The Fraud of E=mc²

[Pohemi]

Ambivalent, how often does an average programmer care about a datapoint?

Does it not have to be coded in to be a possibility in the program, though? I suppose the simulation could be organically evolving and not dependent on the source code.

 

[Torn Mind]

Good breakdown. You have more patience and tolerance for nonsense than I do. I'm not a physics expert either, but I do have enough basic understanding to recognize that this one is full of it, heh.

I'll honestly be surprised if he reads that and actually ponders it for a moment. Maybe though...

It all breaks down to fairness, which is not as nice-sounding a term as it feels. One can be fair by contradicting every point someone else makes, as long as the contradiction has a basis in some sort of reasoning. It's one of those internal manifestations of conscience. A bit atypical, but that's just how it goes for me.

I also consider him a guinea pig to practice rebuttals point-by-point as I'm seriously starting to consider getting into something law-related at some point in the future. I don't believe my post is that great because I don't have the full weaponry of a more complete physics or law education--I'd probably be less wordy with the latter. (This paragraph comes off as dehumanizing him...and well it is...)

Yes, it is always more costly for the rebutter to correct the record than it is for someone to make an statement in error first. This applies in a wide variety of situations.

 

[Torn Mind]

This is the only reply that has some merit and substance.

Classical mechanics is not any approximation to the mechanics of special relativity as mainstream like to drill into students (Newton == Einstein at small speed). From the 2nd postulate of SR, the relativists developed a completely new mechanics with their new "world of reality" independent of our common sense Newtonian world of reality. Only one of the reality is consistent with our natural world, not both.

E=mc² is invalid in physics because E is just a real number that cannot be associated with any real unit in any system of units we need for physical measurements in science.

There is no duplicity in my use of a "new" definition of force for relativistic mechanics.
F= ma -- (I) and F=d/dt(γmv) -- (II) are two completely different formulas; and (II) has been used within LHC of CERN where v is near light speed, not: "The formula is clearly an adjustment, one in which the results for low velocities are so insignificant that the result is essentially the same as the "classical definition".
(I) is used to define the SI unit newton; (II) cannot be used to define anything in the SI sytem of units.

Newton's second law is actually an axiom, a definition of force in his "Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy". It is a component of the fundamental framework which must be adhered to in order to develop the mechanics of our natural world (It is akin to axioms in mathematics - you change the axiom, you're dealing with a completely new mathematics). So changing the definition of force to F=d/dt(γmv) is NOT JUST A NEW HYPOTHESIS.

Force must never ever be without a real unit as it would make energy to be without a real unit. A physics formula dealing with energy cannot have E to be fictitious through definition.

I would not argue on the proper use of the word "fraud". Mainstream physics has promoted the idea that nuclear energy is from E=mc².

It's real simple, bud. You just don't want to admit that mass is not necessarily constant.

Anyway, the more proper definition of force is F=dp/dt, which closer to Newton's conceptulization. When mass is not constant, that results in the equation's difference.

Relativity came about because "luminous ether" simply did not manifest its existence after experiment and thus there was a knowledge gap that only a fairly creative mind not stuck in "excessively cold reasoning" could put together. It's wasn't something that came readily into acceptance. Luminous ether was what the humans wanted to observe.

The fact is that when used, the results of the measurements bear out the reality of the theory, as with GPS.

E in E=mc^2 is in Joules. Your linguistic trickery is pathetic.

Just so you know, your mind is stuck in an appeal to authority. One to "God" and on to "Newton" in one of your papers, which are full of illogical rubbish like that.

Indeed, Aristotelian physics also feels "common sense" but it's just that he couldn't go beyond a friction full world and human's trap the themselves in a priori reasoning.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Does it not have to be coded in to be a possibility in the program, though? I suppose the simulation could be organically evolving and not dependent on the source code.

Had many a convo with my SO about this topic. Indeed, the simulation could be specifically for us, or for the planet, or for the universe. We won't really know unless we explore more, and even then we'd be making assumptions.

 

[IronWing]

The simulation explanation just kicks the can into another universe for which we have no evidence and no method of obtaining evidence.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

It's real simple, bud. You just don't want to admit that mass is not necessarily constant.

This shows you still do not understand my 24-lines proof that shows E in E=mc² is just a real number which cannot be associated with the unit of energy joule(J).

My proof still applies even if mass varies with speed as in relativistic mass m=γm₀. The SI definition for force is F=ma= mass x acceleration giving unit in newton(N); it doesn't care if mass has been changing with velocity.

