On 3/9/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Terry,
I'm not in this thread. :-)
Terry
OOps! Now I am.
On 3/9/07, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/9/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Terry,
I'm not in this thread. :-)
Terry
Hello again, Dave,
>> Nuclear fission, regardless of what isotope is involved,
>> results in the unbinding of nuclei and hence should absorb
>> energy and convert it to matter. This is not the case.
> It is not the case because nuclei heavier than iron tend to
> be inherently unstable. But I am n
Hi Terry,
> IMHO, we will only succeed in tying ourselves into unsolvable knots
similar to religious fanaticism if we insist there MUST exist an ABSOLUTE
frame of reference. SR, would seem to suggest there ain't no such animal and
never was - period.
Ah, but that is the key. SR is not bas
Hi Dave,
Aspects of SR have always intrigued me, perhaps for its Alice-in-Wunderland
spatial analysis qualities. With that qualification in mind...
...
> Another false prediction of SR is that it doesn't matter
> which object is moving [at] what velocity, since it is believed
> there is no fixe
Hi Steven,
> OTOH it's my understanding that time dilation has been confirmed.
Extremely brief half-life's of certain sub atomic particles that are
speeding close to C have been detected to decay within a slowed down time
period reference from our perspective. At least, that's my understanding.
T
ther. In fact, there is no reference
> frame that exhibits infinite mass increase.
>
> Dave
I am not here to defend Einstein's relativism. In fact I even question
Newton's and Galileo's relativism.
Harry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Vee
Hello Dave,
...
> Another false prediction of SR is that it doesn't matter which object is
> moving what velocity, since it is believed there is no fixed reference
> frame. Yet, when cosmic rays come streaming through the Earth,
> the Earth's mass does not approach infinity, either. In fact, th
2007 4:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
I scanned and uploaded a derivation of E = mc^2 which does not use
the mathematical formalism of Special Relativity.
Four pages from Max Born's book _Einstein's Theory of Relativity_
(about 1M):
http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/derivation.html
Harry
I scanned and uploaded a derivation of E = mc^2 which does not use
the mathematical formalism of Special Relativity.
Four pages from Max Born's book _Einstein's Theory of Relativity_
(about 1M):
http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/derivation.html
Harry
10 matches
Mail list logo
