No, but your rambling, convoluted and just plain wrong expositions about your attempt to improve Einstein’s ideas demonstrate ignorance of advanced physics and math.

Just a minor correction, Darron: he is ignorant of even basic concepts of physics. His ‘derivation’ of E=mc² treats force as energy and velocity as acceleration:

Scott Mayers - 05 August 2013 06:56 AM

W= Fd. F=ma. Since the fastest possible acceleration cannot allow anything to go faster than it, the maximum acceleration, a, is c. Therefore, F=mc. And since the furthest that something could travel in a unit time, then d=c as well. Therefore W =mc*c or mc². This maximum possible work doesn’t state that it is actually applied, therefore, it is a measure of its potential. In this ideal circumstance, we are dealing with a mass that doesn’t actually move—only its potential to do so. Therefore, the measure, E, represents a force that has a potential to be delivered in a distance c. E, as measured as mc² represents the total potential of its forces through a distance, c. E=mc² is thus a measure of force at a point as well meaning that the maximum force that that mass can apply at the instance without movement is F(max)=mc. [just E/c]

Let’s discuss how many angels fit on the point of a needle… Might make more sense .

Unless anybody else here has an actual capability to follow appropriately and want to contribute fairly to me, I’m finished with this discussion at hand.

Nobody will ever be able to follow you. And where was I not fair to you? I was just a little mean so now and then. But you cannot expect another reaction when you, without proper training in physics and math, say SR is wrong.

Scott Mayers - 13 August 2013 02:46 PM

P.S. Energy is just force through a distance. (F=ma). Since c is the fastest velocity, the only possible acceleration that can enable something to catch up to the speed from zero is c * c. Thus F=mc(squared). What you don’t understand is that the origin of Energy itself is only a derived concept to help understand what the phenomena easier. In fact, a force doesn’t actually exist without real acceleration which requires that it must move or act through a distance. (Instantaneous acceleration is an ideal descriptor) Adding distance to the formula helps make things easier to relate to but it is only a human mathematical tool. But I’m wasting my time here on your inability to make sense of it so take care.

Is this supposed to be an example of flawless logic?

There is no physics here, just a juggling with words borrowed from physics. My dear Scott, the dimension of velocity (in SI units) is m/s, of acceleration is m/s², and c² would be m²/s². You equate these units in just one sentence. And a force does not exist without acceleration??? Me, standing on the earth experience 2 forces: gravitation that tries to pull me down, and electrical force, that repulses me so I don’t sag through the ground to the middle of the earth. 2 Forces, and no acceleration, sorry.

And you are right that one could see energy as just a tool to describe physical processes. However, the principle of the conservation of energy already shows that energy really is something in reality, and not just a mathematical tool. With E=mc² energy got definitively the status of ‘real existence’, at the same level as matter.

Yes it is difficult to make sense of it, because there isn’t any in it. ‘Not even wrong’ is the correct expression for it.

And where was I not fair to you? I was just a little mean so now and then. But you cannot expect another reaction when you, without proper training in physics and math, say SR is wrong.

I didn’t require using any significant math nor did I require any advanced physics here. And yet you continue to declare some imagined ignorance with respect to these subjects.

GdB - 14 August 2013 12:09 AM

Scott Mayers - 13 August 2013 02:46 PM

P.S. Energy is just force through a distance. (F=ma). Since c is the fastest velocity, the only possible acceleration that can enable something to catch up to the speed from zero is c * c. Thus F=mc(squared). What you don’t understand is that the origin of Energy itself is only a derived concept to help understand what the phenomena easier. In fact, a force doesn’t actually exist without real acceleration which requires that it must move or act through a distance. (Instantaneous acceleration is an ideal descriptor) Adding distance to the formula helps make things easier to relate to but it is only a human mathematical tool. But I’m wasting my time here on your inability to make sense of it so take care.

Is this supposed to be an example of flawless logic?

