Einstein energy equation E = mc2

Discussion in 'Physics' started by reerer, Apr 1, 2016.

  1. reerer

    Thread Starter Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    Einstein energy equation E = mc2 is used to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with real matter that has a mass, such a subatomic particles, but the energy E of Einstein's energy equation represents the energy of a massless EM photon; consequently, the inertia (m) of Einstein's energy equation is massless; therefore, Einstein energy equation cannot be used to justify the electromagnetic theory of matter.


    _____________________________________________________________





    "The acceptance of the "electromagnetic theory of matter" has been a very important factor in the evolution of scientific and philosophical thought. Since the rise of modern science (around 1600) the prevailing opinion among scientists was the belief in a "mechanistic science," which means the belief that physical phenomena are "understood" or "explained" only if these phenomena can be reduced to Newton's laws of motion. Obviously, the "electromagnetic theory of matter" has dropped this requirement. It was stated, starting with Heinrich Hertz, that man must cease trying to reduced all physical phenomena to the laws of mechanics. It was required, instead, that all physical facts must be derived from Maxwell's laws of the electromagnetic field. This meant a radical change in the meaning of the conception of "understanding" or "explaining." The requirement of a reduction to Newton's laws was raised because it was believed that these laws were "self-evident"; the reduction to Newton's mechanics proved a reduction to "intelligible" principles in the sense of Aristotle's, hardly anybody, however, would think that Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field were self-evident or intelligible. Therefore, the abandonment of a mechanistic explanation meant also dropping the request for a deduction from intelligible principles. Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field and Lorentz's hypothesis about the distribution of electric charges in "material" particles were accepted only because the observed facts about the motions of bodies and propagation of light could be derived. Thomas Aquinas' criterion for the "inferior" type of truth, the "scientific," not the "philosophical" truth, became the decisive criterion. Principle of physics were accepted if they could stand the test of logical consistency and empirical confirmation. The era of mechanistic physics was reaching its end, and the era of logico-empirical physics was beginning. Roughly speaking, we may say that the mechanistic era had extended from 1600 to 1900, and that the twentieth century opened with the logico-empirical conception of science in the making." (Frank, p. 132-133).
     
  2. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,392
    1,605
  3. reerer

    Thread Starter Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    Einstein obtained the square from the kinetic energy equation, KE = 1/2 mv2.
     
  4. jaydnul

    Member

    Apr 2, 2015
    88
    0
    No it doesn't.
    The evidence of reality justifies the electromagnetic theory of interaction.
     
  5. Kermit2

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 5, 2010
    3,789
    945
    Did the understanding of space/time just undergo a radical transformation and no one notified me?

    OR...

    (Kermit hits his snooze button)
     
    Wendy, hexreader and ErnieM like this.
  6. reerer

    Thread Starter Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    In 1905,

    In Einstein's paper, "Does the Inertia of a Body depend upon its Energy Content?" (1905), Einstein describes the decrease in the inertia, of an electron, after emitting a photon.


    "There I based myself upon the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space along with Maxwell's expression for the electromagnetic energy" (Einstein3, p. 639).

    "Let this body simultaneously emit plane waves of light of energy L/2" (Einstein3, p. 640).

    "The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ,η,ς) decreases as a result of the emission of light..... If a body releases the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass decreases by L/V2 ." (Einstein3, p. 641).


    Einstein's term L/V2 represents the decrease in the inertia of an electron after emitting an electromagnetic photon but Maxwell's electromagnetic field originates from Faraday's induction experiment that is not luminous.


    "The special theory of relativity has led to the conclusion that inert mass is nothing more or less than energy" (Einstein5, § 15).
     
  7. reerer

    Thread Starter Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    In 1917.





    Einstein describes the increase in the inertia of the electron after absorbing a photon.


    "XV. General Results of the Theory


    IT is clear from our previous considerations that the (special) theory of relativity has grown out of electrodynamics and optics. In these fields it has not appreciably altered the predictions of theory, but it has considerably simplified the theoretical structure, i.e. the derivation of laws, and—what is incomparably more important—it has considerably reduced the number of independent hypotheses forming the basis of theory. The special theory of relativity has rendered the Maxwell-Lorentz theory so plausible, that the latter would have been generally accepted by physicists even if experiment had decided less unequivocally in its favor." (Einstein6, § 15).


