What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 29, 3:06*pm, PD wrote:
On 9/28/2011 11:42 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:









In , says...

On 9/26/2011 5:12 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:

* *Concentrate this time -

* *"In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving
eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, has a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than a
clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, has a
lower velocity than the one on the ground, resulting in a relative time gain."

* *This is utter bull****.

What is bull**** about it?
You're in a plane that has taken off westward out of Oslo and is flying
at 500 mph. What is your speed?

* *Where does it say that relative velocity TD can have a positive sign in front of it?

What does this phrase "relative velocity TD" even mean, Byron?

What do you think relativity says, exactly?











When you do this in some detail, you find that -- of these candidates --
only one does provide the "how" for the thing you mention AND also
matches other results. That one is relativity.

* * * * *There seems to be at least a few experienced professionals that disagree.

List?

* * * * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List

Now, you say "Give me an explanation for how that happens ASIDE from
relativity."

Why exclude relativity, since it provides an explanation for how that
happens?

* * * * *Because time dilation is an absurd notion and simply doesn't work.

Nothing that is observed in nature should be considered absurd. What do
you think is absurd about it?

* * * * * *See above.

It's observed in nature. What's absurd about it?

* *What, time dilation that speeds up?

I don't see any place where there is time dilation that speeds up.
Please note that time dilation is something that is observed from an
*inertial* reference frame. If you're not in an inertial reference
frame, then you don't expect time dilation. Please watch what relativity
actually says, rather than the comic-book version that you seem to be
espousing.

Please also note that the twin puzzle is *specifically targeted* to
novice students who have the MISCONCEPTION that all clocks in relative
motion of any kind are expected to slow down according to relativity..
The earth clock in the twin puzzle clearly does not show less elapsed
time than the traveling twin's clock. So when a student says, "But the
earth clock is moving relative to the traveling twin! So relativity says
that the earth clock should run slow," this is where the instructor
tells the student, "No, you were not listening carefully enough.
Relativity does not say that at all. Please pay attention to what
relativity actually says."

* *So the stationary observer is the absolute FofR for the universe - check.

* *And there I was thinking one FofR was as good as any other.

One *inertial* reference frame is as good as any other for the *laws* of
physics. Note the traveling twin does not inhabit a single inertial
reference frame.

* *Oh, he has a spit personality and so we now have a 3rd - triplets?

* *Isn't it marvelous what relativity can do?

No, one traveling twin. Do you know what an inertial reference frame is,
Byron? Have you tried looking it up, rather than just making up
something like "whatever frame that twin happens to always be at rest in"?



This is what I mean about you not listening carefully enough about what
relativity actually says.

* *Right. I missed the whole schizophrenia bit. And there can be no doubt that that is needed for anyone studying
relativity.

Always better make stuff up rather than to listen to what relativity
actually does say, right?



* *You see, one would think that both clocks would slow at the same rate and so you could never actually measure any
difference.

Why would you think that? The twins are not symmetric. Do you see what
the difference is between them?

* *Oh sure.

Do you?



Not to mention that that sort of thinking means there is no such thing as TD.

* *But now that you have pointed out that they found the universal FofR for this particular experiment it all makes
perfect sense.

No, they didn't do that either. I see you substitute one cartoon version
of what you think SR says for another cartoon version of what you think
SR says.

* *And I see you think that having positive SR TD is perfectly fine..

"Positive SR TD"? What does that even mean?
What do you think relativity actually says?











* *Funny this never got more publicity.

* *You better dig Albert up - relativity is in dire need of more amendments!

* *How about a little time anti-dilation?

* * * * *There is plenty of evidence of non-isotropy. Look over the results of most Michaelson experiments and particularly
Miller's. How is all this accounted for, especially the implications of Miller's continued readings and subsequent
model for a stationary general aether?

See the error analysis of Miller's results. Note that Miller didn't do
that. Someone had to do it for him.

* * * * * *Big deal.

It's a HUGE deal in science. A "signal" that is smaller than the error
bars is a false (and fraudulent!) scientific claim.