There is no physics here, just a juggling with words borrowed from physics. My dear Scott, the dimension of velocity (in SI units) is m/s, of acceleration is m/s², and c² would be m²/s². You equate these units in just one sentence. And a force does not exist without acceleration??? Me, standing on the earth experience 2 forces: gravitation that tries to pull me down, and electrical force, that repulses me so I don’t sag through the ground to the middle of the earth. 2 Forces, and no acceleration, sorry.

This misunderstanding is only your own. “c” represents both the velocity c(m/s) and the distance “c”(m). This convention is well understood with physicists and I see it often used. c is the constant 299,792,458[m/s or m (understood as that constant distance that light travels in one second.] Is it somehow illegitimate for me to do this?

[ Edited: 14 August 2013 09:45 PM by Scott Mayers ]

I didn’t require using any significant math nor did I require any advanced physics here. And yet you continue to declare some imagined ignorance with respect to these subjects.

You do not require math to state that ‘the basic principle of relativity is flawed, but the math is correct’??? And you derive that objects approaching light speed are transformed in pure energy? (BTW, what is pure energy? And why can we speed up heavy nuclei close to the speed of light without them being destroyed? Do you have a calculation that shows what objects/speeds/bindings limit this effect?)

Scott Mayers - 14 August 2013 09:42 PM

This misunderstanding is only your own. “c” represents both the velocity c(m/s) and the distance “c”(m). This convention is well understood with physicists and I see it often used. c is the constant 299,792,458[m/s or m (understood as that constant distance that light travels in one second.] Is it somehow illegitimate for me to do this?

How does c * c represent an acceleration?

It is not illegitimate what you do, but it does not represent any meaningful physical proposition in your context. Do you really think that the revolutionary insight that mass is one of the forms of energy can derived by putting some physical parameters together? How is your derivation related to the Lorentz transformations? How do you derive that? (Without mathematics???)

Scott, can you give me one reason why we should take you more serious than any of these mentioned websites?

Why do physicists still successfully apply relativity in their theories and experiments, why does relativity work in technology, why can it explain so many natural phenomena (yes, even the colour of gold...), while so many people already know for a long time ‘why Einstein was wrong’?

I didn’t require using any significant math nor did I require any advanced physics here. And yet you continue to declare some imagined ignorance with respect to these subjects.

You do not require math to state that ‘the basic principle of relativity is flawed, but the math is correct’??? And you derive that objects approaching light speed are transformed in pure energy? (BTW, what is pure energy? And why can we speed up heavy nuclei close to the speed of light without them being destroyed? Do you have a calculation that shows what objects/speeds/bindings limit this effect?)

I being somewhat elliptical in some of what I say only for simplicity and the effort to explain without writing a whole book here. That was my point in another post regarding that longer posts are required for necessary understanding. Relativity can still ‘work’ if it adjusts its premises. For one, if it specifically outlined its meaning of “relativity” to perception of phenomena rather than implying that the appearance of the reality IS the reality, it’s math would still represent truth but not impose certain claims about reality beyond its scope. The constant representing the speed of light also is misleading in that it assumes that light’s straight-line velocity is the fastest speed possible without regarding the possibility that light waves have other vector components that may be responsible for its makeup. For instance, it would be better stated that nothing (so far) demonstrates a speed faster than light but that light approaches a maximum speed, we label, c, which itself cannot be superseded.

By ‘pure’ energy, I only meant that the translation of matter in a straight line that could approach or become as fast as the fastest speed (c), would require that the mass (matter) be transformed completely into energy. I’m pretty certain that even Einstein felt this as the name given to E=mc² is also known as the mass-energy equivalence equation. That is, mass and energy are one and the same in that mass represents the very energy, E, that it can maximally transform to. As mass moves, its translation through space is a conversion towards energy. If mass is maximized to the speed, c, it is then considered completely transformed into this ideal energy, E. In actuality, the true maximum speed, c, would destroy even its potential for even being a wave (it would be a ‘wave’ at infinite frequency or zero wavelength.) But this requires a more intensive explanation than here. So when a mass is translated to energy, it no longer contains the information of its former existence of matter in order to reconstruct itself without other external and more complex means.