Anyway, the more proper definition of force is F=dp/dt, which closer to Newton's conceptulization. When mass is not constant, that results in the equation's difference.

This shows you do not yet understand fully the meaning of Newton's three laws of motion. Your situation is not surprising as very few physicists (even the Ph.D) understand the deeper subtlety of Newton's laws and his mechanics in the "Principia".

Indeed, using modern concepts of mechanics and calculus notation, Newton's 2nd law is: F=d/dt(p); p being momentum. BUT, the Principia of Newton is developed where p=mv and m is invariant. This leads to the SI usage of F=ma; but here, we care only for m and a at the relevant instant.

Newtonian mechanics does not allow any alternative definition of momentum p to be inserted into F=d/dt(p), only p=invariant mass x velocity allowed. Unfortunately, mainstream physics academia does not understand this most fundamental aspect of Newton's "Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy" - they created and prefers to promote "Un-Natural Philosophy".

If we could define momentum at will, we may have infinite number of alternative mechanics by defining p=(γ^n)m₀v where n=1,2,3...infinity - current relativistic mechanics is just one of this infinite choices possible.

We know Newtonian mechanics works with the strict adherence to p=invariant mass x velocity only and NOT any alternative. This is because all our space programs launching of satellites and spacecrafts rely 100% on Newtonian mechanics - nothing from special relativity needed. We also know the orbits of planets obeys Newtonian mechanics.

Relativity came about because "luminous ether" simply did not manifest its existence after experiment and thus there was a knowledge gap that only a fairly creative mind not stuck in "excessively cold reasoning" could put together. It's wasn't something that came readily into acceptance. Luminous ether was what the humans wanted to observe.

The fact is that when used, the results of the measurements bear out the reality of the theory, as with GPS.

The Michelson Morley experiments have been debated for over a hundred years; it's boring to rehash. About GPS, have you consulted with the Chinese physicists who built the Beidou system.

E in E=mc^2 is in Joules. Your linguistic trickery is pathetic.

Just so you know, your mind is stuck in an appeal to authority. One to "God" and on to "Newton" in one of your papers, which are full of illogical rubbish like that.

Indeed, Aristotelian physics also feels "common sense" but it's just that he couldn't go beyond a friction full world and human's trap the themselves in a priori reasoning.

You still do not understand why I differentiate: F= ma -- (I) and F=d/dt(γm₀v) -- (II).

E=mc² is derived using the work-energy theorem W= ∫ Fds. The calculus of integration works only on real numbers. Though F has unit of newton and ds has unit of meter, we strip F and ds off their associated units in calculus. The result of W= ∫ Fds is just a real number - WITHOUT UNITS.

If we put F=ma -- (I) in W= ∫ Fds, we can associate W with a real unit of energy, the joule(J or newton-meter).

If we put F=d/dt(γm₀v) -- (II) in W= ∫ Fds, we CANNOT associate W with any real unit of energy. This is because F=d/dt(γm₀v) has no real unit in force. So here, W= ∫ Fds gives a real number that cannot be associated with any real unit of energy. This means relativistic kinetic energy=W=(γ-1)m₀c² is only a real number with no real unit in energy.

 

[igor_kavinski]

The simulation explanation just kicks the can into another universe for which we have no evidence and no method of obtaining evidence.

Only way to be sure is to survive a descent into the blackhole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

If everyone on Earth worked towards that goal, we would be sending volunteers into that blackhole right now, instead of people getting butchered in war.

 

[igor_kavinski]

About GPS, have you consulted with the Chinese physicists who built the Beidou system.

Have you?

What is the point of discussing your theory with non-physicists on a forum? You are just wasting your time. By the time a real physicist comes wandering here from some Google search, you may actually be dead.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The simulation explanation just kicks the can into another universe for which we have no evidence and no method of obtaining evidence.

Not necessarily true, there's ways to tease out if we're in a simulation. If we attempt to create a simulated universe and forever end up running into nonsensical problems making it functional/complex enough to sufficiently call it a true universe simulation, there's a good chance we're in one (and at the bottom rung of the energy pile). Given that we've already shown ourselves capable of making exceedingly rudimentary simulations, it'd be arrogant to assume no other civilization could make it happen. If it's possible to make it happen (and it appears in all likelihood very possible), then the odds of us being the 'real' universe is very, very low. Occam's razor points to us being one of many, at the bottom of a deep hole of simulated universes.