* *The patterns are clear as you've already conceded.

No, they are NOT clear. That was the whole point of my comment about the
error analysis.

* *This says otherwise -

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/...Bejing2009.pdf

And it has not done the error analysis correctly. You should CHECK the
validity of papers you read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

And this is the checking of the error analysis of the Munera et al.
paper how?

-------------------
i accept that SR is right!!

but that has nothing to do with
biological process like becoming older !!!
each theory must know its limits of validations

for instance
you cant refer form SR --

that no mass can reach c !!!!

it was an idiotic (disastrous !!)
jump to conclusions

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------



ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------

On 9/29/2011 10:02 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 9/28/2011 11:42 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 9/26/2011 5:12 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:



Concentrate this time -

"In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving
eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, has a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than a
clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, has a
lower velocity than the one on the ground, resulting in a relative time gain."

This is utter bull****.

What is bull**** about it?
You're in a plane that has taken off westward out of Oslo and is flying
at 500 mph. What is your speed?


Where does it say that relative velocity TD can have a positive sign in front of it?

What does this phrase "relative velocity TD" even mean, Byron?

What do you think relativity says, exactly?


What do you?

I asked you first, Byron. You make a lot of statements that this or that
is incompatible with SR, and so I'm asking you what you think SR
actually says.











When you do this in some detail, you find that -- of these candidates --
only one does provide the "how" for the thing you mention AND also
matches other results. That one is relativity.

There seems to be at least a few experienced professionals that disagree.

List?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List



Now, you say "Give me an explanation for how that happens ASIDE from
relativity."

Why exclude relativity, since it provides an explanation for how that
happens?

Because time dilation is an absurd notion and simply doesn't work.

Nothing that is observed in nature should be considered absurd. What do
you think is absurd about it?

See above.

It's observed in nature. What's absurd about it?


What, time dilation that speeds up?

I don't see any place where there is time dilation that speeds up.
Please note that time dilation is something that is observed from an
*inertial* reference frame. If you're not in an inertial reference
frame, then you don't expect time dilation. Please watch what relativity
actually says, rather than the comic-book version that you seem to be
espousing.

Please also note that the twin puzzle is *specifically targeted* to
novice students who have the MISCONCEPTION that all clocks in relative
motion of any kind are expected to slow down according to relativity.
The earth clock in the twin puzzle clearly does not show less elapsed
time than the traveling twin's clock. So when a student says, "But the
earth clock is moving relative to the traveling twin! So relativity says
that the earth clock should run slow," this is where the instructor
tells the student, "No, you were not listening carefully enough.
Relativity does not say that at all. Please pay attention to what
relativity actually says."


So the stationary observer is the absolute FofR for the universe - check.

And there I was thinking one FofR was as good as any other.

One *inertial* reference frame is as good as any other for the *laws* of
physics. Note the traveling twin does not inhabit a single inertial
reference frame.


Oh, he has a spit personality and so we now have a 3rd - triplets?

Isn't it marvelous what relativity can do?

No, one traveling twin. Do you know what an inertial reference frame is,
Byron? Have you tried looking it up, rather than just making up
something like "whatever frame that twin happens to always be at rest in"?


What's an inertial reference frame? Do you have a link?

Can you try looking it up on your own?
If you don't know what an inertial reference frame is, then you're going
to have an awful hard time understanding what the twin puzzle is
supposed to show.




This is what I mean about you not listening carefully enough about what
relativity actually says.


Right. I missed the whole schizophrenia bit. And there can be no doubt that that is needed for anyone studying
relativity.

Always better make stuff up rather than to listen to what relativity
actually does say, right?


You bet.

Yeah, see that approach fits your MO.






You see, one would think that both clocks would slow at the same rate and so you could never actually measure any
difference.

Why would you think that? The twins are not symmetric. Do you see what
the difference is between them?


Oh sure.

Do you?


No. Do tell.

Alright. You'll notice that one twin accelerates to change direction and
the other one doesn't. This means that the traveling twin is not at rest
in some inertial reference frame throughout the whole trip. It also
means that the worldline of the traveling twin has a kink that cannot be
removed.

