Date: Dec 5, 2012 12:01 PM
Author: mahipal7638@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Stephen Fry does something no human has ever done before

On Dec 4, 8:33 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@December2012.org> wrote:
> "Mahipal"  wrote in message
>
> news:669bd979-a622-4e0c-ad5d-36f0620da576@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...


[trim, because there are too many distracting "> > > > > ... >"]

> > > > Not sure how I got thinking supernova in this thread. Anyway, your
> > > > proposition is clearly a basic speed of light plus or minus the source
> > > > speed issue. Let's just focus on the principle from now on. You do
> > > > realize if I pursued such thoughts in any Liberal Arts Academia, that
> > > > I likely wouldn't get a passing enough grade to return for the next
> > > > semester? Might even get me banned from some websites of late.
> > > > ======================================================
> > > > Do you care?

>
> > > That's like... Is the cat in the box both dead and alive?
>
> > > > If so just tell them Einstein said
> > > > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
> > > > in
> > > > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that t = x'/(c-v) "
> > > > <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif>
> > > > Who am I (or you) to challenge the great Ayatollah Saint Einstein?

>
> > > Ayatollah Relativist Saint Einstein (ARSE)?
> > > =========================================
> > > Appropriate acronym, but it's actually Ayatollah Rabbi Saint Einstein
> > > to include Islam, Judaism and Xtianity into the religion of Relativity.
> > > He was after all of Jewish origin. One could give him more titles but
> > > the world has far too many religions. With Cha-cha-hanson taking his
> > > extreme umbrage against Jews I didn't want to appear as an anti-Semite,
> > > I'm no racist but merely anti-religion.

>
> > In Usenet archives, there's a thought experiment named, not by me, The
> > Law of the Conservation of Reason. Search for it. If I find it, I will
> > post its link.

>
> I found the hinted at links, took some work... but see
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/a9837b7...
>
> same ashttp://tinyurl.com/d6f6zle
>
> or, if you have more time and interest,
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/search?hl=en&q=conservati...
>
> same ashttp://tinyurl.com/bwkuv7q
>
> Mati Meron                         | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu    |  chances are he is doing just the same"
>
> He's long gone.
> When you agree with a fool the GUARANTEE is he's doing EXACTLY the same.


As catchy a phrase as Mati's sig line is, one is never a fool just by
mere association.

[trim]
> > > I may be having less time to interact here on Usenet, I have to get my
> > > life back on track. Going through a routine background check even as I
> > > do not real time tweet. I do have an account, that's got to look
> > > good...
> > > ===========================================
> > > Do what ya gotta do and good luck. I'll still be here.

>
> > Thanks! I will read only, since writing takes time, which I won't
> > have.

>
> > > -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> > > Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

>
> > Can you elaborate, it seems incomplete, or I cannot readily see its
> > association, on your comment on my meforce website:

>
> > "Actually it was
> > As the electron is to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not
> > give off any energy in the form of radiation, the energy withdrawn
> > from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to the energy
> > of motion W of the electron. Bearing in mind that during the whole
> > process of motion which we are considering, the first of the equations
> > (A) applies, we therefore obtain

>
> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img157.gif"
>
> > ================================================
> > It is the forerunner of E = mc^2.

>
> Ok thanks, but can you resubmit your comment with more details regards
> "Actually it was" because some context is missing. It maybe obvious to
> you, but I myself cannot alter the contents of your thoughts.


Here I simply mean that wordpress allows only the contributor to edit
his words. At least, I do not feel comfortable making any changes to
others' submissions, even if possible. I might as well make up fake
criticisms per my own fictional expectations in that case.

> ===================================================
> The missing context was E = mc^2 which you provided.
> I was disagreeing with your claim that Einstein postulated E = mc^2,
> but I can only point out the content of your thought was wrong.


It's not _my_ claim, check your local News sites regards Einstein.
Nothing wrong about my choice of word "postulated." Per the Thesaurus,
I could alter it to one of:

postulate
verb
a theory postulated by a respected scientist: put forward, suggest,
advance, posit, hypothesize, propose; assume, presuppose, presume,
take for granted.

Einstein posited E = mc^2...

> > W is work, which has the same units as energy and was typically used
> > to mean the same thing. If you roll a ball uphill it gains the energy to
> > fall
> > back that is equivalent to the work you did rolling it uphill. Put a
> > hammer
> > on the shelf in the garage, it has enough energy to break your toe if the
> > cat knocks it off. You did the work lifting it to the shelf. E = 1/2 mv^2.