In addition, while not proof strictly speaking, if after another few centuries of scientific discovery we still continue to run into intractable physics problems that upon looser examination appear to just be a simulation's attempt to approximate reality (like classical physics vs quantum), that would lend more credence to the idea.

 

[Perknose]

OP, you seem like the go-to man to answer the question, "Does the plane take off?"

 

[Pohemi]

This shows you still do not understand...

...This shows you do not yet understand fully... Your situation is not surprising as very few physicists (even the Ph.D) understand the deeper subtlety of Newton's laws...

...Unfortunately, mainstream physics academia does not understand this most fundamental aspect of Newton's "Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy" - they created and prefers to promote "Un-Natural Philosophy"...

...You still do not understand why I differentiate...

Nobody understands, not even physics PhDs because they're just not as smart as a first year engineering dropout who bloviates with nonsensical science.

 

[IronWing]

OP, you seem like the go-to man to answer the question, "Does the plane take off?"

Planes don't take off. The earth gets blown down.

 

[brianmanahan]

"Does the plane take off?"

only if its tires are inflated to sidewall

 

[Torn Mind]

This shows you still do not understand my 24-lines proof that shows E in E=mc² is just a real number which cannot be associated with the unit of energy joule(J).

My proof still applies even if mass varies with speed as in relativistic mass m=γm₀. The SI definition for force is F=ma= mass x acceleration giving unit in newton(N); it doesn't care if mass has been changing with velocity.

Your proof is not based on experimentation. It's based on a priori reasoning, and very fallacious reasoning at that. Basically, you're doing nothing more than typical human thinking, which is more irrational than rational. Now, this "irrationality" has a certain cadence based on emotions, mental schema, psychology, hormones etc, but it's not what is called logical.

What is the SI unit of force?

Historically, there have been a variety of units of force and conversion factors.

www.npl.co.uk

Consider the excerpt from above. The writer takes great care in specifying that "for unchanging mass", implying the the acceptance of relativity and that mass is not actually unchanging.

For a changing mass, then mass also becomes a function and thus a derivative of it can be taken. Hence, the "adjustment". The "change" is a logical extension of the concept. It still represents mass, but more accurately than previously assumed. Just that with sig figs, that degree of accuracy usually doesn't apply in real life...but for something like GPS, it's a very important and influential application. For the matter of convenience of calcuation, it's better to teach a bit of the classical version. It takes a lot of brain power to fully comprehend the relativistic paradigm.

Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum. For an unchanging mass, this is equivalent to mass x acceleration.
So, 1 N = 1 kg m s-2, or 1 kg m/s2.

This shows you do not yet understand fully the meaning of Newton's three laws of motion. Your situation is not surprising as very few physicists (even the Ph.D) understand the deeper subtlety of Newton's laws and his mechanics in the "Principia".

Indeed, using modern concepts of mechanics and calculus notation, Newton's 2nd law is: F=d/dt(p); p being momentum. BUT, the Principia of Newton is developed where p=mv and m is invariant. This leads to the SI usage of F=ma; but here, we care only for m and a at the relevant instant.

Newtonian mechanics does not allow any alternative definition of momentum p to be inserted into F=d/dt(p), only p=invariant mass x velocity allowed. Unfortunately, mainstream physics academia does not understand this most fundamental aspect of Newton's "Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy" - they created and prefers to promote "Un-Natural Philosophy".

Bolded are false premises.

https://www.physics.unlv.edu/~lenz/PHYS%20180.F10/Chap9.sum.pdf

Then you make the fallacy of "appeal to nature".
In addition, you try to use equivocation again by using "invariant". Your sense is the colloquial sense of invariant but perhaps a physicist would read it as the proper physics sense. Then that spawns a giant windbag of text as two different senses are used.

You really think that's sound reasoning? It's a deliberate attempt to cause confusion.

Excerpt:

When Newton formulated has second law, it was in a slightly different form than F = ma, the actual statement was that F = d(mv)/dt = dp/dt where p = mv is the momentum. In words, the net force acting on an object causes its momentum to change. If the net force is zero, the momentum does not change, it is conserved.

If we could define momentum at will, we may have infinite number of alternative mechanics by defining p=(γ^n)m₀v where n=1,2,3...infinity - current relativistic mechanics is just one of this infinite choices possible.

We know Newtonian mechanics works with the strict adherence to p=invariant mass x velocity only and NOT any alternative. This is because all our space programs launching of satellites and spacecrafts rely 100% on Newtonian mechanics - nothing from special relativity needed. We also know the orbits of planets obeys Newtonian mechanics.

