in
complete agreement with the expression you wrote above. In fact, if it
were not the case, then modern accelerators would not and could not
work at all, since that dependence is built directly into the design.


An object moving relative to the observer will be observed to have
slower processes in accordance with the special theory of relativity.
Time, and thus an objects ability to express energy, appears to slow
down within any moving object.

This is the second place where you have an error. There is no innate
rate of "ability to express energy". For example, if there is a two-
particle collision, there is no slowing of the transfer of momentum
and energy from one particle to the other observed. Your assumption
that there should be, because the "clock" in the moving particle is
slowed down, is erroneous, and in fact it is counter to the principle
of relativity itself.

PD

Subject: a relative question

wrote:
A physicist on Wikipedia suggested I post here.
He also said I would get flamed, but such is life.


deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Remove ... for e-mail.
comments about mass.

Some of the things being said here about mass make
some interesting points for me. Let me explain one
or two things about mass as I have seen it work in
the at theory.

First of all, there is mass in the ether field.
In fact, that is all that the ether consists of, of
particles of mass, having no other characteristics
other than their mass, and the motions of their mass.
So there is kinetic energy and momentum, due both to
linear motions and to spins.
Now these ether particles of mass are constantly
colliding with other large particles in the ether.
But all collisions on this level result in spalls!
Ether particles do at times also collide with
each other, but
they are so small that they do not collide very often
with each other, and when they do collide, the
majority of times result in an equal net exchange of
mass, and the collision ends up being meaningless.
(The only time forces are created is when the
exchange of mass that occurs in a spall produces two
new sizes of particles. In any one collision, if one
particle increases in size, then of course the other
must decrease in size.)
Now these ether particles, in hitting and spalling
with all other particles that exist within the ether
field, could in fact add mass to every particle being
hit. These ether particles could also remove mass
from any and all particles that are present within
the field. A particle could actually disappear
(become part of the ether field.) But that is not
normal. Changes in mass are normal only within a
very small range: there is a QM exchange of mass
going on continuously. And in fact, it is this
constant exchange of mass that allows there to be all
the forces that exist in the ether.
Basic force fields in the ether are created when
some large particle, A, acts as follows: Let particle
A, in its spalls with the ether, cause all ether
spalls to be of medium size only. Thus, a large
ether particle will spall a medium size ether
particle that causes particle A to become temporarily
larger. But when a small ether particle spalls with
particle A, it also spalls a medium size ether
particle, and particle A then returns back to its
more normal size. So around a type A particle, the
ether field becomes more narrow in its distribution,
now being found with more medium size particles.
Now another large particle B does the following:
It only allows a mix of large or small ether
particles. When a medium size ether particle hits
particle B, particle B spalls at one time (50% of the
time) a large size ether particle, and at other times
(the other 50% of the time) a medium size ether
particle results in a spall of a smaller size ether
particles. So around particle A, the distribution of
sizes of ether particles are reduced, and around
particle B, the distribution of sizes of ether
particles are increased. But the total mass remains
the same. And neither particle A or particle B
change their total mass over any large time period.

All the major field effects in the ether are thus
due to these changes in the mix of sizes in the ether
field, not due to any total change in the mass or
even the energy. And these changes in the mix can be
almost endless, both in terms of their amounts (total
number of particles involved) or degree (range of
changes in sizes), as well as to the nature of these
changes (deviations around the mid ranges or changes
in deviations at the extremities, etc.) And other
particles can react only on one set of differences or
to another set, etc.) These choices are endless.
And both charge like reactions and gravity like
reactions can all be accommodated within such
variables.
And obtaining equal and opposite responses is, in
many of these relationships, automatic. It just
happens since the creation of one mix automatically
creates an opposite mix. To explain this a little
requires this kind of thinking: The average mix in
the ether will be due to the combined effects of all
particles. If you have one set of particles that
cause a reduction of size distribution, and another
causing an increase, then if the number of these two
particles are equal in terms of the interactions that
are occurring, then the average of the ether
distribution will be the sum of both sets of
particles. The deviation being caused by one becomes
the exact equal or balance to what is being caused by
the other, and this cannot be prevented.
If one type of particle were to change, then over
time, the average would also change. And in the end,
a balance would return to the total mix as
equilibrium is eventually achieved over time.

