"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XuSdnXBOEtvzxJ7ZRVny1A@pipex.net...

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:R9qdnQ9Wooi_y57ZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...

"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:trudnbgpwfMC0p7ZRVnyjg@pipex.net...

Dont listen to spaceman.

That reminds me of the old....
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes,
You have never followed the yellow brick road.

You simply got lost in rubber ruler land before you could.

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Bishop wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"Bishop" <BishopSemanticsGroup@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141074587.656892.268660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Paul Cardinale wrote:

Bishop wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617

by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist

what do you think?

Tiny white text on a dark gray backgroung = difficult to read.
If you don't put up a presentable page, I won't even start reading
it.

Paul Cardinale

try this new one (364K)

http://www.pbase.com/image/56610412/original

(if you still can't read it... i'll put a 1meg file).

Need your expert opinion.

Pls. focus on the lower right side specifically the one
written "Without relativity, our bodies molecules would
fall apart". Michio Kaku attributes it to particle spin
which he relates to relativity. Did he goof up somewhere.
I think it's related to Dirac relativistic equation which
produced description of spin 1/2 particles like electrons.
How come Dirac relativistic treatment of the Schroedinger
Equation automatically produced the description of
spin 1/2 particles. What does this exactly mean. Its
still fuzzy concept for me.

Is this image something you, yourself, wrote and you are asking us to
validate it's scientific content? Or is this something you found and
want to
get feedback on?

I made it clear that the image is written by the famous theoretical
physicist called Dr. Michio Kaku. Don't know if you knew him.

I think what he is saying is this. Isn't it that as you accelerate
a particle at high speed, its mass (or relativistic mass) increase.
So what Dr. Kaku may be pointing out is that if relativity is "turn
off"
meaning in a universe where there is no changes in the
relativistic mass at relativistic speed.. then there is no mechanism
for E=mc^2 meaning mass is not interchangeable to energy.
Likewise. In a universe where SR doesn't occur, particle
spin may not exist. They are all somehow related.

Isn't this what he is saying? If not. What. If wrong, why is
he wrong??

Bishop

Well, we can explain spin as particles transforming under
different representations of the Lorentz group, so in a
sense there's a very fundamental connection between special
relativity and spin. I don't think that implies you
couldn't have spin without SR. There might be a complately
different way to formulate it that works just as well in a
Gallilean universe.

Let's talk about E=mc^2 first as it is more obvious. Can you
have E=mc^2 without SR? Let me elaborate. SR says that
as you increase speed of a particle near c, its
relativistic mass increase.

This made Einstein conclude
that energy is interchangeable to mass and vice versa.

When the radium was seen to increase energy
in seeming contradiction of the law of conservation
of energy. Planck realized that Einstein e=mc^2 is
literal and was so excited.

Now supposed in a universe
where SR doesn't occur and relativistic mass doesn't
occur at relativistic speed, the rules of physics is such
that mass can't be converted to energy. What do you think?

Bishop

QCD Apprentice wrote:

Bishop wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"Bishop" <BishopSemanticsGroup@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141074587.656892.268660@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Paul Cardinale wrote:

Bishop wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/image/56576617

by Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist

what do you think?

Tiny white text on a dark gray backgroung = difficult to read.
If you don't put up a presentable page, I won't even start reading it.

Paul Cardinale

try this new one (364K)

http://www.pbase.com/image/56610412/original

(if you still can't read it... i'll put a 1meg file).

Need your expert opinion.

Pls. focus on the lower right side specifically the one
written "Without relativity, our bodies molecules would
fall apart". Michio Kaku attributes it to particle spin
which he relates to relativity. Did he goof up somewhere.
I think it's related to Dirac relativistic equation which
produced description of spin 1/2 particles like electrons.
How come Dirac relativistic treatment of the Schroedinger
Equation automatically produced the description of
spin 1/2 particles. What does this exactly mean. Its
still fuzzy concept for me.

Is this image something you, yourself, wrote and you are asking us to
validate it's scientific content? Or is this something you found and want to
get feedback on?

I made it clear that the image is written by the famous theoretical
physicist called Dr. Michio Kaku. Don't know if you knew him.

I think what he is saying is this. Isn't it that as you accelerate
a particle at high speed, its mass (or relativistic mass) increase.
So what Dr. Kaku may be pointing out is that if relativity is "turn
off"
meaning in a universe where there is no changes in the
relativistic mass at relativistic speed.. then there is no mechanism
for E=mc^2 meaning mass is not interchangeable to energy.
Likewise. In a universe where SR doesn't occur, particle
spin may not exist. They are all somehow related.

Isn't this what he is saying? If not. What. If wrong, why is
he wrong??

Bishop

Well, we can explain spin as particles transforming under
different representations of the Lorentz group, so in a
sense there's a very fundamental connection between special
relativity and spin. I don't think that implies you
couldn't have spin without SR. There might be a complately
different way to formulate it that works just as well in a
Gallilean universe.

Let's talk about E=mc^2 first as it is more obvious. Can you
have E=mc^2 without SR? Let me elaborate. SR says that
as you increase speed of a particle near c, its
relativistic mass increase. This made Einstein conclude
that energy is interchangeable to mass and vice versa.
When the radium was seen to increase energy
in seeming contradiction of the law of conservation
of energy. Planck realized that Einstein e=mc^2 is
literal and was so excited. Now supposed in a universe
where SR doesn't occur and relativistic mass doesn't
occur at relativistic speed, the rules of physics is such
that mass can't be converted to energy. What do you think?