The Michelson Morley experiments have been debated for over a hundred years; it's boring to rehash. About GPS, have you consulted with the Chinese physicists who built the Beidou system.

You still do not understand why I differentiate: F= ma -- (I) and F=d/dt(γm₀v) -- (II).

E=mc² is derived using the work-energy theorem W= ∫ Fds. The calculus of integration works only on real numbers. Though F has unit of newton and ds has unit of meter, we strip F and ds off their associated units in calculus. The result of W= ∫ Fds is just a real number - WITHOUT UNITS.

If we put F=ma -- (I) in W= ∫ Fds, we can associate W with a real unit of energy, the joule(J or newton-meter).

If we put F=d/dt(γm₀v) -- (II) in W= ∫ Fds, we CANNOT associate W with any real unit of energy. This is because F=d/dt(γm₀v) has no real unit in force. So here, W= ∫ Fds gives a real number that cannot be associated with any real unit of energy. This means relativistic kinetic energy=W=(γ-1)m₀c² is only a real number with no real unit in energy.

Complex numbers can be integrated, not sure where you got the statement "integration works only on real numbers". There is the question of whether your use of the term "real numbers" refers to the mathematical sense or the colloquial sense of "real" because you have a very frequent habit of using ambiguous sense of a word in a sentence, which is equivocation.

The Second Law is the rate of change of momentum. It's been discovered mass is not constant.

In addition, your use of "law" another example of using different senses of the same term in an argument. "Law" has many definitions and context matters. Here, you switch between the scientific sense and the "legal sense", akin to a violation of law. Indeed, you try argue relativity is false because it doesn't correspond with F=ma. But F=ma is not the actual definition, as explained above. It's the result of taking the derivative of momentum assuming mass is constant, which has been disproven by experimental observation, independent of human meddling.

The very broad conceptualization of Newton's 2nd Law is not contradicted or discarded by relativity, merely an adjustment to mass is introduced to make calculations that correspond to the actual behavior of mass. As already stated, all of your windbag sentences boils down to not accepting mass as changing.

Scientific laws are a more "practical" manifestation to obtain correct calculations, where as "legal laws" can be violated and punishment or relief obtained. It's clear; the calculations are more accurate in more situations with relativity than without. Similar to the "approximate of circles" vs heliocentric-based calculations; the reality corresponds with the better measurements.
In addition, under relatively, mass still is recognized as part of the equation, just that the equation has to reflect the nature of mass as changing depending on velocity.

General relativity is the basic theoretical framework for the data processing in BDS.

The space–time references of BeiDou Navigation Satellite System - Satellite Navigation

The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) is essentially a precise time measurement and time synchronization system for a large-scale space near the Earth. General relativity is the basic theoretical framework for the information processing in the master control station of BDS. Having...

satellite-navigation.springeropen.com

While most of this discussion uses special relativity, this paper states that BDS uses general relativity. So, you just popped out a sentence with no explanation, leading a reader to infer someone cooked up a no-relativity system...yeah nice try but it's not pure Newtonian mechanics and nothing new like you want it to be.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Go home Terrance Howard you're drunk.

 

[MrSquished]

Someone build squirrels off the grid paradise for him, take Gizmo, this guy and a couple others, put them there in the winter so they can't get out, airdrop them supplies, have a daily topic suggestion for them to talk ponder and discuss, and put that shit on a YouTube subscription plan until they start to die or kill each other off, or it's not worth watching anymore

Could make millions

 

[SKORPI0]

"Does the plane take off?"

only if its tires are inflated to sidewall

And the alternator on the engine is bulk size.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

@Torn_Mind, As your last reply is rather complicated, I'll have to reply you piecemeal.
your link:

The space–time references of BeiDou Navigation Satellite System - Satellite Navigation

The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) is essentially a precise time measurement and time synchronization system for a large-scale space near the Earth. General relativity is the basic theoretical framework for the information processing in the master control station of BDS. Having...

satellite-navigation.springeropen.com

June 2021
"The space–time references of BeiDou Navigation Satellite System"
Chunhao Han, Li Liu, Zhiwu Cai & Yuting Lin
Satellite Navigation volume 2, Article number: 18 (2021)
Publisher’s note:
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract:
"'The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) is essentially a precise time measurement and time synchronization system for a large-scale space near the Earth. General relativity is the basic theoretical framework for the information processing in the master control station of BDS. ..."