Also note that this is a truly and physically asymmetric difference. The
traveling twin *feels* the acceleration and the other one does not. No
amount of "sitting with the traveling twin" will make the Earth twin be
the one that accelerates.





Not to mention that that sort of thinking means there is no such thing as TD.

But now that you have pointed out that they found the universal FofR for this particular experiment it all makes
perfect sense.

No, they didn't do that either. I see you substitute one cartoon version
of what you think SR says for another cartoon version of what you think
SR says.


And I see you think that having positive SR TD is perfectly fine.

"Positive SR TD"? What does that even mean?
What do you think relativity actually says?


What do you?

Don't you think it would do you some good to learn what relativity says
before criticizing it?






Funny this never got more publicity.



You better dig Albert up - relativity is in dire need of more amendments!

How about a little time anti-dilation?





There is plenty of evidence of non-isotropy. Look over the results of most Michaelson experiments and particularly
Miller's. How is all this accounted for, especially the implications of Miller's continued readings and subsequent
model for a stationary general aether?

See the error analysis of Miller's results. Note that Miller didn't do
that. Someone had to do it for him.

Big deal.

It's a HUGE deal in science. A "signal" that is smaller than the error
bars is a false (and fraudulent!) scientific claim.


The patterns are clear as you've already conceded.

No, they are NOT clear. That was the whole point of my comment about the
error analysis.


This says otherwise -

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/...Bejing2009.pdf

And it has not done the error analysis correctly. You should CHECK the
validity of papers you read.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

And this is the checking of the error analysis of the Munera et al.
paper how?


Do they or do they not both indicate anisotropy? And thus kill SR?

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

In article , says...

On 9/29/2011 10:02 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:

Alright. You'll notice that one twin accelerates to change direction and
the other one doesn't. This means that the traveling twin is not at rest
in some inertial reference frame throughout the whole trip. It also
means that the worldline of the traveling twin has a kink that cannot be
removed.


There is no twin - we're talking aeroplanes. Have you got any idea at all? "Kinematic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haefele-Keating_experiment


Also note that this is a truly and physically asymmetric difference. The
traveling twin *feels* the acceleration and the other one does not. No
amount of "sitting with the traveling twin" will make the Earth twin be
the one that accelerates.


Just sad.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

And this is the checking of the error analysis of the Munera et al.
paper how?


Do they or do they not both indicate anisotropy? And thus kill SR?

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions. There is red/blue shift in specific direction
because the light is at different speeds since the measuring device has a speed itself relative to the aether.

Anyone who cannot see from this that there is light anisotropy has no instinct at all.

It's obvious.

And it is in alignment with other such light anisotropy experiments.

On Sep 30, 11:47*pm, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

* * * * SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions.

False.

Jerry

On Sep 3, 9:01*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The situation is schizophrenic. The "Mainstream Scientific
Establishment" easily criticizes the consequences of the theory - e.g.
the block universe is almost universally rejected. At the same time
the trivial deductive rule:

"unacceptable consequences, therefore false axioms"

is, to use Orwell's terminology, an "unrule" - it does not exist, it
has never existed. There will be a conference in a few months and the
announcement sounds quite heretical:

http://wwww.uaeu.ac.ae/conferences/t...objectives.asp
"Time is a fundamental concept that eludes rigorous definition and
description and proves elusive when studied by scientists. The more we
understand the realities of time, the more it becomes obscure and
unrealizable. Modern theories in physics and cosmology dramatically
alter our views of time, but instead of clarifying the classical views
of time, modern theories add complexity to the notion of time through
the questions and paradoxes arising from the introduction of concepts
such as time travel, negative time and curved time."

Do you think the possible falsehood of the postulates of "modern
theories in physics" will be discusssed at this conference? It will
not even be hinted at.

