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 EMgravity #1295 New Physics #1415 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Mar 16, 2013 3:00 AM




Re: 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 3:00 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.
This is because your posts are GARBAGE, imbecile. No one here wants your offtopic 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 electrondotcloud are galaxies



