Date: Mar 16, 2013 2:33 AM Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Subject: Chapt15.52 correcting two errors of Old Physics-- no Doppler Redshift<br> possible and Solid Body Rotation requires gravity to be EM-gravity #1295 New<br> Physics #1415 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed 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.

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