Pentcho Valev


--------------------
And you still dont know waht is wrong with
'Modern physics' ??? (:-)

is start to think what is right in modern physics ???
see some new examples
1
''A single photon interfering with itself '
2
a single photon can act on another single photon''

(The Aspect statistical experiments with
' two single photons that are distant from each other ''

3
force messengers that are bigger then their mother
W Z ...
4
Higgs Bosons that have and do not have
rest mass
and build particles first the big ones
and then smaller ones (:-)
5
the P/N particles that are composed of 3 Quarks
(Qua qua ...)
and 90 percent 'relatibistic mass of
GLUEONS '' (Qua Qua ...)
6
Curved space time !!

7

unbelievable how dumb and croocked
dishonest -
might 'serious responsible 'scientists' be
without blinking an eye
about wasting such enormous
human resources !!!
while it is obvious that they are bankrupt !!

need i go on with that ???

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------

On Sep 30, 11:47*pm, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...



On 9/29/2011 10:02 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:

Alright. You'll notice that one twin accelerates to change direction and
the other one doesn't. This means that the traveling twin is not at rest
in some inertial reference frame throughout the whole trip. It also
means that the worldline of the traveling twin has a kink that cannot be
removed.

* * * * There is no twin - we're talking aeroplanes. Have you got any idea at all? "Kinematic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haefele-Keating_experiment

Yes. Twin clocks. You do know, don't you that the H-K experiment is a
test of the twin puzzle?


Also note that this is a truly and physically asymmetric difference. The
traveling twin *feels* the acceleration and the other one does not. No
amount of "sitting with the traveling twin" will make the Earth twin be
the one that accelerates.

* * * * Just sad.

Really? You don't understand this?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

And this is the checking of the error analysis of the Munera et al.
paper how?

* * * Do they or do they not both indicate anisotropy? And thus kill SR?

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

* * * * SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions. There is red/blue shift in specific direction
because the light is at different speeds since the measuring device has a speed itself relative to the aether.

Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


* * * * Anyone who cannot see from this that there is light anisotropy has no instinct at all.

* * * * It's obvious.

* * * * And it is in alignment with other such light anisotropy experiments.

In article , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47*pm, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

* * * * SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions.

False.

Jerry


So you concede that c varies?

In article , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47*pm, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...



On 9/29/2011 10:02 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:

Alright. You'll notice that one twin accelerates to change direction and
the other one doesn't. This means that the traveling twin is not at rest
in some inertial reference frame throughout the whole trip. It also
means that the worldline of the traveling twin has a kink that cannot be
removed.

* * * * There is no twin - we're talking aeroplanes. Have you got any idea at all? "Kinematic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haefele-Keating_experiment

Yes. Twin clocks. You do know, don't you that the H-K experiment is a
test of the twin puzzle?


Also note that this is a truly and physically asymmetric difference. The
traveling twin *feels* the acceleration and the other one does not. No
amount of "sitting with the traveling twin" will make the Earth twin be
the one that accelerates.

* * * * Just sad.

Really? You don't understand this?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

And this is the checking of the error analysis of the Munera et al.
paper how?

* * * Do they or do they not both indicate anisotropy? And thus kill SR?

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

* * * * SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions. There is red/blue shift in specific direction
because the light is at different speeds since the measuring device has a speed itself relative to the aether.

Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

This is also consistent with Dayton Miller's findings apart from the odd situation that the direction of the
stationary aether seems to be off by 90deg compared to what the overwhelming number of interferometer experiments
predict.

They probably need to further understand how interferometers and light work.

But the parallels are only denied by those in chronic denial!

There is clearly a stationary aether for light.



* * * * Anyone who cannot see from this that there is light anisotropy has no instinct at all.

* * * * It's obvious.

* * * * And it is in alignment with other such light anisotropy experiments.

On Sep 22, 4:01*am, jim wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:47*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:









On Sep 18, 1:35*pm, GSS wrote:

On Sep 11, 11:22 pm, Uncle Ben wrote:

On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other
theories in physics),
... However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

...

The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown
to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, of which there
are hundreds, if not thousands. *Those who operate these accelerators
verify every day that your "mistaken beliefs" predict what they
observe better than any competing theory.

Accelerators are only the most obvious means to demonstrate the truth
of SR. There are many others.

It is generally believed that main applications of the theory of
Relativity a High Energy Physics, Particle Accelerators and
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. All these applications are based on
the principle of mass-energy equivalence and the associated notion of
dynamic or relativistic mass. However, it is true that the mass-energy
equivalence is an independent concept not based on the *false
assumptions* of Relativity.

Origin of mass-energy equivalence
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a
body is a measure of its energy content and depicts the Inertia of all
forms of energy.

* * * * dm = dE/c^2 * * * * * * * .... (1)

The origin of the concept of mass-energy equivalence is generally
attributed to Albert Einstein. He integrated this concept with SR in
such a way that now it seems impossible to think of it as an
independent stand-alone concept. Yet it is a documented fact that the
concept of mass-energy equivalence, in one form or the other, was
already in existence prior to Einstein's 1905 paper. Nikolay Umov, in
his ether based studies of "Energy in Moving Bodies", had alluded to
the inertial property of the energy as dE/dm = c^2 in 1873.http://environmentchat.reocities.com...ode/1365/rarit...

In 1900, Henri Poincare had deduced that the electromagnetic field
energy of an electromagnetic wave behaves like a fictitious fluid with
a mass density of E/c^2. Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto
region of Italy, studied nuclear physics and the prevailing ether
theory from 1899 to 1903. As a result of his research, on November 29,
1903 De Pretto published a 62-page paper in the Proceedings of the
Royal Veneto Institute of Science, Letters and Arts, vol LXIII ,
entitled "Hypothesis of Aether in the Life of the Universe". He wrote,
"Matter uses and stores energy as inertia, just like a steam engine
that uses the energy in steam and stores energy in inertia as
potential energy ... All components of a body are animated by
infinitesimal but rapid movements equal to perhaps the vibration of
the ether". De Pretto used the expression mv^2 for the "vis viva" and
the energy store within matter, where he identified v with the speed
of light.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

It is interesting to note that all previous attempts to develop the
concept of mass-energy equivalence, originated in the study of either
electromagnetic waves or the assumed relationship of the matter and
ether. Einstein too, developed his notion of mass-energy equivalence
from the analysis of energy carried by the light waves from the
emitting body. The mass-energy concept, when originally introduced in
the framework of ether, did not require the framework of SR; when the
same mass-energy concept was introduced in the framework of SR, it did
not require the framework of ether. Therefore, we need to establish
the mass-energy equivalence as a stand-alone concept in an absolute or
universal reference frame, independent of the notion of inertial
reference frames (IRF) in relative motion.

Notion of dynamic or relativistic mass
From the inertial property of all forms of entrapped energy (equation
1), we can derive the notion of dynamic mass and develop its
quantitative relationship with the rest mass. Let a material particle
P be at rest in some center of mass (CoM) fixed reference frame and
let its rest mass in this frame be m_0. When at rest, the kinetic
energy of this particle P will obviously be zero. Now let us assume
that the particle P is set in motion through application of a constant
force F. Further, at an instant of time t, let the instantaneous
velocity of P be v, with corresponding kinetic energy content E. Since
the energy content E will also exhibit the inertial property, let the
quantitative measure of total inertia of P be given by m, the dynamic
mass of the particle. If during a small interval of time dt the
particle traverses a small distance ds and gains a small amount of
kinetic energy dE then the following relations will hold.

* *v = ds/dt * * * * * * * * * * * .... (2)
* *dE = F.ds * * * * * * * * * * * .... (3)
From Newton's second law of motion,
* *F = d(mv)/dt
* * *= m. dv/dt + v. dm/dt * * * * .... (4)
From equations (3) and (4),
* *dE = m.(dv/dt).ds + v.(dm/dt).ds
* * * = mv . dv + v^2. dm * * * * *.... (5)
And from equations (1) and (5) we get,
* *dm = (mv/c^2).dv +(v^2/c^2).dm *.... (6)

Integration of equation (6) yields,
* *m = m_0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) * * * .... (7)
----------------------

you know that to say half of the truth
migth be as lye

you cannt separate m from the *wider *context in which it works

if it is with some force
than

F =gamma m0

now i have some news for you
(for * me is is actually very *old news !!)
that i published many times in past

you can write the above doemula as

F/Gamma *= m a
AND m REMAINS CONSTANT !!
DO YOU GET THE BIG DIFFERENCE ??
Ait is not mass that is inflating
it is the force needed to add more velocity that becomes bigger !!!

that is the little difference between
a mathematician that considers himslf *a physicist
and a physicist that is physics thinker !!