    "Hence we can say: If a body takes up an amount of energy Eo, then its inertial mass increases by an amount




    Eo/c2.......................................................................................................62




    the inertial mass of a body is not a constant, but varies according to the change in the energy of the body. The inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be regarded as a measure of its energy. The law of the conservation of the mass of a system becomes identical with the law of the conservation of energy, and is only valid provided that the system neither takes up nor sends out energy. Writing the expression for the energy in the form





    mc2 + Eo/ (1 - v2/c2)1/2.................................................................................63




    we see that the term mc2, which has hitherto attracted our attention, is nothing else than the energy possessed by the body before it absorbed the energy Eo." (Einstein6, § 15).


    Einstein's term Eo/c2 (equ 62) represents the increase in the inertia of an electron after absorbing an electromagnetic photon but Maxwell's electromagnetic field originates from Faraday's induction experiment that is not luminous. In addition, the discontinuous structure of Einstein's electromagnetic photon conflicts with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic induction field since dispersing light particle of a light beam cannot maintain the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field, during propagation. Also, Einstein's term Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon; consequently, the inertia (m), that is represented with Eo/c2 (equ 62), is massless. Einstein is attempting to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, using an energy equation Eo = mc2 but the inertial (m) of Einstein's energy equation is massless since Eo represents the energy of a massless electromagnetic photon.

    "The special theory of relativity has led to the conclusion that inert mass is nothing more or less than energy" (Einstein5, § 15).
    ................................................................................................................................................................................

    Einstein energy equation Eo = mc2 is used to structurally unify Maxwell's electromagnetic field with real matter that has a mass, such a subatomic particles, but the energy Eo of Einstein's energy equation represents the energy of a massless EM photon; consequently, the inertia (m) of Einstein's energy equation is massless; therefore, Einstein energy equation cannot be used to justify the electromagnetic theory of matter.


    "The acceptance of the "electromagnetic theory of matter" has been a very important factor in the evolution of scientific and philosophical thought. Since the rise of modern science (around 1600) the prevailing opinion among scientists was the belief in a "mechanistic science," which means the belief that physical phenomena are "understood" or "explained" only if these phenomena can be reduced to Newton's laws of motion. Obviously, the "electromagnetic theory of matter" has dropped this requirement. It was stated, starting with Heinrich Hertz, that man must cease trying to reduced all physical phenomena to the laws of mechanics. It was required, instead, that all physical facts must be derived from Maxwell's laws of the electromagnetic field. This meant a radical change in the meaning of the conception of "understanding" or "explaining." The requirement of a reduction to Newton's laws was raised because it was believed that these laws were "self-evident"; the reduction to Newton's mechanics proved a reduction to "intelligible" principles in the sense of Aristotle's, hardly anybody, however, would think that Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field were self-evident or intelligible. Therefore, the abandonment of a mechanistic explanation meant also dropping the request for a deduction from intelligible principles. Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field and Lorentz's hypothesis about the distribution of electric charges in "material" particles were accepted only because the observed facts about the motions of bodies and propagation of light could be derived. Thomas Aquinas' criterion for the "inferior" type of truth, the "scientific," not the "philosophical" truth, became the decisive criterion. Principle of physics were accepted if they could stand the test of logical consistency and empirical confirmation. The era of mechanistic physics was reaching its end, and the era of logico-empirical physics was beginning. Roughly speaking, we may say that the mechanistic era had extended from 1600 to 1900, and that the twentieth century opened with the logico-empirical conception of science in the making." (Frank, p. 132-133).






    __________________________________________________________________________________________
     
  8. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,996
    389
    Inertia is a fundamental property of charge, not mass. It is caused by the energy stored in the balance and rotational sync of the electric and magnetic field extensions of rotating charge.

    These field extensions are elastic(like the rotating charge) and in rotational balance, and when disturbed by an external force, they deform. When the rotating charge tries to restore the symmetry to the fields, it imparts a reactive force, we call it inertia. Inertia is electrical field and magnetic field resonance.

    There is no such thing as mass. Mass is just frequency of charge rotation. It's the angular momentum of charge that produces and holds the resonance(inertia). And since the velocity of the charge momentum is constant c, frequency is what changes with energy level, and hence the "mass"(inertia).

    An electron(and proton) is just a rotating helical string of current(charge). In a low energy electron, i.e. bound, it's about 19-20 amps. A medium proton, 30-50 thousand amps. An accelerated proton, hundreds of thousands of amps. That's a lot of inertia.

    If only Mr. Faraday hadn't relied on a mathematician to describe induction. We've been following this math ever since. How many times has Maxwell's equations been patched? And remember, the standard model was invented because Maxwell's equations could not explain it. Well, they were the wrong equations. It goes on and on. Even with space and time. It's a life onto itself.

