Zorgon Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 A strictly logical argument to invalidate E=mcsquare, E=mvsquare and other formulas using the illogical multiplier efffect (squaring) and to replace them with a strictly logical formula producing the same results. http://fatal-flaw.com/law-of-theoretical-velocity.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 Deleted - posted by mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hefner Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 The cited essay includes this passage: "...the energy invested in overcoming inertia is retained as the kinetic energy or momentum of any moving body". I think it is a flaw to put the connector "or" between kinetic energy and momentum, since it has been found that these two are entirely different, and each is independently conserved. Perhaps that's where the author erred. Aside from that, I don't think the author understands Relativity correctly. I cannot believe that anyone would, at this late date, question the formulas for kinetic energy and in the same breath claim that differently moving observers reckon different speeds (by a factor of 20 or more!!!) for the same light beam. ALL of that stuff is extremely well established and tested and employed successfully every single day; by NASA, by The Pentagon, by FermiLab and so forth. I can't believe this guy's audacity (or more likely, stupidity). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 I was curious about this as well. It is like this post(s) by Zorgon came from period of the past before Einstein ever existed. Hmmm. I wonder. :hyper: Maddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 I was curious about this as well. It is like this post(s) by Zorgon came from period of the past before Einstein ever existed. Hmmm. I wonder. :hyper:Aw, face it. Its just plain FUN to claim that Newton, Galileo, Einstiein, et al are a bunch of idiots and only YOU are enlightened enough to understand the meaning of life, the universe and everything! See that silly thread about "The Final Theory" over in Books/Games/Movies.... Only true intellects like Newton have the modesty to admit that they stand on the shoulders of giants.... Cheers,Buffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Aw, face it. Its just plain FUN to claim that Newton, Galileo, Einstiein, et al are a bunch of idiots and only YOU are enlightened enough to understand the meaning of life, the universe and everything! See that silly thread about "The Final Theory" over in Books/Games/Movies.... Only true intellects like Newton have the modesty to admit that they stand on the shoulders of giants.... Cheers,BuffyI guess I never thought of it that way. I did go look up the thread you mentioned. I willlook for the book as I am curious. I did mention a book, "God's Debris", by Scott Adams,that I think wraps it all up with a nice valentine bow on it. :hyper: Maddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 I don't mean to be mean but This guy needs to read more science and the reconizes differences. The E=mc² equation does not pertain to Kinetic energy only to the total rest energy of the mass. The Kinetic energy Equation is K = 1/2mv² or for relativistic effects (or added accuracy) K = γmc² - mc²and the sum of energy equation is:E = K + U I forget the Potential energy, U, equation sorry but there it is. Also for future reference.t' = γ(t - vx/c²)γ(small gamma) = 1/(√1-v²/c²)This is the basis of Time Dialation. The idea that time "slows" as one approaches the speed of light. This is mearly a missinterpertation. Time does not accualy slow but rather distances shrink. it is not only the object moving near c that shrinks along the x-axis but the distance in which it is moving in. From this distance shrinking it is a shorter trip and therefore less time. This allows the Theory of Relativity to explain why relative to the observer moving at these speeds he precieves time as "normal". More on this over at the best classical physics refernce I've found: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.eduEven has some stuff on QT and QM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hefner Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 ...This is the basis of Time Dilation. The idea that time "slows" as one approaches the speed of light. This is merely a misinterpretation. Time does not actually slow but rather distances shrink. it is not only the object moving near c that shrinks along the x-axis but the distance in which it is moving in. ..From this distance shrinking it is a shorter trip and therefore less time.While I agree with your main critique of that "Law of Theoretical Velocity" essay, you have made a very bad misstatement in the passage above. It is you who has made the misinterpretation if you think that SR distortions can be explained by length contraction without time dilation. In fact, time dilation is every bit as crucial as length contraction and they go hand-in-hand... along with a third distortion that can be loosely termed "clock dissynchronicity". The computations of SR work out correctly only when applying all three of those! P.S. Can you spot the three spelling corrections I made in your quoted passage? :hyper: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 If I was writing this for a book review or otherwise to go into print I would care about my spelling otherwise I could give a care less. You understood more or less what I had to say. As for Time Dilation it is length contraction. All the equations of lorentz and SR and GR are interelated. Just realize all is Relative. What I see is as equally right as what you see. in anycase. If i'm traveling at 60mph 120 miles it will take me 2 hours to get there. If I'm traveling at 60mph 60miles then it would take me 1 hour to get to my destination. See if time did slow down then it wouldn't work out quiet right. The twin paradox is based on length contraction. I mean I understand t' and all but it's based in distance.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Length contraction is just a result of the measuring sticks used in a different time frame will NOT contract. The contraction appears in the direction of motion and is only apparent to an observer in another frame. I fail to see how the preceived length contraction of a spaceship, say, actually shortens the distance the ship has to travel. The example you give about (60mph) is not valid because length contraction happens at relativistic speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 length despite how it is observed (frame of reference) at higher velocity does actually contract. by the ammount given in lorentz transformation equations. and the example I gave was for simplisity sake. so i don't have to deal with the huge computations one would need to show my exact meaning. if you wish to know exacts like that then go and read up on the math and learn it your self. there are several equations really important. first Is the lorentz transfromation equations. Second is Einstien's field equation, this shows how space-time warps in the precence of Mass-Energy and further describes how mass will move through said warpage, this is the basis of "warp" technology. Third is the Energy equations, things such as E=mc^2 and K =ymc^2 - mc^2. For concepts i want you all to review your chapters on Relativity. Remember because i say I weigh 200lbs. and you say I weigh 175lbs. doesn't mean either of us are wrong only that our frames of reference are different. For short Distance contracts as velocity increases (proportionally) mass increase and inertia increases. Gravitional mass is exactly equivilent to interial mass. The Speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. and if our planet suddenly accelerated to .5c none of us would notice without looking at some other frame of reference. IE another system or planet or galaxy... If anyone has any issues with what I've said then please by all means. BRING IT. just bring your evidence or site your sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts