| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
02 Sep 2006 11:59:52 AM |
| Object: |
100 Years of E=mc2 |
100 Years of E=mc2
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation). In his 1905 paper Einstein did not
derive it mathematically but in true sense speculated it. Einstein
earlier derived L = mc2 (light energy mass conversion equation). Then
Einstein speculated that what is true for light energy (L) the same is
true for every energy (E). This speculation results in E=mc2, such a
significant equation must be based upon a specific mathematical
derivation and not on speculation.
3. Is Einstein's derivation of L =mc2 correct?
The derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or true in special conditions
only. Einstein took just handpicked parameters out of numerous
possible, to obtain the equation. Einstein was aware of the reality so
he left in midway after getting the desired result. If all valid
values of parameters are taken, then results are contradictory in
nature.
4. What are contradictory results?
Some UNDISCUSSED predictions of Einstein's 29 Sep. 1905 derivation
blatantly contradict Law of Conservation of Matter. I have
scientifically confirmed the same. No limitation can be bigger than
this in science.
5. Was E=mc2 or similar ideas existed before Einstein?
Yes, E=mc2 existed before Einstein. An Italian Olinto de Pretto
published E=mc2 in valid scientific journal Lettere ed Atti, Feb. 1904,
two years before Einstein. But Pretto died in 1921, before its
experimental confirmation in nuclear physics.
6. Einstein speculated E=mc2 from L=mc2. What is the problem here?
Firstly derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or under special conditions
only. Secondly Einstein originated E=mc2 on the basis of speculation
only without any conceptual and mathematical basis. Basically Einstein
replaced L by E in equation L=mc2 to get E=mc2.
7. Then how did you derive new equation, dE =Ac2dm (or DE = Ac2 DM )?
I have derived new equation between mass-energy conservation by simple
calculus method. In dE =Ac2dm, A is a co-efficient of proportionality
like numerous others in science. It is dimensionless variable.
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
8. How do you compare these two equations?
Firstly dE =Ac2dm is based upon a conceptual and mathematical
derivation. On the other hand E=mc2 is a speculation, it is bitter
truth. Secondly dE =Ac2dm is a general equation and E=mc2 is its
special case. Energy emitted by new equation can be less, equal to or
more than predicted by E=mc2.
9. How did you justify your equation experimentally?
In Nuclear Physics there are some anomalous results which cannot be
explained by E=mc2 . Like this there are some instances in
astrophysics where my equation is extremely useful.
10. Is your work recognized by international scientific community?
Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals.
11 Have you got any recognition certificate from the scientific
community?
The only way to get scientific recognition is that to get the work
published in peer review international journals and conferences. My
research papers are either published in international journals from
America, England and Canada or being published. I have got invitation
from at least 55 International Conferences to present my work. I have
presented my research in international conferences in USA, England,
Germany, Taiwan Ukraine etc. I have invitation from France and Italy
to present my work this year.
12. Can this work be introduced in Schools and colleges?
Yes my wok is scientifically approved in journal in USA, CANADA and
England. Hence it can be so done by any country. IT IS THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE WORK.
13. How do you counter the opposition of the people which has come in
you your way?
Science is the international language. For this, I take seriously the
logical conclusions of the critics. I completely ignore the
irresponsible critics, as they don't exist.
The critics when understand the things become my supporters.
14. What about your book, 100 Years of E=mc2?
This book is being published soon.
It will bring clear and unbiased picture of the facts. Science today
is not the same in 16th or 17th century. We should aim at 22nd or 23rd
century scientific scenarios.
Interviewer Rajesh Thakoor Email
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
02 Sep 2006 12:11:23 PM |
|
|
<physics.einstein@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157216392.795635.196440@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
100 Years of E=mc2
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation).
I'm sure you will sell a few copies of your book, and yes, perhaps
even infest an insignificant amount of insignificant crackpots.
Let me guess.... you're an engineer - right?
Right:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ajay+Sharma+engineer
Way to go ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
02 Sep 2006 02:47:24 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:%WiKg.55200$o%7.903240@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| <physics.einstein@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157216392.795635.196440@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > 100 Years of E=mc2
| > Book Link :
| >
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
| >
| > 1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
| >
| > E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
| > 1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
| > upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
| > energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
| >
| > 2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
| > inconsistency?
| >
| > The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
| > obtain a mathematical equation).
|
[anip]
Never mind the math, check the physics.-- Dork Van de *****.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: 100 Years of E=mc2 - shameless spam from Ajay Sharma |
15 Sep 2006 11:16:03 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<physics.einstein@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157216392.795635.196440@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
100 Years of E=mc2
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation).
I'm sure you will sell a few copies of your book, and yes, perhaps
even infest an insignificant amount of insignificant crackpots.
Let me guess.... you're an engineer - right?
Right:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ajay+Sharma+engineer
Way to go ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Yep, you guessed right, Ajay Sharma is an engineer with dreams of
dthroning Einstein. He doesn't know how to write the equation of
momentum conservation and he's advertising his "masterpiece" on the
whole internet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 - shameless spam from Ajay Sharma |
16 Sep 2006 04:40:59 AM |
|
|
<rambus2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1158380163.039124.135010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<physics.einstein@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157216392.795635.196440@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
100 Years of E=mc2
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation).
I'm sure you will sell a few copies of your book, and yes, perhaps
even infest an insignificant amount of insignificant crackpots.
Let me guess.... you're an engineer - right?
Right:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ajay+Sharma+engineer
Way to go ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Yep, you guessed right, Ajay Sharma is an engineer with dreams of
dthroning Einstein. He doesn't know how to write the equation of
momentum conservation and he's advertising his "masterpiece" on the
whole internet.
Just let him make a fool of himself.
It's a known fact that constantly replying to demented engineers
is extremely counter-productive ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "physicsajay" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
16 Sep 2006 08:18:16 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<physics.einstein@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157216392.795635.1964=
40@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
100 Years of E=3Dmc2
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_3=
24&products_id=3D4554
1. What is E=3Dmc2 ? What is its importance?
E=3Dmc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation).
I'm sure you will sell a few copies of your book, and yes, perhaps
even infest an insignificant amount of insignificant crackpots.
Let me guess.... you're an engineer - right?
Right:
http://www.google.com/search?q=3DAjay+Sharma+engineer
Way to go ;-)
Dirk Vdm
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAjay Sharma responds=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
My work is based upon the following reference
References of Einstein=E2=80=99s work
..
A=2EEinstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
Weblink is
Einstein=E2=80=99s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s work
My work is available at
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554
International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1=2E Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA
2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.
3=2E A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,
10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND
4=2E A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND
5=2E A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6=2E A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
=E2=80=9DThe Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation =EF=81=84E =3D Ac2 =
=EF=81=84M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology=E2=80=9D.
is published in journal
A=2E Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
Physics Essays, CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past, present and future of E=3Dmc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=3Dmc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
02 Sep 2006 12:21:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
100 Years of E=mc2
E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation
http://www.amazon.com/mc2-Biography-Worlds-Famous-Equation/dp/B0000C8WEW/sr=8-3/qid=1157217566/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-1553610-0615830?ie=UTF8&s=books
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
05 Sep 2006 12:34:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
100 Years of E=mc2
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation). In his 1905 paper Einstein did not
derive it mathematically but in true sense speculated it. Einstein
earlier derived L = mc2 (light energy mass conversion equation). Then
Einstein speculated that what is true for light energy (L) the same is
true for every energy (E). This speculation results in E=mc2, such a
significant equation must be based upon a specific mathematical
derivation and not on speculation.
3. Is Einstein's derivation of L =mc2 correct?
The derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or true in special conditions
only. Einstein took just handpicked parameters out of numerous
possible, to obtain the equation. Einstein was aware of the reality so
he left in midway after getting the desired result. If all valid
values of parameters are taken, then results are contradictory in
nature.
4. What are contradictory results?
Some UNDISCUSSED predictions of Einstein's 29 Sep. 1905 derivation
blatantly contradict Law of Conservation of Matter. I have
scientifically confirmed the same. No limitation can be bigger than
this in science.
There is no Law of Conservation of Matter. I don't know where you got
the idea that there is. One can reject just about any current law of
physics based on conflict with the fundamental Law of Conservation of
Sevens, also, but it will get you just as far.
5. Was E=mc2 or similar ideas existed before Einstein?
Yes, E=mc2 existed before Einstein. An Italian Olinto de Pretto
published E=mc2 in valid scientific journal Lettere ed Atti, Feb. 1904,
two years before Einstein. But Pretto died in 1921, before its
experimental confirmation in nuclear physics.
6. Einstein speculated E=mc2 from L=mc2. What is the problem here?
Firstly derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or under special conditions
only. Secondly Einstein originated E=mc2 on the basis of speculation
only without any conceptual and mathematical basis. Basically Einstein
replaced L by E in equation L=mc2 to get E=mc2.
7. Then how did you derive new equation, dE =Ac2dm (or DE = Ac2 DM )?
I have derived new equation between mass-energy conservation by simple
calculus method. In dE =Ac2dm, A is a co-efficient of proportionality
like numerous others in science. It is dimensionless variable.
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
8. How do you compare these two equations?
Firstly dE =Ac2dm is based upon a conceptual and mathematical
derivation. On the other hand E=mc2 is a speculation, it is bitter
truth. Secondly dE =Ac2dm is a general equation and E=mc2 is its
special case. Energy emitted by new equation can be less, equal to or
more than predicted by E=mc2.
9. How did you justify your equation experimentally?
In Nuclear Physics there are some anomalous results which cannot be
explained by E=mc2 . Like this there are some instances in
astrophysics where my equation is extremely useful.
10. Is your work recognized by international scientific community?
Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals.
11 Have you got any recognition certificate from the scientific
community?
The only way to get scientific recognition is that to get the work
published in peer review international journals and conferences. My
research papers are either published in international journals from
America, England and Canada or being published. I have got invitation
from at least 55 International Conferences to present my work. I have
presented my research in international conferences in USA, England,
Germany, Taiwan Ukraine etc. I have invitation from France and Italy
to present my work this year.
12. Can this work be introduced in Schools and colleges?
Yes my wok is scientifically approved in journal in USA, CANADA and
England. Hence it can be so done by any country. IT IS THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE WORK.
13. How do you counter the opposition of the people which has come in
you your way?
Science is the international language. For this, I take seriously the
logical conclusions of the critics. I completely ignore the
irresponsible critics, as they don't exist.
The critics when understand the things become my supporters.
14. What about your book, 100 Years of E=mc2?
This book is being published soon.
It will bring clear and unbiased picture of the facts. Science today
is not the same in 16th or 17th century. We should aim at 22nd or 23rd
century scientific scenarios.
Interviewer Rajesh Thakoor Email
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
05 Sep 2006 04:04:40 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157477696.441809.119670@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
physics.einstein@gmail.com wrote:
100 Years of E=mc2
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?
E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.
2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?
The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation). In his 1905 paper Einstein did not
derive it mathematically but in true sense speculated it. Einstein
earlier derived L = mc2 (light energy mass conversion equation). Then
Einstein speculated that what is true for light energy (L) the same is
true for every energy (E). This speculation results in E=mc2, such a
significant equation must be based upon a specific mathematical
derivation and not on speculation.
3. Is Einstein's derivation of L =mc2 correct?
The derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or true in special conditions
only. Einstein took just handpicked parameters out of numerous
possible, to obtain the equation. Einstein was aware of the reality so
he left in midway after getting the desired result. If all valid
values of parameters are taken, then results are contradictory in
nature.
4. What are contradictory results?
Some UNDISCUSSED predictions of Einstein's 29 Sep. 1905 derivation
blatantly contradict Law of Conservation of Matter. I have
scientifically confirmed the same. No limitation can be bigger than
this in science.
There is no Law of Conservation of Matter. I don't know where you got
the idea that there is. One can reject just about any current law of
physics based on conflict with the fundamental Law of Conservation of
Sevens, also, but it will get you just as far.
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 05:36:41 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:IDlLg.60811$VU1.774210@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Need another fuckwit you hold your hand, punk?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 01:21:36 AM |
|
|
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
-------------------------------------
to all the imbecil parrots
there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
enery i s mass in motion !1
got it imbecil Van der shamatte ??
do you have something behind your eys in your dumb skull
if yess just have a look at the famous formula
E=mc^2 do you see some m there imbecil ?
got is imbecill? so what is that m there ???!!!
no chance fo r a disturbed retard !!
----------------------
Y.P
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 09:02:09 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
-------------------------------------
to all the imbecil parrots
there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
No, actually, there's not.
enery i s mass in motion !1
got it imbecil Van der shamatte ??
do you have something behind your eys in your dumb skull
if yess just have a look at the famous formula
E=mc^2 do you see some m there imbecil ?
got is imbecill? so what is that m there ???!!!
no chance fo r a disturbed retard !!
----------------------
Y.P
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 09:10:26 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
-------------------------------------
to all the imbecil parrots
there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
No, actually, there's not.
----------------
you ignored the rest of that post
in mc^2 =E
there are ONLY TWO PHYSICSL ENTITIES
one is m the other is c^2
if m is meaningless you have that th e most meaninful element in
mc^2
is the c^2 ??
so what is the roll; m there if it is nonexistat than you can
write
E=c^2 and thats all why bother etering there the negligable m ??
or something that you catuallt dont know what is its meaning ??
----------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
enery i s mass in motion !1
got it imbecil Van der shamatte ??
do you have something behind your eys in your dumb skull
if yess just have a look at the famous formula
E=mc^2 do you see some m there imbecil ?
got is imbecill? so what is that m there ???!!!
no chance fo r a disturbed retard !!
----------------------
Y.P
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 09:23:08 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
-------------------------------------
to all the imbecil parrots
there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
No, actually, there's not.
----------------
you ignored the rest of that post
in mc^2 =E
there are ONLY TWO PHYSICSL ENTITIES
one is m the other is c^2
if m is meaningless you have that th e most meaninful element in
mc^2
is the c^2 ??
so what is the roll; m there if it is nonexistat than you can
write
E=c^2 and thats all why bother etering there the negligable m ??
or something that you catuallt dont know what is its meaning ??
I didn't say it didn't have any meaning. I said there is no such law as
conservation of mass.
If I take a look at low-speed KE = (1/2)mv^2, the v has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of velocity.
If I take a look at Newton's 2nd law F=ma, the a has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of acceleration.
Do not overassume what you cannot assume.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 09:34:53 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
-------------------------------------
to all the imbecil parrots
there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
No, actually, there's not.
----------------
you ignored the rest of that post
in mc^2 =E
there are ONLY TWO PHYSICSL ENTITIES
one is m the other is c^2
if m is meaningless you have that th e most meaninful element in
mc^2
is the c^2 ??
so what is the roll; m there if it is nonexistat than you can
write
E=c^2 and thats all why bother etering there the negligable m ??
or something that you catuallt dont know what is its meaning ??
I didn't say it didn't have any meaning. I said there is no such law as
conservation of mass.
If I take a look at low-speed KE = (1/2)mv^2, the v has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of velocity.
If I take a look at Newton's 2nd law F=ma, the a has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of acceleration.
Do not overassume what you cannot assume.
PD
-------------------
wow waht a quick answer
as if in live conversation
now
if m i s always in energy it means it is always there !!!
c is consatnt
E is conserved so ..---------...
m is conserved as well
dont you see that ??
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 09:49:39 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
-------------------------------------
to all the imbecil parrots
there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
No, actually, there's not.
----------------
you ignored the rest of that post
in mc^2 =E
there are ONLY TWO PHYSICSL ENTITIES
one is m the other is c^2
if m is meaningless you have that th e most meaninful element in
mc^2
is the c^2 ??
so what is the roll; m there if it is nonexistat than you can
write
E=c^2 and thats all why bother etering there the negligable m ??
or something that you catuallt dont know what is its meaning ??
I didn't say it didn't have any meaning. I said there is no such law as
conservation of mass.
If I take a look at low-speed KE = (1/2)mv^2, the v has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of velocity.
If I take a look at Newton's 2nd law F=ma, the a has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of acceleration.
Do not overassume what you cannot assume.
PD
-------------------
wow waht a quick answer
as if in live conversation
now
if m i s always in energy it means it is always there !!!
c is consatnt
E is conserved so ..---------...
m is conserved as well
dont you see that ??
