Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2
#
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
#
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2

it is all a matter of how you choose your units. The reason that K=1/2 (and the units that go with it) was eventually chosen, is that the 1/2 is necessary if you want the total energy to be conserved (which, of course, you want).

.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370



The quote above is from De Pretto's 1904 paper and can be found in the following PDF;

http://preearth.net/pdfs/al-kelly-about-de-pretto.pdf

which is an interesting snippet from

"Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories," by Al Kelly


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: #jpr411

it is all a matter of how you choose your units. The reason that K=1/2 (and the units that go with it) was eventually chosen, is that the 1/2 is necessary if you want the total energy to be conserved (which, of course, you want).

Or, in otherwords, its not a matter of how you choose your units. In our universe there is one value for the constant in the equation for kinetic energy which is consistent with the physics by which our universe operates - i.e. energy being conserved. Any other value for 'k' is wrong, as it would give a value which is not conserved, and therefore would not be consistent with the law of conservation of energy.

As I said before, DrPretto used a formula for kinetic energy which was disproven nearly a century before he published his work.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

ImagingGeek said: "As I said before, DrPretto used a formula for kinetic energy which was disproven nearly a century before he published his work."

Contrary to what the Geek says, De Pretto calls the energy, e=mc2, the potential energy of a mass m.

Read it for yourself in http://preearth.net/pdfs/al-kelly-about-de-pretto.pdf

So, contrary to what De Pretto himself says, the Geek claims that he really meant kinetic energy, even though it is clear, from context, that he means potential energy and that he actually calls e=mc2, potential energy.

I would be interested to hear if there is any basis (at all) for the Geek making this quite weird claim, of his,...

.... or is this just another case of the Geek making up stuff out of thin air,....


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

Even the bone-headed wikipedia people admit that Poincaré proved E=mc2 for light, and of course, this is the mass-energy equivalence in a nutshell.

Poincaré says that electromagnetic energy, light, is equivalent to a mass, or if you like, mass is equivalent to electromagnetic energy, and the relation between them is given by E=mc2.

And this, in 1900, many years before Einstein's (as it turned out) incorrect proof in 1905. Plank soon pointed out the errors. So Einstein contributed nothing, or almost nothing, toward the equation that he is infamous for.

Here is what wikipedia says:

Poincaré

"In 1900 Henri Poincaré studied this .... He noticed that the action/reaction principle does not hold for matter alone, but that the electromagnetic field has its own momentum."


Comment: This directly implies it has a corresponding mass and here is the mass-energy equivalence, published in 1900, 5 years before Einstein's incorrect (as Plank soon pointed out) proof.

Paraphrasing, Poincaré, wikipedia continues;

"The electromagnetic field energy behaves like a fictitious fluid ("fluide fictif") with a mass density of E/c2 (in other words m = E/c2)."

Comment: Here, Poincaré states that E=mc2 (trying to hide the equation E=mc2 from you, wikipedia writes it, m=E/c2 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Reading a book such as Manjit Kumar's "Quantum" would leave one in no doubt that Einstein was not infallible. That is before you even consider that he did not invent relativity. However, he did do some "clever" things with relativity, and other ideas, that probably make it reasonable to link his name to them. Perhaps his greatest contribution was to present ideas in a way in which it became easier to understand, and work with them.

Why not render unto Einstein what is Einstein's and unto Poincare what is Poincare's, and leave it at that.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Why not render unto Einstein what is Einstein's and unto Poincare what is Poincare's, and leave it at that.

You must be joking. Your statement seems fair, but given the circumstances of the case, it is a very dishonest statement (I don't mean dishonest on your part). If Einstein had been given what was due to him, he may have recieved a prison sentence.

Poincare published e=mc2 long before Einstein and has received absolutely no credit for it.

Einstein stole it from Poincare (and others) and has received all available credit.

Einstein received all available credit, even though he had nothing to do with the development of the equation e=mc2, and his first proof (in 1905) was wrong. Plank pointed out that Einstein's "proof" was "true" only to a first order approximation. Many years later, Ives demonstrated that Einstein's "proof" was actually a logical fallacy.

Einstein wasn't even smart enough to correctly put together the material he had stolen from others.

Poincare did it all before Einstein, yet Einstein gets all the credit.

Where is the justice in this?



Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
preearth #36856 12/19/10 04:38 AM
F
fountain
Unregistered
fountain
Unregistered
F
That is so true.

#36859 12/20/10 12:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
Einstein was a genius and is correctly remembered as one of the greatest minds of all time.
(Which doesn't mean he didn't make erroneous assumptions, and of course other people had clever ideas as well.)
But it's sad to see people like you and your malevolence, even when nobody gives a crap about your opinions.

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Pre, you know your claims are pure BS. Ignoring the vast array of math and physics which shows your merging worlds theory to be bupkis does not count as a victory.

I suspect De Pretto's case is going to be more of the same - you'll simply ignore all the evidence that runs contrary to your beliefs; despite the fact the evidence of de pretto's errors can be found within his writings.

