The first law of thermodynamics - conservation of energy

a reply to: Untun

Dr Robitaille has pretty much debunked the big bang theory and other fantasy-based subjects glued to it. Like he said - cosmology is not science. You'd waste less time starting where he is - which is before big bang theory and with a better looking standard model

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TheRedneck

P.S. I wanted to upload a jpg of the equations but uploads is not working - any information on that? Thanks.

In the Board Business section there is an alternative link on page 3 of the upload broken thread.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TheRedneck

P.S. I wanted to upload a jpg of the equations but uploads is not working - any information on that? Thanks.

In the Board Business section there is an alternative link on page 3 of the upload broken thread.

Thanks.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: Untun

Dr Robitaille has pretty much debunked the big bang theory and other fantasy-based subjects glued to it. Like he said - cosmology is not science. You'd waste less time starting where he is - which is before big bang theory and with a better looking standard model

So, forget all the professionals on the left with PhDs in astrophysics, and go with the one guy on the right who has no credentials in astrophysics?


Pierre-Marie Robitaille

Even before digging into the details, that doesn't look like a very promising prospect.

But you don't get far into the details before realizing Robitaille fails on those.

presumably satellites millions of miles from Earth and pointed away from it that can see the CMB don't exist

But they do exist, and they are not pointed at Earth and not measuring the Earth's oceans as Robitaille claims. etcetera etcetera, search for the youtube video the above screenshot is from, for more examples if interested.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

*CORRECTION

(the circle jerkers on the left)

It's an exclusive club...

I wonder if Einstein had a PhD in astrophysics?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Whose theory is it? Milo Wolff's?

Why does that matter? And, to be honest, I have never heard of Milo Wolff... at least not by name.

I never look at a theory based on who proposed it. That is unscientific, as it invites bias. I look at the same things you mention: what does it imply? How can it be tested? How does it explain already known empirical data? Are there any conflicts with empirical data? Who put the pieces together is the farthest thing from my mind.

Besides, after some thought, such a theory would probably be off topic here anyway.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phantom423

How is your interpretation different from Einstein's energy equivalence?

It's actually an extension of Einstein's work.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TheRedneck


How is your interpretation different from Einstein's energy equivalence? When the particle is moving at a certain speed, the total energy is approximately equal to the kinetic energy and increases in mass due to speed.
If the speed is zero, it's the rest mass. If the object is moving, it's relativistic kinetic energy and depends on the speed of the object. Whether it "appears" as a wave or some other structure isn't part of the calculation. It's the measurement of energy that's relevant. In nuclear fission and/or fusion, it's the energy transfer that's measured - i.e. the binding/bonding energy of the atoms. What they look like is irrelevant.

P.S. I wanted to upload a jpg of the equations but uploads is not working - any information on that? Thanks. Fixed.

You imply that's based on Einstein's work, but Einstein actually said he did not think it was a good idea to teach that concept of relativistic mass, and while some textbooks have taught that, there now seems to be a trend where fewer textbooks teach that, and more textbooks teach in line with Einstein's thinking that particles in motion do not gain mass, they gain energy.

Part of the problem is that E=mc² is not really correct, as the above derivation seems to presume. This is not some crackpot claim, virtually all competent scientists agree this is so. I made a thread explaining this and since I made that thread some physicist youtubers have come out and said the same thing like Don Lincoln from Fermilab.

Why E=mc² is wrong

The most famous equation in all of science is Einstein’s E = mc2, but it is also frequently horribly misunderstood and misused. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains the real truth about this equation and how people often use it wrong.

Here is my thread where I also give the correct equation in the opening post (since E=mc² is wrong):

Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?

Further in the thread, I cite Einstein's comments about his not liking the idea of relativistic mass (and to just use the correct equation I posted in the OP instead).

Mass in special relativity


This is the correct equation Einstein alludes to, which does not have any relativistic mass term:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Why does that matter? And, to be honest, I have never heard of Milo Wolff... at least not by name.

I never look at a theory based on who proposed it. That is unscientific, as it invites bias.

So it's ok for you to refer to a theory by the name of the person who came up with it, but it's not OK for me to do it?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It's actually an extension of Einstein's work.

I'm not complaining about you mentioning Einstein's work, but I am complaining about your implication that there is something wrong with making such reference to the name of the person who made the model you refer to. It's a handy way to refer to a work by the name of the person or persons who came up with it. Such language is embedded in science in numerous terms named after the people who came up with the ideas, such as Hamiltonian Mechanics being introduced by Sir William Rowan Hamilton, and many other examples.

I look at the same things you mention: what does it imply? How can it be tested? How does it explain already known empirical data? Are there any conflicts with empirical data?

That's good.

Besides, after some thought, such a theory would probably be off topic here anyway.

Maybe so.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

and more textbooks teach in line with Einstein's thinking that particles in motion do not gain mass, they gain energy.

So you're saying that they're not equivalent, not interchangeable. In Einstein's notation, he says that it's better to mention the momentum and energy of a body in motion. But at the end of the day, isn't that the same thing as equivalence? It sounds more like a different interpretation of the same thing. I will read the link you posted. Maybe I'll come to a different conclusion.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phantom423

How is your interpretation different from Einstein's energy equivalence?

It's actually an extension of Einstein's work.

TheRedneck

How do you define it mathematically? If it's an extension of his work, how does it add to the original concept?

originally posted by: Phantom423
So you're saying that they're not equivalent, not interchangeable.

It's as if some people assumed E=mc² is correct and then bungled the math based on that assumption. As Don Lincoln explains and as other professors cited in my thread explain, E=mc² is not really the correct equation, so assuming it is sends you in a different direction than what Einstein suggests. In Einstein's interpretation, mass is clearly defined as just rest mass, but Einstein said that is not so when one uses the concept of relativistic mass.

In Einstein's notation, he says that it's better to mention the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

But at the end of the day, isn't that the same thing as equivalence?

It's a confusing question, because it sounds like a reference to the equivalence principle, part of Einstein's general relativity work, but it's not the equivalence principle, which is "the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference. " (from wikipedia).

If you mean "mass-energy equivalence", then what part of Don Lincoln's video saying E=mc² is wrong do you not understand? That's not the right equation. I cited the correct equation in my thread on the subject and Don Lincoln gives another alternative which is also not E=mc² though it simplifies to that when the object is at rest.

It sounds more like a different interpretation of the same thing. I will read the link you posted. Maybe I'll come to a different conclusion.

Read Einstein's comments in the image I posted. But even revered Richard Feynman taught relativistic mass in contradiction to Einstein's suggestion, the only gripe I had about his teachings, otherwise his lectures are outstanding and he was a great teacher. Watch the Don Lincoln video, he gets it. He calls the relativistic mass interpretation a "misconception" and suggests we get that idea out of our heads. He's right.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Going over Don Lincoln's videos on gamma. I see where it makes sense, although the statement that the particle "gains energy" is still somewhat confusing. Doesn't the total energy on the left have to equal whatever is on the other side of the equation regardless whether you include gamma or not? If you reduce "m" to zero, you're at infinity. I guess it's not a physical problem so don't worry about it? Still reading, but very enlightening.

Sabine Hossenfelder has her new book out "Existential Physics". In Chapter 1, she deals with time. The illustration on page 6 is mind-boggling to me. Still trying to unscramble those eggs.

Don Lincoln (aka) Physicist, Mathematician, Scientist...

/slash "Purveyor of Truth"

so which is it buddy, which robe are you going to don today?


a reply to: Arbitrageur

We can prove Einsteins equation via experiment and they can show you...

But they can't show you the experiment that un-proves it, they can't show you that one, you're just going to have to take their word for it.

Have a little faith why don't ya :p

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So it's ok for you to refer to a theory by the name of the person who came up with it, but it's not OK for me to do it?

No, you can refer to a theory any way you like. I was simply explaining that I am not adept at identifying theories based on their authors. I do refer to Einstein, because his are some of the theories where I am familiar with the author due mainly to his work approaching "common knowledge."

Do you have a chip on your shoulder over something?

It's a handy way to refer to a work by the name of the person or persons who came up with it. Such language is embedded in science in numerous terms named after the people who came up with the ideas, such as Hamiltonian Mechanics being introduced by Sir William Rowan Hamilton, and many other examples.

Yes, it is. That's a challenge for me; I'm just not good with names. Concepts I can grab with no issue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phantom423

Einstein theorized an equivalence between gravitational fields and inertia. It builds on that.

I am planning to self-publish a layman's explanation in book form (I no longer have access to the journals since my disability) with an appendix geared toward peers. The mathematics are too complex to fully explain here.

TheRedneck

Dont forget to include "the Forgotten Controvesry"

The one that exposes Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrodinger of Hindu mysticism plus the fact that Heisenberg even had the nickname "the Buddha"

I was going to begin crafting a thread about the subject, which came first? (the Mysticism or the Mechanics) but I need to work on it a little bit so it's decent content compared to my first attempt.

en.wikipedia.org...


a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: iamthevirus

Eh.... I have a hard time demonizing scientists. Sometimes they get it wrong. That's how it is.

I began to question quantum mechanics when my Physics III professor explained the beginnings of it. I paraphrase below, but the gist is accurate:

"Imagine a particle traveling in a straight line with no external forces happening on it. It is changing it's position along the x, y, and z coordinates."

Whoa, haus! If it is traveling on a straight line, why are we even using x, y, and z coordinates to describe its location? The coordinate system is arbitrary, so we can simply describe the x axis as being along the direction of traffic and state that the y and z coordinates are fixed unless external forces act on the particle.

"We cannot determine where along those x, y, and z coordinates the particle is. Therefore the particle can be anywhere."

Along the x-axis, that may be correct; however, as previously explained, the y and z axis locations are fixed due to a better selection of coordinate axes.

"When we introduce the time variable, we can narrow down the position."

What? Of course you cannot determine the position along the x axis unless you know the time... the particle is moving at a fixed rate with respect to time.

My professor was unable to counter my argument. That's where I started saying "Schroedinger was mathematically illiterate." However, I do not hold him in any disdain... he was simply wrong.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: iamthevirus

Eh.... I have a hard time demonizing scientists.

I don't...

I love science and I like the good stuff, pure unadulterated.

What gets under my skin are the crackpots donning different robes all up in my science.