Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Chapt15.52 correcting two errors of Old Physics no Doppler Redshift possible and Solid Body Rotation requires gravity to be EMgravity #1295 New Physics #1415 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Mar 16, 2013 3:00 AM




Chapt15.52 correcting two errors of Old Physics no Doppler Redshift possible and Solid Body Rotation requires gravity to be EMgravity #1295 New Physics #1415 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 2:33 AM


Alright, I would like to spend the last 5 pages of New Physics assembling the Glossary so I can remember where I left off when starting the 6th edition.
About the 4th chapter should discuss the error of a Doppler redshift of light, because the Maxwell Equations do not allow for it. Light is relativistic physics and so it matters not what speed the source origin is going for light travels at only one speed. In Old Physics, they were just too much excited over a prospect of gathering distances to stars by wanting and wishing for a Doppler shift to give distance. But science does not work on wish and dream fulfillment, but rather science works on laws and the laws of specialrelativity of the Maxwell Equations does not grant a Doppler shift for light. The redshift occurs because light is traveling in a space that is highly curved, and when light is bent because space is curved, it shifts to a more red wavelength. Doppler shifting does occur in sound waves, but not light waves.
Another huge error of Old Physics was a failure to report all the instances of Rigid Body Rotation or Solid Body Rotation, such as Saturn's Rings, Red Spot of Jupiter, sunspots and flares of the Sun and the many galaxies with solid body rotation. The way old physicists of Old Physics handled solid body rotation was that they under reported instances of it, and when they actually reported instances, they applied a false conjecture to solve the problem they imagined darkmatter and darkenergy, rather than simply say that Newtonian gravity or General Relativity gravity are fake theories that can never account for solid body rotation.
But I wrote lots and lots about those two errors and so all I need is to organize.
But let me not forget to include the derivation of the E=mc^2 via Maxwell Equations.
Deriving E=mcc purely from the Maxwell Equations; energy ?and mass are dualities not equivalencies Alright, I need a chapter on how the Maxwell Equations derives E = mc^2, which I like better writing as E = mcc I like that because in the analysis we consider the maximum possible momentum of a mass m as being P = mc since there is no speed greater than c. So that we ask the relativistic question of the Maxwell Equations that ?commonplace energy of kinetic energy is E = 1/2 mvv and so, what is the maximum possible energy since the speed of light is maximum speed and it is a constant. Would we have E = 1/2mcc ? ?The answer is no, for the maximum would be mcc ?not 1/2mcc. In the literature there are many logical arguments that derive E = mcc, except they get hung up on not applying relativistic Maxwell Equations to eliminate the constant term of 1/2 or any other constant except that of 1. One Argument, usually called the Units argument:
E = FD, energy = force x distance
F = MA, force = mass x acceleration
E = MAD
V = D/T, velocity = distance/time
A = V/T, acceleration = velocity/time
A = D/TT
E = M(DD/TT) = Mcc
Now the reason that physicists never accepted that as a full fledged proof, is that they were unsure the constant in front of Mcc is something other than a 1. But in their haste to object to the argument, they failed to apply Maxwell Equations as relativistic. Application of Maxwell Equations: 1) c is a constant speed 2) c is a maximum speed
Now, we have E = M(DD/TT) = mc^2
If the constant K in Kmc^2 was something other than 1, suppose it was 1/2mcc as in kinetic energy 1/2mvv, then we have the speed of light less than c. If the constant K were greater than 1 then it violates the c as maximum speed.
Second Argument: ?We have a second logical units argument using momentum rather than ?kinetic energy:
P = MV, momentum equal to mass x velocity
P = FT, momentum equal to force x time
E = FD and relativistic D is thus c, for if not we violate c is a maximum
E = Fc
now since F = ma and where light speed cannot accelerate but remain the constant c we have
F = mc
Substituting we have
E = mcc
So the units argument of both kinetic energy and of momentum rely on removing all constants K except for the constant of 1. And those are removed by the two facts of light speed a constant and a maximum. Only the constant 1 allows no contradictions to light speed. But the logical argument above tells us more about the thorny issue of ?rest mass versus energy. Are we to believe that the two transitions from one to the other, as a equivalence or equality? Or better yet, that the two are dualities. For example when a electron and positron annihilate, are we to believe the rest mass no longer exists and converted to a light wave energy, or that the rest masses still exist in the light wave? For a answer to that question we look at electricity and magnetism. Are we to say that electricity equals or equivalent to magnetism? Or better say they are dualities, where depending on the experiment used, displays electricity more than magnetism or displays energy more than mass. A nice analogy is a slinky toy. The toy is rest mass of a particle when packaged in the box. When let loose and stretched as far as it can stretch it is energy wave. But it is still a particle, only a stretched particle. So physicists have to be very cautious about equal signs and equivalence statements, because when we get down to the axioms of physics, the Maxwell Equations, electricity, magnetism, particle, wave, restmass, charge, energy, time, distance, there is no equality or equivalence but duality and duality transformations. We do not speak of the equivalence of proton to electron to that of a neutron. We think of the proton and electron as duality of charge and that they reside inside the neutron until the neutron decays. So the formula 0 = 1 +1 is not saying the neutron equivalency of electron and proton, but rather the duality of parameters involved. We still use the equal sign and the equivalence sign borrowed from mathematics and we use the language of equal or equivalent, but in physics, we should not mistake our borrowing of mathematical symbols with what is physically going on. Energy is not equivalent to mass, nor is electricity equivalent to magnetism, but rather they are dualities of physics. Duality is a concept that is lower than what equality is a concept in mathematics. In fact, mathematics has no concept lower than equality. But Physics is richer than mathematics and physics subsumes all of mathematics. And so, in physics there is a concept of equality, but a concept even lower in that of duality.

Google's (and Bing's) searches and archives are topheavy in hatespew generated by searchenginebombing. And the Google archive stopped functioning properly by about May 2012 to accommodate Google's New Newsgroups. And recently Niuz.biz (Docendi.org) threatens to harm your computer if opening a post of mine.
The solution to the sci. newsgroups is to have the sciences hosted by colleges and universities such as Drexel University hosting sci.math, not by corporations like Google out to make money. Science belongs in education, not in money motivated corporations. Do I hear a University doing sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.biology, sci.geology, etc etc
Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electrondotcloud are galaxies



