Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Chapt15.52 correcting two errors of Old Physics-- no Doppler Redshift
possible and Solid Body Rotation requires gravity to be EM-gravity #1295 New
Physics #1415 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 1   Last Post: Mar 16, 2013 3:00 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Guest

Watch Watch this User
Re: Chapt15.52 correcting two errors of Old Physics-- no Doppler Redshift possible and Solid Body Rotation requires gravity to be EM-gravity #1295 New Physics #1415 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted: Mar 16, 2013 3:00 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> 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
> special-relativity 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
> dark-matter and dark-energy, 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, rest-mass, 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
> top-heavy in hate-spew
> generated by search-engine-bombing. 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.


This is because your posts are GARBAGE, imbecile. No one here wants your off-topic complete garbage, you sorry buffoon.

I contacted Niuz.biz today about your libel, I think they will go on with a lawsuit. It figures that the more you open your mouth, the less you know what you're talking about.

Go fuck yourself.

Now go
>
> 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 electron-dot-cloud are galaxies




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.