That's not what the equation says. E=mc^2 does NOT say:
"Where there is energy, there is also mass. And where there is mass
there is also energy."
This has been pointed out to before.
It is a relationship between *before* and *after* states.
If you have mass *before*, then this can be converted to energy
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also energy before and also
mass after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
If you have energy *before*, then this can be converted to mass
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also mass before and also
energy after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
And no, this does NOT mean that if E is conserved, then m is conserved
as well.
Why? Because E=mc^2 does not represent the *total* energy of a system.
Recall that there are many contributions to energy (electrostatic
potential, linear kinetic, stochastic kinetic, rotational kinetic,
etc...) and it is only the *sum* of all contributions to the energy
that is conserved. An individual contribution (such as conversion from
rest mass) is NOT individually conserved, any more than electrostatic
potential energy is individually conserved.
Fundamental misunderstandings of the conservation laws, Porat.
PD
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 09:59:14 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
But there is a Law of Conservation of Stupidity.
Just watch him.
Glad to see you're back, by the way.
Dirk Vdm
-------------------------------------
to all the imbecil parrots
there is no law of conservation of this chemical element of the other
but there is a law of conseravtion of MASS
No, actually, there's not.
----------------
you ignored the rest of that post
in mc^2 =E
there are ONLY TWO PHYSICSL ENTITIES
one is m the other is c^2
if m is meaningless you have that th e most meaninful element in
mc^2
is the c^2 ??
so what is the roll; m there if it is nonexistat than you can
write
E=c^2 and thats all why bother etering there the negligable m ??
or something that you catuallt dont know what is its meaning ??
I didn't say it didn't have any meaning. I said there is no such law as
conservation of mass.
If I take a look at low-speed KE = (1/2)mv^2, the v has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of velocity.
If I take a look at Newton's 2nd law F=ma, the a has a specific
meaning, but there is no conservation of acceleration.
Do not overassume what you cannot assume.
PD
-------------------
wow waht a quick answer
as if in live conversation
now
if m i s always in energy it means it is always there !!!
c is consatnt
E is conserved so ..---------...
m is conserved as well
dont you see that ??
That's not what the equation says. E=mc^2 does NOT say:
"Where there is energy, there is also mass. And where there is mass
there is also energy."
This has been pointed out to before.
It is a relationship between *before* and *after* states.
If you have mass *before*, then this can be converted to energy
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also energy before and also
mass after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
If you have energy *before*, then this can be converted to mass
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also mass before and also
energy after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
And no, this does NOT mean that if E is conserved, then m is conserved
as well.
Why? Because E=mc^2 does not represent the *total* energy of a system.
Recall that there are many contributions to energy (electrostatic
potential, linear kinetic, stochastic kinetic, rotational kinetic,
etc...) and it is only the *sum* of all contributions to the energy
that is conserved. An individual contribution (such as conversion from
rest mass) is NOT individually conserved, any more than electrostatic
potential energy is individually conserved.
Fundamental misunderstandings of the conservation laws, Porat.
PD
------------------------
fundamental misundersytanding and over smatguying
allenergies can be described by mc^2
including the EM
it can be as well mv^2 but that is the same arguemnt there
even momentum is the same argument
you have p=mc
if p is conserves than m must be
it is a simple result iof the equation
the trouble with you that you never before thought about that argument
(nore me (:-) it was cooked jsut now before your eys ...)
so oplease save us the patronizing remarkes such as
' a total misunderstanding etc '
because it might come back to you as a boomerang
we are not here with psychologic war
we disscuss physics even if it is new orriginal and surpriosingly
simple ideas !!
simple does n tmake it less important !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 11:08:30 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
Do not overassume what you cannot assume.
PD
-------------------
wow waht a quick answer
as if in live conversation
now
if m i s always in energy it means it is always there !!!
c is consatnt
E is conserved so ..---------...
m is conserved as well
dont you see that ??
That's not what the equation says. E=mc^2 does NOT say:
"Where there is energy, there is also mass. And where there is mass
there is also energy."
This has been pointed out to before.
It is a relationship between *before* and *after* states.
If you have mass *before*, then this can be converted to energy
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also energy before and also
mass after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
If you have energy *before*, then this can be converted to mass
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also mass before and also
energy after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
And no, this does NOT mean that if E is conserved, then m is conserved
as well.
Why? Because E=mc^2 does not represent the *total* energy of a system.
Recall that there are many contributions to energy (electrostatic
potential, linear kinetic, stochastic kinetic, rotational kinetic,
etc...) and it is only the *sum* of all contributions to the energy
that is conserved. An individual contribution (such as conversion from
rest mass) is NOT individually conserved, any more than electrostatic
potential energy is individually conserved.
Fundamental misunderstandings of the conservation laws, Porat.
PD
------------------------
fundamental misundersytanding and over smatguying
allenergies can be described by mc^2
including the EM
it can be as well mv^2 but that is the same arguemnt there
even momentum is the same argument
you have p=mc
if p is conserves than m must be
it is a simple result iof the equation
the trouble with you that you never before thought about that argument
(nore me (:-) it was cooked jsut now before your eys ...)
so oplease save us the patronizing remarkes such as
' a total misunderstanding etc '
because it might come back to you as a boomerang
we are not here with psychologic war
we disscuss physics even if it is new orriginal and surpriosingly
simple ideas !!
simple does n tmake it less important !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
evn if yiou take th ebefore and after analysis you get the same
supose a compleax process in which youhave particles in
and out energy and other particles
you can always tarsalte it all to mc^2 in both sides of in and out
paticles can be transtaled to the equivalent mc^2)
.
and you will get tha the altogether in mass is exactly as the
altogethjer out mass
using the E=mc^2
am i right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
06 Sep 2006 01:34:49 PM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Good one :-)
Do not overassume what you cannot assume.
PD
-------------------
wow waht a quick answer
as if in live conversation
now
if m i s always in energy it means it is always there !!!
c is consatnt
E is conserved so ..---------...
m is conserved as well
dont you see that ??
That's not what the equation says. E=mc^2 does NOT say:
"Where there is energy, there is also mass. And where there is mass
there is also energy."
This has been pointed out to before.
It is a relationship between *before* and *after* states.
If you have mass *before*, then this can be converted to energy
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also energy before and also
mass after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
If you have energy *before*, then this can be converted to mass
*after*. This does NOT mean that there is also mass before and also
energy after. It means that one gets *changed* into the other.
And no, this does NOT mean that if E is conserved, then m is conserved
as well.
Why? Because E=mc^2 does not represent the *total* energy of a system.
Recall that there are many contributions to energy (electrostatic
potential, linear kinetic, stochastic kinetic, rotational kinetic,
etc...) and it is only the *sum* of all contributions to the energy
that is conserved. An individual contribution (such as conversion from
rest mass) is NOT individually conserved, any more than electrostatic
potential energy is individually conserved.
Fundamental misunderstandings of the conservation laws, Porat.
PD
------------------------
fundamental misundersytanding and over smatguying
allenergies can be described by mc^2
including the EM
it can be as well mv^2 but that is the same arguemnt there
even momentum is the same argument
you have p=mc
if p is conserves than m must be
it is a simple result iof the equation
the trouble with you that you never before thought about that argument
(nore me (:-) it was cooked jsut now before your eys ...)
so oplease save us the patronizing remarkes such as
' a total misunderstanding etc '
because it might come back to you as a boomerang
we are not here with psychologic war
we disscuss physics even if it is new orriginal and surpriosingly
simple ideas !!
simple does n tmake it less important !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
evn if yiou take th ebefore and after analysis you get the same
supose a compleax process in which youhave particles in
and out energy and other particles
you can always tarsalte it all to mc^2 in both sides of in and out
paticles can be transtaled to the equivalent mc^2)
.
and you will get tha the altogether in mass is exactly as the
altogethjer out mass
using the E=mc^2
am i right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Unfortunately, Porat, your last two messages were so badly mangled in
the English that I can't make enough sense of them to respond.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
07 Sep 2006 09:28:27 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
and also
simple does n tmake it less important !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
evn if yiou take th ebefore and after analysis you get the same
supose a compleax process in which youhave particles in
and out energy and other particles
you can always tarsalte it all to mc^2 in both sides of in and out
paticles can be transtaled to the equivalent mc^2)
.
and you will get tha the altogether in mass is exactly as the
altogethjer out mass
using the E=mc^2
am i right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Unfortunately, Porat, your last two messages were so badly mangled in
the English that I can't make enough sense of them to respond.
PD
-------------------------
it seems like a nice way to evade th e problem
actauly it might be some of my fault because it is new arguments
even for me
so let me try again:
1 ith ebase for my new claim that mass is conserved goe slkike this
if we look at the formula E=mc^2
there ar eonly TWO physical entities ther m and c
c by itself is certainly not energy
so ??
the second term there m is waht gives the 'c' the entity orf enery
actually we can fraze it in many ways
and even you could suggest how to fraze it but theidea and logic of it
is undemyable
we can say that both m and c are THE components of energy
(i refrain from saying my old claim that energy is mass inmotion
because you will imediately and authomatically willreject it (:-)
so you cant deny that c without m is not energy
so you cant dismiss the indespensible of m in that entity that i
scalled energy
thast is in general
do you accept that general abstract insight ??
later we can get into detailes
but fierst lets examine the above abstarct principle
2
the formula E=mc^2 is valid for photons as well
because it is an ** universal ** eqaution
right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
08 Sep 2006 08:30:02 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
and also
simple does n tmake it less important !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
if m was not conserved E would not be conserved as well !!
because it is not enough that c alone will be conserved
(sorry if it was a quick answer as well
do i make sense ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
evn if yiou take th ebefore and after analysis you get the same
supose a compleax process in which youhave particles in
and out energy and other particles
you can always tarsalte it all to mc^2 in both sides of in and out
paticles can be transtaled to the equivalent mc^2)
.
and you will get tha the altogether in mass is exactly as the
altogethjer out mass
using the E=mc^2
am i right ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Unfortunately, Porat, your last two messages were so badly mangled in
the English that I can't make enough sense of them to respond.
PD
-------------------------
it seems like a nice way to evade th e problem
actauly it might be some of my fault because it is new arguments
even for me
so let me try again:
1 ith ebase for my new claim that mass is conserved goe slkike this
if we look at the formula E=mc^2
there ar eonly TWO physical entities ther m and c
c by itself is certainly not energy
so ??
the second term there m is waht gives the 'c' the entity orf enery
actually we can fraze it in many ways
and even you could suggest how to fraze it but theidea and logic of it
is undemyable
we can say that both m and c are THE components of energy
(i refrain from saying my old claim that energy is mass inmotion
because you will imediately and authomatically willreject it (:-)
so you cant deny that c without m is not energy
so you cant dismiss the indespensible of m in that entity that i
scalled energy
No. One cannot look at an equation and say that the left hand side is
composed of the things on the right hand side. That's NOT what an
equation is intended to tell you. For example, Newton's second law is
sometimes written as F = ma. But in no way are you to take from this
that force is *composed* somehow of mass and acceleration. It is not.
The force *causes* acceleration, and the relationship between *how
much* force and *how much* acceleration is given by that relation in
the equation.
If you read equations like X = Y*Z to mean "X is made of Y and Z", then
this is part of your fundamental misunderstanding.
thast is in general
do you accept that general abstract insight ??
later we can get into detailes
but fierst lets examine the above abstarct principle
2
the formula E=mc^2 is valid for photons as well
because it is an ** universal ** eqaution
right ??
It most certainly is not. I don't know where you got the impression
that it is universal.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 03:04:42 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
1 ith ebase for my new claim that mass is conserved goe slkike this
if we look at the formula E=mc^2
there ar eonly TWO physical entities ther m and c
c by itself is certainly not energy
so ??
the second term there m is waht gives the 'c' the entity orf enery
actually we can fraze it in many ways
and even you could suggest how to fraze it but theidea and logic of it
is undemyable
we can say that both m and c are THE components of energy
(i refrain from saying my old claim that energy is mass inmotion
because you will imediately and authomatically willreject it (:-)
so you cant deny that c without m is not energy
so you cant dismiss the indespensible of m in that entity that i
scalled energy
No. One cannot look at an equation and say that the left hand side is
composed of the things on the right hand side. That's NOT what an
equation is intended to tell you. For example, Newton's second law is
sometimes written as F = ma. But in no way are you to take from this
that force is *composed* somehow of mass and acceleration. It is not.
The force *causes* acceleration, and the relationship between *how
much* force and *how much* acceleration is given by that relation in
the equation.
If you read equations like X = Y*Z to mean "X is made of Y and Z", then
this is part of your fundamental misunderstanding.
-------------------------
that i sth e misunderstanding of **yourse*
th emost you can sy is that energy might have some other presentatins
BUT YOU CANNOT DENY THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE PRESENTATIONS IS THAT
ENERGY IS Mc^2!!
A and realy yo cant seperate in that case mass fome c^2
but at th esame tine you cannot IGNORE THE m in that formula
and say it deos not existe there as a component !!
mc^ i smore detailes than E!!!
so mc^2 presentation
is the moere ADNAVCED AND LESS ABSTARCT PRESENTATION (of just E)
it took hundreds of years tomove FORWARDS from just E to E=mc^2
!!!!!!!
if you diont undesrant that golearn mor ephysics
but not as a pompous partronazing parrot but as a physicist !!
------------------------
do you accept that general abstract insight ??
later we can get into detailes
but fierst lets examine the above abstarct principle
2
the formula E=mc^2 is valid for photons as well
because it is an ** universal ** eqaution
right ??
It most certainly is not. I don't know where you got the impression
that it is universal.
---------------
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 04:40:51 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)
When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]
When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
only applies locally]
Or any combination thereof.
Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
actually understand physics.
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 06:28:25 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)
When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
so ???
When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]-
imbecil !!
that doe snot underdtand hoew a fiormula is built andwaht is its
meaning
----------
When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
only applies locally]
that is another profe idiot imbecil that th ephoton has mass
2 it means tha t youdont know what is happening in a strong
gravitational field
-----------
Or any combination thereof.
what do you know abou tthose combinations crook ??be more spsecifi
Nazi *****
it is not good enough jsut to hand wave !!!
do you think shitty that you are impersing anyone by your
demagogic systems ??
do you think it will make you a less zero scintist parrot ??
waht is your day job??
waht is your innovation to physics ?
wHat is your unprecedented contributiuons to Nazi demagogue
no one gives apiss at you.
----------
Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
--------------
who the ***** nominated you here to be thge super supervisor of that
ng??
waht is you qualification for that
waht is your AOUTHORITY FOR THAT
beside your being a nazi ***** ::!!!
did anyone beside a rude idiot like you ever demanded
someone else toleave that ng?
not to mensin tha tyou are an idiot parrot phjysicist!!
-------------
If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
actually understand physics.
---------------
let human being to reply !!!
i was not adressing nazi animals
and no one nominated a fucher shitter like you to be
go ***** youself with Golsed Boare that apprently is one of your many
schitzo names disturbed animal .
Y.P
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 06:47:32 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)
When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
so ???
When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]-
imbecil !!
that doe snot underdtand hoew a fiormula is built andwaht is its
meaning
----------
When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
only applies locally]
that is another profe idiot imbecil that th ephoton has mass
2 it means tha t youdont know what is happening in a strong
gravitational field
-----------
Or any combination thereof.
what do you know abou tthose combinations crook ??be more spsecifi
Nazi *****
it is not good enough jsut to hand wave !!!
do you think shitty that you are impersing anyone by your
demagogic systems ??
do you think it will make you a less zero scintist parrot ??
waht is your day job??
waht is your innovation to physics ?
wHat is your unprecedented contributiuons to Nazi demagogue
no one gives apiss at you.
----------
Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
--------------
who the ***** nominated you here to be thge super supervisor of that
ng??
waht is you qualification for that
waht is your AOUTHORITY FOR THAT
beside your being a nazi ***** ::!!!
did anyone beside a rude idiot like you ever demanded
someone else toleave that ng?
not to mensin tha tyou are an idiot parrot phjysicist!!
-------------
If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
actually understand physics.
---------------
let human being to reply !!!
i was not adressing nazi animals
and no one nominated a fucher shitter like you to be
go ***** youself with Golsed Boare that apprently is one of your many
schitzo names disturbed animal .
Y.P
---------------------------
You're the fucking schitzo, fool.
Why would you think that I am Eric Gisse?
Is it because we both disagree with you?
Is it because we both think you are a retard?
Maybe it will help to clear up your confusion, if you do a google
groups search for the following title, "Another look at Coulomb's Force
law".
Read that thread, then come back and say I am Eric Gisse you paranoid,
senile old fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 07:04:12 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)
When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
so ???
When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]-
imbecil !!
that doe snot underdtand hoew a fiormula is built andwaht is its
meaning
----------
When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
only applies locally]
that is another profe idiot imbecil that th ephoton has mass
2 it means tha t youdont know what is happening in a strong
gravitational field
-----------
Or any combination thereof.
what do you know abou tthose combinations crook ??be more spsecifi
Nazi *****
it is not good enough jsut to hand wave !!!
do you think shitty that you are impersing anyone by your
demagogic systems ??
do you think it will make you a less zero scintist parrot ??
waht is your day job??
waht is your innovation to physics ?
wHat is your unprecedented contributiuons to Nazi demagogue
no one gives apiss at you.
----------
Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
--------------
who the ***** nominated you here to be thge super supervisor of that
ng??
waht is you qualification for that
waht is your AOUTHORITY FOR THAT
beside your being a nazi ***** ::!!!
did anyone beside a rude idiot like you ever demanded
someone else toleave that ng?
not to mensin tha tyou are an idiot parrot phjysicist!!
-------------
If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
actually understand physics.
---------------
let human being to reply !!!
i was not adressing nazi animals
and no one nominated a fucher shitter like you to be
go ***** youself with Golsed Boare that apprently is one of your many
schitzo names disturbed animal .
Y.P
---------------------------
You're the fucking schitzo, fool.
Why would you think that I am Eric Gisse?
Is it because we both disagree with you?
Is it because we both think you are a retard?
Maybe it will help to clear up your confusion, if you do a google
groups search for the following title, "Another look at Coulomb's Force
law".
Read that thread, then come back and say I am Eric Gisse you paranoid,
senile old fool.
-------------------------------
Hi shitzo:
just hepl your twin felow to prove that
the E=mc^2
- is wrong- in a gravitational field
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 09:21:33 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)
When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
so ???
When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]-
imbecil !!
that doe snot underdtand hoew a fiormula is built andwaht is its
meaning
----------
When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
only applies locally]
that is another profe idiot imbecil that th ephoton has mass
2 it means tha t youdont know what is happening in a strong
gravitational field
-----------
Or any combination thereof.
what do you know abou tthose combinations crook ??be more spsecifi
Nazi *****
it is not good enough jsut to hand wave !!!
do you think shitty that you are impersing anyone by your
demagogic systems ??
do you think it will make you a less zero scintist parrot ??
waht is your day job??
waht is your innovation to physics ?
wHat is your unprecedented contributiuons to Nazi demagogue
no one gives apiss at you.
----------
Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
--------------
who the ***** nominated you here to be thge super supervisor of that
ng??
waht is you qualification for that
waht is your AOUTHORITY FOR THAT
beside your being a nazi ***** ::!!!
did anyone beside a rude idiot like you ever demanded
someone else toleave that ng?
not to mensin tha tyou are an idiot parrot phjysicist!!
-------------
If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
actually understand physics.
---------------
let human being to reply !!!
i was not adressing nazi animals
and no one nominated a fucher shitter like you to be
go ***** youself with Golsed Boare that apprently is one of your many
schitzo names disturbed animal .
Y.P
---------------------------
You're the fucking schitzo, fool.
Why would you think that I am Eric Gisse?
Is it because we both disagree with you?
Is it because we both think you are a retard?
Maybe it will help to clear up your confusion, if you do a google
groups search for the following title, "Another look at Coulomb's Force
law".
Read that thread, then come back and say I am Eric Gisse you paranoid,
senile old fool.
-------------------------------
Hi shitzo:
just hepl your twin felow to prove that
the E=mc^2
- is wrong- in a gravitational field
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Unfortunately, I can't, since I do not know the mathematics of GR.
The only thing I know about GR is that the spacetime curvature is due
to the stress-energy tensor, and I suspect you know even less than me.
So what do you know about GR, that makes you think E=m.c^2 is valid in
a strong gravitational field?
You have consistently proven yourself to be an idiot with a total lack
of understanding about physics or maths (for example, photons have rest
mas, h has mass, and the fact that you rearrange an equation and think
that you have redefined physics).
You call everyone who disagrees with you 'a nazi imbecile crook', and
then think that everyone who disagrees with you must actually be the
same person, thereby showing that you have no ability for logic either.
Why should anyone bother trying to prove something you say is wrong,
when you will just ignore the evidence and insist you are right,
without providing any evidence for your claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 10:51:22 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Y.P
---------------------------
,
senile old fool.
-------------------------------
Hi shitzo:
just hepl your twin felow to prove that
the E=mc^2
- is wrong- in a gravitational field
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Unfortunately, I can't, since I do not know the mathematics of GR.
The only thing I know about GR is that the spacetime curvature is due
to the stress-energy tensor, and I suspect you know even less than me.
-----------------------------
so why do you stick your fucken idiotc head in trhing tha tyou dont
know??
just your primitiver instinct top be against me?
no one realy knows waht is gravity
it is all poor guesses
now
Mr genius that claimes that the photon has an infnit mass
do you remember
socan a fucker idiot like you educate me on anything in physics ??
now ***** of and let the other genius lier
to prove that Emc^2
is invakid in a strong gravitational filed
do you say that i have toprove the opposit idiot crook?
why sould i prove the oposite while noone and the other crook are the
one
who claim that cheating claim that no one before claimed?
E=mc^2 is valid everywhere unless soemone proves otherwise
got it idiot lier that has not even th e basics of logic in science
9and not least th ebasic of decency !!
did you ever heare about honesty ??
so let the other crook Gisse prove his claim
and you just ***** of and let him answer
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 05:11:17 PM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
so you claim thjat E=mc^2 is not universal ???
(where is it wrong ??)
When there is motion. [E=mc^2 is a special case]
so ???
You asked me where E=mc^2 is wrong, idiot.
When photons are being considered. [E=mc^2 is wrong for photons]-
imbecil !!
that doe snot underdtand hoew a fiormula is built andwaht is its
meaning
Since you have no education in physics and have proven you do not
understand SR, I consider that a very bold position to take.
----------
When the measurment takes place in a strong gravitational field. [SR
only applies locally]
that is another profe idiot imbecil that th ephoton has mass
Who was talking about photons, moron? I wasn't.
2 it means tha t youdont know what is happening in a strong
gravitational field
I know a hell of a lot more about it than you. This is the subject I am
studying in a university setting, and it is the subject I want to spend
a long time learning about.
You say you were an engineer. No engineering program has any reason to
teach general or even special relativity to engineers. Go ahead, tell
me where you learned GR and SR. Do you even know?
-----------
Or any combination thereof.
what do you know abou tthose combinations crook ??be more spsecifi
Nazi *****
Weee!
it is not good enough jsut to hand wave !!!
do you think shitty that you are impersing anyone by your
demagogic systems ??
do you think it will make you a less zero scintist parrot ??
It is spelled "scientist", you ineducable *****. How many ***** times
will it take for you to learn it is spelled SCIENTIST? You can't even
grasp the spelling of a common 9 letter English word, what makes you
think you can argue relativity?
waht is your day job??
waht is your innovation to physics ?
wHat is your unprecedented contributiuons to Nazi demagogue
I'm a student, you worthless human being.
I'm taking 18 credit hours this semester. I spend 21 hours a week *just
in class*, and approximately that much doing homework and studying.
When was the last time YOU were in university? Was it more or less than
50 years ago?
no one gives apiss at you.
----------
Remember Porat, you are not and never were a physicist.
--------------
who the ***** nominated you here to be thge super supervisor of that
ng??
waht is you qualification for that
waht is your AOUTHORITY FOR THAT
beside your being a nazi ***** ::!!!
did anyone beside a rude idiot like you ever demanded
someone else toleave that ng?
not to mensin tha tyou are an idiot parrot phjysicist!!
An "idiot parrot physicist" is still more of a physicist than you will
ever be, at this point.
Your English is atrocious. You are incapable of spelling a word larger
than 4 letters correctly.
-------------
If you were actually an engineer as you say you were, go post somewhere
else. Go share any actual engineering knowledge you have with
engineering newsgroups and leave physics newsgroups to those who
actually understand physics.
---------------
let human being to reply !!!
i was not adressing nazi animals
and no one nominated a fucher shitter like you to be
go ***** youself with Golsed Boare that apprently is one of your many
schitzo names disturbed animal .
Sorry Porat, you are not worth the effort. I don't need to use
different names to annoy you, all I have to do is point out that you
were never a physicist and are incapable of even learning simple
English to make you mad.
Gosh, isn't that sad? You pretend to be an authority on all things in
physics yet you have no education to show for it, and your mind is so
porous that even simple things like the spelling of the word "photon"
go right through one ear and out the other.
Y.P
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
10 Sep 2006 11:12:01 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
You asked me where E=mc^2 is wrong, idiot.
----------
Sorry Porat, you are not worth the effort. I don't need to use
different names to annoy you, all I have to do is point out that you
were never a physicist and are incapable of even learning simple
English to make you mad.
Gosh, isn't that sad? You pretend to be an authority on all things in
physics yet you have no education to show for it, and your mind is so
porous that even simple things like the spelling of the word "photon"
go right through one ear and out the other.
---------------------------------
disturbed Josef Goebeless
if you realy are just a student than you are the limit a nazi
***** can be
ie the symbol of animal behaviour of a zero scientist
a zero human being with such a big impertinance
now just bring other evidence than your own (disturbed nazi *****)
evidence
that E=mc^2
IS NOT VALID IN A GRAVITATIONALFIELD
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: 100 Years of E=mc2 |
11 Sep 2006 12:20:13 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
You asked me where E=mc^2 is wrong, idiot.
----------
Sorry Porat, you are not worth the effort. I don't need to use
different names to annoy you, all I have to do is point out that you
were never a physicist and are incapable of even learning simple
English to make you mad.
Gosh, isn't that sad? You pretend to be an authority on all things in
physics yet you have no education to show for it, and your mind is so
porous that even simple things like the spelling of the word "photon"
go right through one ear and out the other.
---------------------------------
disturbed Josef Goebeless
if you realy are just a student than you are the limit a nazi
***** can be
ie the symbol of animal behaviour of a zero scientist
a zero human being with such a big impertinance
now just bring other evidence than your own (disturbed nazi *****)
evidence
that E=mc^2
IS NOT VALID IN A GRAVITATIONALFIELD
Special relativity isn't valid in a gravitational field, you fuckwit.
If you actually had an education in physics you wouldn't have to have
this explained to you.
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