So here we see that the normal forces of nature
are not really based upon the continuous addition or
loss of mass or energy or number of particles (such
as the shading done by LeSage), but the changes in
the mix of ether particle sizes and the reactions to
these changes in mix of sizes, all based upon the
continuous exchange of mass back and forth between
different particles using the ether as a medium and
the spall process.
Please note that these changes in mix really can
be assumed to be imaginary particles, and with these
particles representing the size of the changes in the
mix, we gain the full QM approach of using exchange
particles to include particle, anti-particle duality,
a reasonably fixed field velocity, and a momentum and
energy exchange that appears to be non-Newtonian. It
really is Newtonian, but we are just not used to the
results that can be obtained from spall mechanics.
So now the point that I want to make: If any
particle did actually grow in mass, have mass
actually added to it, that would be a high order
disruption of everything, and it would immediately
affect all things around it. It just does not occur,
unless you have an atomic bomb like reaction.
So yes, I would be happy to find that these gains
in mass are some other act that produces the same
final effect, but is not an actual gain in real mass.
But again, real gains in mass really is possible with
the ether, it is just that I do not know how to allow
this without a lot of other things that appear likely
to happen.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Subject: a relative question

wrote:
A physicist on Wikipedia suggested I post here.
He also said I would get flamed, but such is life.


deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Remove ... for e-mail.
comments about mass.

Some of the things being said here about mass make
some interesting points for me. Let me explain one
or two things about mass as I have seen it work in
the at theory.

First of all, there is mass in the ether field.
In fact, that is all that the ether consists of, of
particles of mass, having no other characteristics
other than their mass, and the motions of their mass.
So there is kinetic energy and momentum, due both to
linear motions and to spins.

How do you know .. noone has ever detected the supposed ether

Now these ether particles of mass are constantly
colliding with other large particles in the ether.
But all collisions on this level result in spalls!

Oh god .. here goes that nonsense AT theory again
[snip]

Jeckyl wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
wrote:
. . .

deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Remove ... for e-mail.
comments about mass.

Some of the things being said here about mass make
some interesting points for me. Let me explain one
or two things about mass as I have seen it work in
the at theory.
First of all, there is mass in the ether field.
In fact, that is all that the ether consists of, of
particles of mass, having no other characteristics
other than their mass, and the motions of their mass.
So there is kinetic energy and momentum, due both to
linear motions and to spins. . . .

Jeckyl wrote:
How do you know .. noone has ever detected
the supposed ether


O'Barr comments:
I am sorry for you, Jeckyl, that you are
so blind with your own eyes that you are
unable to see with you own eyes what is directly
obvious. Everyone who looks sees the ether.
Every photon that is seen to be moving at the
exact same speed as every other photon in
empty space, no matter from what source or
source velocity it starts from, is
seeing the affects of the ether, for that is the
only way that these equal velocities can be
obtained and maintained.


O'Barr wrote:
Now these ether particles of mass are constantly
colliding with other large particles in the ether.
But all collisions on this level result in spalls!
. . . .

Jeckyl wrote:
... here goes that nonsense AT theory again

O'Barr comments:
Again, the at theory is not nonsense. It is basic
Newtonian physics, and it is fully established by
computer programming on every point it makes.
Even you can test it on your own computer.
I must admit that I do not have a full 3-D program to
show, but I sure can show it working on simple space-
time diagrams where directional forces can be observed.
This theory is the first theory that has been
successful in obtaining attractive forces by using
Newtonian particals where full conservation of
mass, kinetic energy and momentum is being fully
and completely maintained for all collisions.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
wrote:
. . .

deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Remove ... for e-mail.
comments about mass.

Some of the things being said here about mass make
some interesting points for me. Let me explain one
or two things about mass as I have seen it work in
the at theory.
First of all, there is mass in the ether field.
In fact, that is all that the ether consists of, of
particles of mass, having no other characteristics
other than their mass, and the motions of their mass.
So there is kinetic energy and momentum, due both to
linear motions and to spins. . . .

Jeckyl wrote:
How do you know .. noone has ever detected
the supposed ether


O'Barr comments:
I am sorry for you, Jeckyl,

Liar

[snip more religious nonsense from O'Barr, worhsipper of the ether in the
mystical temple of AT]