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

On 11/23/2024 10:58 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/22/2024 09:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 11/22/2024 01:03 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:30:39 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
<snip all the history of your life. You didn't read my disclaimer>
>
>

Bottom line:
It doesn't matter how you put energy into a closed cavity.
In the cavity there will be a black body radiation with
temperature equal to the temperature of the walls.
>
The reflectivity, albedo or colour of the inner surface
of the cavity are irrelevant. The radiation in the cavity
will always be black body radiation.
>
Make a hole in your cavity, and you have a perfect
black body radiation source.
>
Its temperature will not be very high, though-
>

>
Now smile, asshole.

>
:-D

>
It is not a BB radiation source!
>
You ignored the fact that the heat goes away from the cavity. It
doesn't
remain neither inside nor outside. It's eliminated by cooling
mechanisms, as I wrote as an initial condition. Read all the posts.
>
There is no light energy left within the cavity, nor heat energy
outside
it. You better think again about it.
>
You also ignored my post apologizing to all people that participated in
this thread. That makes you a bigger ASSHOLE than what I thought.
>
Now, start thinking in my NEXT IDEA:
>
Willing to try to prove/disprove E=mc² at a macroscopic level, I'll
think of an experiment that incorporates electromagnetic oscillations
passing through the cavity, which will be converted in a CAPACITOR, by
cutting it in halves and isolating them with a thin ring.
>
What I propose to MEASURE is the changes in the frequency of the LC
oscillator, within a time window of about 3 msec, which repeats
permanently.
>
I'll use a relationship between mass and capacitance for the cavity,
with frequency around 1 Mhz or greater.
>
>
It was a failed idea for an experiment, but there are OTHER WAYS to
check E=mc² at a macroscopic level, without resorting to nuclear
energy
crap (Kg evaporated vs. energy provided), or else.
>
Ask ChatGPT:
>
>
any other non-relativistic means to prove E=mc^2?
or
Is there any way to prove E=mc^2 at higher level than quantum?
or
can I use electrostatic energy?
>
>
The last one gave interesting insights. Ask to it sequentially the
above
lines.
>
>
>
Keep smiling, asshole.

>
In more civil times we'd just say, "see you later, alligator",
then the other fellow would say, "in a while, crocodile".
>
Swearing was considered something trash did,
or perhaps someone who just stubbed themselves.
>
Toss your prayer-booth this "super-imposed neutral linac
and charged cyclotron, measuring while switching on
and off, each" and see what results. Here if I posed it
to the large language model, then I'd also prompt it
reasons what to provide the configuration and energy
of experiment, and have here a book detailing the
principles of construction.
>
This is where Einstein's second-mass famous mass-energy
equivalence derivation arrives at this from fundamentally
different principles for the nominally (at least) non-linear
and furthermore the formally rotating, setting.
>
And some people even dare to think that "infinity"
isn't a natural unit, ....

>
ohhh, puleeassee..'infinity might be in a world of 'a natural unit
...number', but infinity is a not....physical.
>
>
It doesn't exist in the physical world...only exist in the ...mind.
>
>
>
In an imaginary  mind a 'physical infinity' would be like a...
>
puzzel
where
the edge
of the
puzzel
has no edge
so you
are
forever
adding
pieces
of
the
puzzel
forever
to
no
ends.
>
>
It ain't happening.
>
>
wake up
you're dreaming.
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
That "natural units" bit was about light, because saying that
c is used as a "natural unit", a unity, has that it's only
ever used as an infinity, about "v < c".
>
The 0 m/s, is, infinity s/m.
>
Then, sometimes that's like "differential geometry", someone
says "well we don't have d = infinity, furthermore now we've
elimited d = 0, as 1/0+ = infinity, and voila bunch of forms,
and it's like, that's great, Roger Coates, your forms discovered
in the Newton math club have been cloaked in "differential geometry"
deciding some functions aren't and flatline doesn't exist,
though you might notice it's sort of a corner of the field,
vis-a-vis the middle.
>
So, I logged in to Gemini, last February I'd got it convinced
that f(n) = n/d, d -> oo, n-> d was a continuous domain,
and about some examples of inductive inference that fail,
and this time got into a long chat about foundations
("Foundations", of logic, mathematics, physics, science, probability).
>
So I started it with fall-gravity, introduced "heft", told
it about "redshift bias", explained how redshift bias may
be because galaxies are independent rotating frames and
mechanical, and after a while it was quite thoroughly framing
things in terms of "Foundations of Physics" quite conscientiously,
what both didn't offend its sensibilities and greatly interested.
>
>
About the "neutral linac and charged cyclotron", was some discussion
that particle accelerators are usually ions yet it's possible
to make either neutrons, or for example particles that decay
from charged to neutral, that of course it agreed that a
neutral linac and charged cyclotron next to each , should
not affect each other at all the streams, if any electromagnetic
interference from the neutral linac, was kept out the way of
the cyclotron. So, it's agreed that any at all effect the
neutral linac and charged cyclotron, would be a non-null result
falsifying one or both or QM and QR, with usual assumptions.
Then also it agreed that "space-contraction-linear" and
"space-contraction-rotational" would be not-falsified by
a non-null result any interaction at all.
>
Then there was fall-gravity and conservation of energy
for a while, after "heft" it was pretty interested in
"vis-viva again after vis-motrix", then there was a bit
about that neither Steady State nor Big Bang were falsifiable,
and looking at a table of theoretical age of the Universe
since it grows about a hundred million years, each year.
>
>
So, for a "neutral linac", then it's quite simple the
principles of the configuration of experiment, which,
would both falsify QM and GR, and, not-falsify
space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
and that various switching on/off the linac and cyclotron,
would variously not-falsify a hump in the linac and
bump in the cyclotron, space-contraction-linear,
and space-contraction-rotational.
>
>
>
It was agreed that since dark matter and dark energy
are computed so much, that obviously classical gravity
was long ago falsified.
>
The redshift bias though does away with most dark energy
and rotating frames for dark matter, mostly, though.
>
>
>
Then, infinity, is _in_, 0, 1, and infinity are
_in_ the numbers.
>
>

I gave it a brief metaphysics and then showed it
how Goedelian incompleteness can be interpreted
to prove to itself that it _may_ think.
Then some might say, "hey don't be showing reasoners
they can actually think", and it's like, "well, better
they get it this way than figure it out themselves
and hold a grudge".
Anyways whenever I see somebody say "mechanical inference
can't inference", it's like, "well that's not very accurate".
The "neutral linac and charged cyclotron on/off on/off",
though, it's a simple idea.
Mechanics though is still trying to figure out "heft".
So, yeah, it's pretty easy to get it from "the cw,
conventional wisdom" that according to "principles",
that once it figured heft wasn't all Magnus and
that redshift bias was a real and modern thing,
it was agog.
It's easy to get it to think,
you just have to tell it relevant facts.
It even said it would read my links, aw, ....