None-the-less, here we go. De Pretto's work was published and the full text of his work is still available today, both scans of the origonal paper, as well as OCR'd text:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/st/mem-depr-vf.htm

The basis of his idea is outlined in the following paragraph.

Ogni particella d'etere ha un impulso proprio, indipendente dalle altre; l'urto che determina contro le particelle della materia, è rappresentato dalla forza viva, cioè dal prodotto della massa pel quadrato della velocità, secondo la formula mv2. Le particelle d'etere per la loro estrema piccolezza, si possono considerare come infinitamente piccole; ma tali in realtà non possono essere e quindi una massa m pur estremamente piccola, devono ad ogni modo rappresentare. Data l'enorme velocità di movimento di tali particelle, non inferiore certamente a quella della luce che è di trecento milioni di metri per secondo, essendo , remove duplicates in tal modo il termine v2 della formula rappresentato da un 9 seguito da 16 zeri, si comprende che m x v2 cioè la forza viva di ogni particella, possa risultare abbastanza sensibile e che la somma di tutte le infinite spinte possa dar ragione dell'attrazione e della coesione e perciò si intuisce quanta energia si celi in questo fluido universale.

The long and short, De Pretto assumed that the kinetic energy of a particle is determined by m*v2 (which is wrong, its 0.5*m*v2). His idea is simply that the vibrational speed of atoms must be the same as the speed of aether particles* (i.e. the speed of light), and therefore their energy would be equal to mc2.

*Normally I'd ridicule the use of aether, but in De Pretto's time this idea still had a medicorum of scientific support, so we'll just let that pass...

So as I said before, the equation he derived is correct, but his rationalisation is wrong, meaning that scientifically speaking his findings are of little value. Wikipedia has a great article on the derivation of mass-energy equivalency, including discussion of the various scientists who laid the groundwork that Einstein used to derive mass-energy equivalency from the correct physical principals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence#History

A more detailed essay on De Pretto's work, and what he based his information on, can be found at mathpages:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm

Bryan


Life Is Nature Just Enjoy It!!!!!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

This quote from Einstein, says it all;

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

Albert Einstein.


I have come to the conclusion that Einstein was a thief who stole much, who knows, perhaps all, that he is credited for (and I might add, that the evidence for this, is overwhelming).


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Whatever Einstein's sources, he should probably be credited with having brought together numerous "lose ends" and made sense of them. I think he would have to number among those who brought physics into the 20th century.
I doubt that Einstein, or any of those who might be credited with "his" ideas, care much about those questions now.
Perhaps a more positive approach would be to ask who the "giants" of 21st century physics bight be.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
you know your claims are pure BS


Nothing to do with me!!! smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

Here are pages 15-22;

http://www.preearth.net/pages/e=mc2-who-discovered-it-first.html

from "Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories," by Al Kelly


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Preearth, you're back!

Does that mean I can look forward to some answers in other threads?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
In three weeks only one person has looked at the article

http://www.preearth.net/pages/e=mc2-who-discovered-it-first.html

What does that say?


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
That nobody is interested in rants that don't have any real foundation. Maybe somebody else did make the formula first. But did they include it in a complete theory that explained a great many questions that had come up concerning the way Newtonian Physics worked, or in some cases didn't work quite right?

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

Have you guys ever come across the book Saint Einstein by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.

You can download the entire book (17 MB) from here:

http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.pdf

A table of contents can be found at:

http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

I know it may be hard to believe, but Christopher Jon Bjerknes, is apparently a Jew.

Here is a quote from the book;

"It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.[1]

The historic record is readily available.

Ludwig Gustav Lange,[2] Woldemar Voigt,[3] George Francis FitzGerald,[4] Joseph Larmor,[5] Hendrik Antoon Lorentz,[6] Jules Henri Poincaré,[7] Paul Drude,[8] Paul Langevin,[9] and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research.

Einstein may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect,[10] he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.[11]"


The Einstein part of the book, at least the few bits I have read, seem well written and basically correct.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: preearth

Jules Henri Poincaré,[7] Paul Drude,[8] Paul Langevin,[9] and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research.


Sure. That's how science works, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. I think Einstein himself said SR was 'ripe for discovery'. He just happened to connect the dots into a consistent picture slightly before anyone else.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: preearth

Jules Henri Poincaré,[7] Paul Drude,[8] Paul Langevin,[9] and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research.


Sure. That's how science works, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. I think Einstein himself said SR was 'ripe for discovery'. He just happened to connect the dots into a consistent picture slightly before anyone else.


The real irony is pre announces this like it is some sort of discovery. If you read Einstein papers on SR and GR he makes it adamantly clear where the basis of SR and GR came from. Lorenz, in particular, was critical.

As Kellog pointed out, this is how real science works. Every new discovery is built on the foundations of old discoveries. Looking for that kind of backking is the ultimate scientific BS detector - legitimate hypotheses and theories do not form ex nihilo, but instead are built on past discoveries.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5