>
> > W = mc^2 { 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1}
> > Multiply that out,
> > W = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - mc^2

>
> > mc^2 is the rest mass multiplied c^2. The extra part, mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > is the word done in accelerating the electron to velocity v (according to
> > Einstein).

>
> Typo, work not word.
> ===================
> I stand corrected.
>

> > So rather than POSTULATING E = mc^2 as you claimed, he did actually
> > calculate it.

>
> I have learned, thanks to Usenet interactions, alright mostly thanks
> to hanson at first, that EInstein was not even the originator of the
> infamous E = mc^2. Most college and beyond physics teachers tend to
> treat this equation as a throwaway since it is so ridiculously
> popular. Hearing of it is like nails on a blackboard. I myself have
> long forgotten how I first got exposed to it. Must've been bombarded
> at me in the third grade, I suspect. I can envision my teachers
> dancing and hand waving away in front of my wtf are you doing eyes?!
>
> Calculate does not seem to be a synonym for postulate, so I do not yet
> feel compelled to change the word as I've used it. My 1987 work is
> poetic first and foremost. Some people simply like, how the two
> opening words are "Our friend" and relax smile at the suggestion. In
> the later version (the pdf link) I dawn on a more mature tone.
>
> For sure, bottom line, independent of its many Many MANY available
> derivations, d(me) =/= 0 is a truism, and "me always changes" is a
> mere neat available linguistic twist. Only works in English is one
> strong complaint against the thought. Why me? Why not alpha*beta, for
> instance? Not my problem. Maybe revisionistic historians can travel
> back, there's a train at nine, in time and alter the symbology. I'll
> wait.
>

> > Actually it was there all the time once conservation of momentum is taken
> > into account.
> >  http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm

>
> I have read your page before and find your basing it on Newtonian
> mechanics to be interesting. But... since there are two projectiles in
> your formulation, shouldn't the total energy be
>
> Total energy = mc^2 +  mv^2
>
> instead of
>
> Total energy = mc^2 +  ½mv^2?
>
> The derivation on page 1126 of Serway's PHYSICS, 3rd edition, year
> 1990, is also based on the work-energy theorem.
>
> ==============================================
> The energy of one projectile is (1/2)mv^2.
> That is the work done to accelerate the mass m to velocity v by the chemical
> charge aka black powder/cordite.
> The other projectile has the opposite momentum and the same energy,
> and since 2 * (1/2)mv^2 = mv^2 the chemical charge must have had
> energy mv^2.


I kept dwelling on this and am comfortable with your total energy
equation. Each projectile can be m/2 or there can be just a single
projectile with mass m. Your derivation based upon total energy is
quite unique. So what's your take away conclusion?

> A handgun weighs a kilogram, the bullet weighs a gram. The bullet is
> propelled
> to 1000 metres/second. Conservation of momentum requires the gun to recoil
> at 1 metre/second (if not stopped by your hand).
> The energy of the bullet is 1/2 * 1 * 1000^2 = 500000.
> The energy of the gun is 1/2 * 1000 * 1^2 = 500.
> The energy of the charge was 500500.
> Carry a heavy gun.
>
> When one is discussing nuclear energy the mass vanishes, m = E/c^2.
> This is not the mass of the projectiles, it is the mass of the chemical
> powder charge MINUS (the burnt powder residue including gasses).
> The Sun is losing mass. The chemical charge also loses mass, but it
> is very small. 500500/(300,000,000)^2 = way too small to measure.
> This suggests that energy and mass are interchangeable, that mass
> which is measured by compressing a spring in a gravitational field
> is in some way pure energy.


In every Internal Combustion Engine, a small unmeasurably amount of
mass is also converted to energy. Every candle flame burning.

> When one is discussing a hadron in a collider hitting another one
> at velocity 2c, now things are different as far as the numbers go.
> The flying hadron has Kinetic Energy  1/2 mv^2, but the "mass"
> part of that has an equivalent energy mc^2 referred to as its
> rest energy for a total of KE = 1/2 (RE/c^2) v^2 which after
> collision isn't a hadron with mass anymore. Or so the theory goes
> if you are looking for Hoggs' bison roaming the Scottish hills in
> deep thought.


Have you noticed how many modern particle physics articles are
authored by more named individuals than there are total words in the
article itself?

> > -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> > Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

>
> On the many roads to this singular famous E = mc^2 equation... see
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=e=mc2+derivation
>
> upon reading several of the links, one finds a very interesting article:
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.1400.pdf


Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/