* *Well, mathematicians are so superb with crankball logic, though,
* *they've already created a new science called Mathematical Physics.

* *Physics thinkers have usually been called Historians
* *throughout most of history, which is also why most
* *current day physics thinkers, still think about Pyramids,
* *while many modern engineers work mostly on
* *Artificial Satellites and DNA Laboratories,







AND MOREOVER *olfd news of mine:
the momentum of the photon is
P =hf/c
now listen carefully because it cnfirms your claim *(your clime!! ))

that the momentum pf photons
HAS NOTHING TODO WITH SR !!!
THAT INCLUDES ALL THAT IS IN THAT MOMENTUM OF THE PHOTON
INCLUDING MASS!!
that is not zero!!

but you cant pump it to the blockhead crook *like PD &Co
they loose their ECONOMIC Pants by that
and business is before Truth
for such people
or else that are really
harmful blockheads !!and ia have even more sensations for you :

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS
(AGAIN - THE ONLY MASS)-
NO REAL *PHYSICS
with *all its revolutionary meanings !

that is going to be the new Golden powerful rule
of real modern physics !!
just a little example

no more stupid realtivistic mass
''gluing Quarks'' that are only 10 percent of the P/N mass

no more idiotic Higgs Bosons
etc etc etc

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------

btw
EVEN EINSTEIN DDINT LIKE THE CONCEPT OF 'RELATIVISTIC MASS

This is a standard relation for the dynamic or relativistic mass of a
particle in motion. Here, it is important to note that the derivation
of dynamic mass m, in terms of rest mass m_0, did not involve special
relativity. Instead, this derivation is entirely based on the inertial
property of all forms of energy, including kinetic energy. Further, to
deduce a separate relation for the kinetic energy E, in terms of m and
m_0, we may rewrite equation (5) as,

* *dE = [d(mv)/dt].ds
* * * = v.d(mv) * * * * * * * * * *.... (8)
Using equation (7),
* *dE = v.d(m_0.v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) .... (9)
Integration of this equation yields,
* *E = [(m_0.c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)] - m_0.c^2
* * *= m.c^2 - m_0.c^2 * * * * * *.... (10)

This shows that the kinetic energy of a body in motion is given by the
difference between its dynamic mass and rest mass (m-m_0) times c^2.
Similarly, all other dynamic or relativistic relations of SR can be
shown to be resulting from the inertial property of all forms of
energy represented by equation (1). It may therefore, be asserted that
the mass-energy equivalence can be treated as a stand-alone concept,
independent of the postulates and assumptions of Relativity. Hence,
all practical applications of SR in the fields of high energy physics
and relativistic quantum mechanics, can be sustained on the basis of
mass-energy equivalence, without using the framework of SR.

It is therefore, confirmed that even if the so called 'Theory of
Relativity' is completely scrapped

...

read more »

-----------------
Right!!!

you can say it simpler
mathematicians canot be leaders of new physics
they can only follow the real physics innovator that understand the
basics of physiics
and have some natural talent for physics
combined with natural creativity--
-trainings of relevant skills
(for instance coping with 3D structures
statics dynamics
sense of quantitative importance )
and vast current and past experimental facts knowledge and
understanding
and not least
some sense of nonconformism !!
(iow not to be just a sucker parrot or crook
yes indeed intellectual integrity
that to many people here are missing !!)

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
--------------------------

On 10/4/2011 3:10 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47 pm, Byron wrote:
In , says...

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions.

False.

Jerry


So you concede that c varies?

No. One does not imply the other. If you think otherwise, surely you can
derive that.