    No one questions the dogma now.
     
  9. reerer

    Thread Starter Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    Does a photon have an inertia? If it does not, what do you attribute the motion of the gold leaf by light in a vacuum bell jar?
     
  10. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,996
    389
    An EM wave(it's not a particle), is a resonant field that has been separated from the charge. When the field was cut and emitted, the angular momentum that it possesses is converted to the linear momentum of flight. The angular momentum component is suspended until absorption. This is where the linear is converted back into angular. The EM field can't rotate without a charge origin.

    Emission is like cutting the wires on anti spin weights on satellites. The angular momentum is converted to linear or straight flight momentum.

    Absorption is just the opposite. A charge with the right frequency, will provide a rotational origin for the straight wave to rotate around and be absorbed. This adds energy to the charge.
     
  11. reerer

    Thread Starter Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    In Einstein's paper, "Does the Inertia of a Body depend upon its Energy Content?" (1905), Einstein describes the decrease in the inertia, of an electron, after emitting a photon.


    "There I based myself upon the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space along with Maxwell's expression for the electromagnetic energy" (Einstein3, p. 639).

    "Let this body simultaneously emit plane waves of light of energy L/2" (Einstein3, p. 640).

    Therefore, the inertia of an electromagnetic photon.

    "The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ,η,ς) decreases as a result of the emission of light..... If a body releases the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass decreases by L/V^2 ." (Einstein3, p. 641).
     
  12. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,996
    389
    Inertia is the property of restoring field shape/symmetry after deformation. It comes from charge rotation. Which is the angular momentum. This property exist at many energy levels, but they all can be cataloged. One fundamental spectrum.

    If you distort an EM wave after emission, it will not reshape itself, like a charge particle does.

    This is why we get ghost signals and interference patterns.

    Because an EM wave has no inertia. It can't restore itself.

    But, when absorbed by a charge, it will add to the charge inertia.
     
  13. reerer

    Thread Starter Member

    Apr 1, 2016
    71
    3
    Again, does a photon have an inertia? If it does not, what do you attribute the motion of the gold leaf by light in a vacuum bell jar?
     
  14. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,392
    1,605
    Light is composed of particles, unless it is a wave. One or the other.

    Light is composed of waves, unless it is a particle. One or the other.

    Light is free to act as either one or the other but never both at the same time.

    Light is a duality. Accept it or be wrong.

    Period.
     
  15. meemoe_uk

    New Member

    Jul 31, 2012
    12
    0
    erm, excuse me everyone. You really ought to be aware reerer is either a bot, or someone who is doing a lot of copy pasting with no intent to discuss the flood of threads he's created. I've reported him, but its worrying that action hasn't already been taken.
     
  16. OBW0549

    Well-Known Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    1,313
    886
    Looks to me like he's been banned: attempting to view his profile page gives an error message.
     
  17. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,748
    4,796
    It's unreasonable to expect action to be taken against a member immediately as a result of someone reporting him for something. I suspect that you wouldn't want immediate action taken against you just because someone reported you but would rather expect that the moderation staff spend at least sometime considering the report, looking over your activity, and discussing whether that activity is a clear violation of the User Agreement. That process takes time, particularly with a moderation staff that is all-volunteer and is spread out around the globe. Given that, why do you find it worrying if action wasn't taken immediately (in fact, the time stamp on your report is one minute AFTER the timestamp on your post)? Action WAS taken in less then three hours.
     
  18. atferrari

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 6, 2004
    2,648
    764
    So?

    The day will come that you will not be able to remember clearly who he was. Put him in the ignore list and move one. Nice tool, that list.
     
  19. meemoe_uk

    New Member

    Jul 31, 2012
    12
    0
    >why do you find it worrying
    cos im an infrequent visitor to this site. I thought 'Why does it take an outsider to point out spam? '.
    I'd like to come more often, you have some top notch people here. good job on the 3 hrs.
     
  20. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,748
    4,796
    We have spam filters but they are far from perfect. In addition, the bias is in the direction of allowing spam through as opposed to rejecting non-spam posts.

    Beyond that, we rely on members reporting spam because there are hundreds of new posts each day and only six active moderators. We simply can't look at every post that is made.

    Also, in this particular case, the mod staff took note of this user the day he started posting. But because we want to err on the side of not taking action when it isn't warranted, we generally give the benefit of the doubt, confident that if they are a problem that they will take the rope they've been given and hang themselves (which is what happened here).
     
Loading...