Cai Zhiwu is currently a senior engineer at Beijing Satellite Navigation Center.
He engaged in research on satellite navigation technique and time scale
theory. E-mail: zhiwucai@foxmail.com.

Lin Yuting is currently a senior engineer at Beijing Satellite Navigation Center.
He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Information Engineering in 2009.
His current research focuses mainly on time keeping, satellite timing and
precise time and frequency transfer technologies. E-mail: lyt1108@163.com.

Indeed, you have found an interesting link showing how the Chinese Beidou system is based on General Relativity - Congratulations and Sorry at the same time.

But a google search of "Beijing Satellite Navigation Center" gives only an address, nothing else.

The only official government links on the Beidou system are as follow:
1) 中国卫星导航系统管理办公室测试评估研究中心
Test and Assessment Research Center of China Satellite Navigation Office

System Introduction

www.csno-tarc.cn

This is the official website of Beidou. There is no mentioned at all that Beidou needs Einstein's relativity.
2) COMPASS/BeiDou Coordinate and Time Reference Systems
YANG YUANXI and TANG JING
China National Administration of GNSS and Applications (CNAGA)
HAN CHUNHAO
Beijing Global Information Center of Application and Exploration

COMPASS/BeiDou Coordinate and Time Reference Systems--Yang Yuanxi, Tang Jing, and Han Chunhao | Global Navigation Satellite Systems: Report of a Joint Workshop of the National Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Engineering | The Nation

Read chapter COMPASS/BeiDou Coordinate and Time Reference Systems--Yang Yuanxi, Tang Jing, and Han Chunhao: The Global Positioning System (GPS) has revolu...

nap.nationalacademies.org

Abstract: "Satellite navigation needs coordinate and time references. It is impossible to realize interoperability for multiple GNSS systems without a consistent reference coordinate system and time system. Compass/BeiDou satellite navigation system follows the rules of compatibility and interoperability defined by the International Committee of GNSS (ICG). The coordinate system of BeiDou is aligned to the China Geodetic Coordinate System 2000 (CGCS 2000), which is aligned to ITRS. BeiDou system time (BDT) is an internal, continuous navigation time scale, without leap second. BDT is linked to the national UTC(k), which is consistent to UTC. The status and existing problems and future developments are described.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Global Navigation Satellite Systems: Report of a Joint Workshop of the National Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13292."
3) http://en.beidou.gov.cn/SYSTEMS/ICD/201902/P020190227702348791891.pdf
China Satellite Navigation Office, 2019

All these official documents on the Beidou navigation coordinate systems makes not a single mention about the need for any relativistic adjustments - not special relativity nor general relativity

 

[Chan Rasjid]

Have you?

What is the point of discussing your theory with non-physicists on a forum? You are just wasting your time. By the time a real physicist comes wandering here from some Google search, you may actually be dead.

The reasons why I post on a non-physics forum is the same as why the media tells the world about black holes, gravitational waves, Higgs boson to the non-scientific general public - for educational purposses.

 

[igor_kavinski]

All these official documents on the Beidou navigation coordinate systems makes not a single mention about the need for any relativistic adjustments - not special relativity nor general relativity

You trust the Chinese to reveal that much info on their system?

 

[Chan Rasjid]

OP, you seem like the go-to man to answer the question, "Does the plane take off?"

I don't understand your message.

It seems you are the super moderator here. I am surprised this thread of mine could survive this long without being removed.

 

[igor_kavinski]

The reasons why I post on a non-physics forum is the same as why the media tells the world about black holes, gravitational waves, Higgs boson to the non-scientific general public - for educational purposes.

Here's some education from me for the world. I believe an extremely strong electromagnetic field may protect us from the effects of Lorentz contraction when we travel at or faster than the speed of light. This is what will make hyperspeed space travel possible. But just because I believe that, it doesn't mean I will go around on all non-space forums around the internet trying to convince people of my belief. It's out there now for someone else to get interested in and research the shit out of it. I've done my part. Contributed my bit to humanity. I can die in peace now. You should do the same.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

You trust the Chinese to reveal that much info on their system?

Then should I trust that the western mainstream is not publishing "peer reviewed" articles only to promote general relativity.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I am surprised this thread of mine could survive this long without being removed.

You aren't doing much harm, other than giving some of us microaneurysms.

 

[Chan Rasjid]

[DELETED] Will replace.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid