Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Analysis Of Einstein's 1905 Paper About Mass-Energy


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#18 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted Today, 03:25 AM

By completely different reasons than the one described at the OP, which was to show the wrongdoings in Einstein's short paper, I have

one idea based on the original framework, but using only two photons emitted in opposite directions by a magical reason, with frequency f.

 

As it's a "thought experiment", I can redesign the original scenario by using only two photons which, curiously, were emitted by two different

atoms exactly at the same time and frequency, and exactly in opposite directions along the x axis (to cancel momentum).

 

Then, at the lowest energy level possible (as per Planck), the final equation for dE (Delta Energy) would have been:

 

                                                  Delta E = 2.hf.(Y-1)

 

and, as v << c, then  (Y-1) = 1/2 v2/c2. Then, the total energy change would be:

 

                                                  Delta E = 1/2 (2hf/c2).v2  , which has the form of KE = 1/2 mx.v2

 

what would be the meaning of such a strange mass mx = 2hf/c2 ?

 

It's not mass lacking from the rest mass m0, because no mass was lost when both photons were emitted.

 

Could it be some kind of electromagnetic mass for the two photons, having each one an EM mass mp = hf/c2?

 

Because it contains the relationship E = hf = mpc2, given as an approximation for v << c.

 

Any opinion?

What is v? And what is Y?



#19 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted Today, 10:02 AM

As Exchemist pointed out, it is not a joke because so far it has been observed to be true. That is good enough for applications, now whether there are errors in logic/derivation etc in the 1905 paper is more relevant for historians...

 

Yes but it never sinks in, which is why I am going to ask again, why are you letting these posts be entertained? He is really pissing people off around here, including myself. Either these posts are put where they belong, or I am moving on - I put that card on the table and you moved a particular post where it belonged... now we are back at square one... possibly a few steps back. 



#20 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted Today, 12:45 PM

Yes but it never sinks in, which is why I am going to ask again, why are you letting these posts be entertained? He is really pissing people off around here, including myself. Either these posts are put where they belong, or I am moving on - I put that card on the table and you moved a particular post where it belonged... now we are back at square one... possibly a few steps back. 

 

Finally. you made me to lost my patience with you. Nobody here is claiming that this thread of yours be removed from this forum

and placed at Strange or Silly Claims Forums:

 

http://www.sciencefo...over-the-years/

 

It's full of mathematical mistakes, wrong concepts, mix of quantum theories (n1, n2) with newtonian theories (index n),

at wich you later forget the subindices 1 and 2 and keep going with mistakes, mixing everything.

 

Nobody is asking for its removal from here, NOR anybody is claiming that you correct the formula at your signature,

which contains a wrong expression of Planck's energy density equation (you forgot the exponential so, if hf = kT, you

have a singularity there).

 

Why don't mind your own business? Something is very wrong with your postings. Very wrong.



#21 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2635 posts

Posted Today, 01:16 PM

Ah but you see, you are in no position to criticize what you clearly don't understand. I am not defending my work, I am defending relativity. It is you who clearly has no clue what you are on about - if you had an ounce of capacity to be able to criticize my work, you'd do so in a rigorous manner, but since you can't disprove relativity, disproving my work is pointless.