GdB - 15 August 2013 01:38 AM

Scott Mayers - 14 August 2013 09:42 PM

This misunderstanding is only your own. “c” represents both the velocity c(m/s) and the distance “c”(m). This convention is well understood with physicists and I see it often used. c is the constant 299,792,458[m/s or m (understood as that constant distance that light travels in one second.] Is it somehow illegitimate for me to do this?

How does c * c represent an acceleration?

I was being elliptical again on the assumption that anyone who follows physics would understand. The first ‘c’ represents the speed of light as an acceleration while the second represents the distance, c (299,792,458m). Obviously, if nothing can go faster than the speed, c, then no possible acceleration can enable anything to go farther than the distance, c, in one second. Therefore the maximum possible acceleration must be c m/s² [although once it gets to c, the mass can no longer accelerate—it is no longer a ‘mass’ by then, anyways since its conversion to energy is complete]. The acceleration, c m/s², then, can only travel the maximum distance, c m, which, in mc² represents the maximum work that that mass can do.

I need to create a geometric diagrams for the demonstration of the transformations you ask. I’ll try to do that and get back to you here.

I being somewhat elliptical in some of what I say only for simplicity and the effort to explain without writing a whole book here.

I think it is better then to wait till your book is published. Until then you are spoiling your time with me here. You are just writing rubbish here in this thread, Scott.

Scott Mayers - 16 August 2013 09:58 AM

The constant representing the speed of light also is misleading in that it assumes that light’s straight-line velocity is the fastest speed possible without regarding the possibility that light waves have other vector components that may be responsible for its makeup.

You never explained what these ‘other vector components’ are, Scott.

Scott Mayers - 16 August 2013 09:58 AM

For instance, it would be better stated that nothing (so far) demonstrates a speed faster than light but that light approaches a maximum speed, we label, c, which itself cannot be superseded.

Light moves with the speed of light, per definition. It is slower in media than in vacuum, that’s all. c is the speed that particles have who have no rest mass.

Scott Mayers - 16 August 2013 09:58 AM

By ‘pure’ energy, I only meant that the translation of matter in a straight line that could approach or become as fast as the fastest speed (c), would require that the mass (matter) be transformed completely into energy.

So if I fly in a rocket that accelerates with g (9.81 m/s², so keeping my feet fix to the ground as I am used to on earth), then after about a year I would have reached c (299792458/9.81/60/60/24/365). But before that time I am disintegrated into pure energy? Can I still accelerate further? From my perspective? From the perspective of the earth? Can I keep standing on the ground in the rocket?

Scott Mayers - 16 August 2013 09:58 AM

I’m pretty certain that even Einstein felt this as the name given to E=mc² is also known as the mass-energy equivalence equation.

Please show me quotations of Einstein, texts or interviews that make you think so.

Scott Mayers - 16 August 2013 09:58 AM

Obviously, if nothing can go faster than the speed, c, then no possible acceleration can enable anything to go farther than the distance, c, in one second. Therefore the maximum possible acceleration must be c m/s²

The ‘therefore’ doesn’t follow. It might be practically impossible to accelerate something with 299792458 m/s², but nothing in relativity forbids it. For the rest frame however it would soon decrease immensely before one second has passed; for a frame of reference that moves with the object it could do this indefinitely, according to its own ‘inertia measurement’. Looking back to earth of course it would notice that it does not seem to be that fast. You might get a better understanding of this when you think about my rocket example above.

Scott Mayers - 16 August 2013 09:58 AM

I need to create a geometric diagrams for the demonstration of the transformations you ask. I’ll try to do that and get back to you here.

You do not need to. I already told you you do not have the understanding of even basic mechanics to make any meaningful argument. Do not spoil your time on me. I’ll wait for your book and your Nobel price party.

Maybe you’re right GDB, I’ll leave it at this until I have the work more completed in writing. At least, I’m not able to be more complete here without a better means of illustrations and lack of math fonts.

Yes. And what do you want to say me with this? That your absurd ‘derivation’ of E=mc² is correct?

I was merely recalling how I originally derived it. It’s not absurd, just a different way of coming to it. I’ve already responded to how I made sense of it. What’s absurd about it?