Re: Want to prove E=mc²? University labs should try this!

On 11/27/2024 04:09 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 4:18:19 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
<snip>
>

In class some 55 or so years ago, we derived Planck's Law using
Einstein's method. We also derived various consequences of the law,
including the formula for energy density u. I won't claim that I
would be able to re-derive the formulas without a lot of review, but
the basic skills still lie dormant within my skull. So don't try to
snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer, a highly competent
one, but untrained in physics, as is evident by the types of mistakes
that you have been making.
>
For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing.
>
No competent physicist would write "ΔT = 2E/(3 PV)" and then claim
that the only thing he did wrong was to leave out n.
>
If I do something silly like goof up by a factor of 10, I own up to
my mistake. You seem almost incapable of admitting error.

>
<snip>
>

I don't see much point in reading an article about radiometry from
somebody who doesn't check his units.
>
There are several related terms that should be distinguished.
Radiant exitance (radiant emittance) has units of W/m^2
Spectral exitance in wavelength has units of W/m^3
>
The formula u = 4 σ T^4/c, which you claim that I used incorrectly,
has units of Joules/m^3
>
They aren't the same thing.

>
<snip>
>

Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked.

>
<snip>
>
I'm sorry that you went mad with my previous post. At any case, it
served for you displaying your true colors.
>
I've been careful to maintain discussions with you, avoiding any
downplaying or personal attacks. Quite a different attitude that I have
with Paul, which is mostly boy's game interchange insults.
>
>
You are not JUST a physicist either, and you're very far from being one.
>
Here is how you described yourself two years ago:
>
*********************************************************
"Posted: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 09:49 by: Prokaryotic Capase H
>
Hey, don't knock Halliday & Resnick! That's about as far as -I- ever
got, since my undergraduate degree was in biology. In graduate school, I
studied molecular biology, and for my postdoc, I studied bacterial
replication origins. I've spent the last quarter century in software
engineering, and my favorite websites are ....."
********************************************************
>
Your comments:
>
"For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
the manner that you have been doing".
>
"You seem almost incapable of admitting error."
>
"So don't try to snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer..."
>
"Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
worked."
>
>
show how far are you willing to go in the heat of a discussion: You LIED
(I told you that the 707 K were from a ChatGPT, not me. I CONSULTED YOU
ABOUT IT, and you didn't care), you downplayed me and, for worse, you
are somehow PRETENDING that you're closer to physics than me.
>
Actually, I'm not just an engineer. I have also two master degrees, and
I didn't pursue a PhD because I considered it was A STUPID THING TO DO,
even when many advised me to go for it. I'm not a person that lives from
flashing academic degrees or achievements. Furthermore, I'm sure that,
in the last 50 years, the number of theoretical and experimental
realizations that I did EXCEED yours by 10x. I was a prolific achiever,
but I never wanted to show off it, nor at the university or places of
work. I refused to publish for general audience, as I didn't want to
seek for fame/glory. I'm THE ONLY JUDGE that I accept, and I'm immune to
any praise or prize since I was a little kid.
>
>
I'm going to tell this one more time, because it's the center of the
problem:
>
>
Using a modified Stefan's formula (by 4/c) to calculate the internal
temperature of a small aluminum cavity IS AN ABERRATION OF COMMON SENSE.
>
>
Eventually, it has been used to FIGURE OUT the internal temperature of
STARS, even when this alone is a risky assumption.
>
>
In your calculation of 1,000,000+ K inside the cavity, YOU SHOULD HAVE
STOPPED at 660.3"C (930.3 K) when ALUMINUM MELTS.
>
Why did you persist in using such stupid value? I can't figure it out.
>
>
At any case, and being the big excellent number-cruncher that you claim
you are, you should have stopped at 930.3 K, and then calculating the
energy density.
>
But it would have been wrong ALSO, because you're using a formula
CONCEIVED by the omnidirectional energy density OUTSIDE the BBC, because
Stefan's formula (applied in astronomy) is based on the hypothesis that
A HUGE RADIANT SPHERE (like a star) can be taken AS A FLAT DISK that has
properties allowing it to behave AS A CAVITY (one dimension is missing).
>
In the same way, I completely disagree with the OPINION - NO FACTS
(since 1964 up to 1993 COBE manipulated results), that the CBR measured
EXACTLY as a BBC. To start, such CBR didn't reach both edges of the
Universe (conceived as spherical), so not even a basic equilibrium has
been reached. It's wrong to think and push such stupid idea, as well as
the geometrical nature of GR.
>
That legions of pseudo-scientists embrace such theories, because some
mathematical model emerged and was religiously adopted, only serves to
me to REINFORCE my conception about physics, which I consider mostly A
FARCE.
>
That's why I dropped studying physics, after two years, when I was 15. I
went to SERIOUS SCIENCE, which is engineering.
>
Physics is dying at an accelerated pace, so do most physicists working
on borderline theories in cosmology and the quantum world.

Crank!
Crank? Probably a crank-bot. Launched as by hooligans, of a sort,
the crank-bots are considered criminals. Though, one might weigh
perceived mental sociopathic tendencies against possibly fruitful
ideas in innovation.
Explain "charge velocity".
Are we just supposed to believe that any circuit is just a condenser
sink with an arbitrarily infinite insulator and that due the skin
effect that any capacitance induced usually on purpose inside in
capacitance components yet as often outside in radio foils the
broadcast or receipt components is this condenser electronics
slipping off and sticking on fluctuations in the electrical field?
Foils, noun?
In the days before Maxwell, the Faraday crowd arrived at a
formalism with a mathematical derivation that has the action
of capacitance, as, just merely _above_ light's speed, ....
Then, capacitor and condenser physics, both help reflect that
while a fluid model is a perfectly great metaphor for both
electrical and fluid currents, it ends with regards to those
having what must be opposite tendencies and propensities,
why electricity is not a fluid.
When we were kids there was a joke, a sort of cruel sort
of joke kind of like "stop hitting yourself", one would
ask another "would you like a Hertz donut?" Then on a
reply usually of "yes, please, in our sugar-starved world
us children hold a great store in any sweet" then they
would get punched in the arm then asked "hurts, don't it?".
Of course anybody who ever saw that when later asked
"would you like a Hertz donut?" usually saw answers
like "no, ...", and moving away from an idiot who
tells a joke twice. Because their stupidity might be
contagious, .... Or, "shut up, idiot".
So anyways this great idea that "on further analysis,
university labs should not try this", maybe instead you
should get into why condenser and capacitor physics are
not about liquids, per se, and that light is not electromagnetic
radiation, per se, and that the advanced and retarded potentials
happen to be where in Faraday's world static discharge is
arbitrarily faster than c, is mostly for revisiting Faraday's
crowd's formalisms or Heaviside's quite a lot, then showing
"well if they have a Lorentzian, it would have to be like this, ...."
You know, college-level work.