Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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 EM-gravity #1295 New
Physics #1415 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 18,572 Registered: 3/31/08
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 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 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

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
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

Date Subject Author
3/16/13 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
3/16/13 Guest