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

On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 21:39:47 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 28.11.2024 01:09, skrev rhertz:

>
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.

>
I see ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog has explained you what the equation
u = 4σT^4/c means.
>
Nice guy as he is, he hasn't explained why your statement below
is idiotic.
>
But you know me, I like to rub it in.
>

>
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.

>
I can figure it out:

<snip>

>
So YOUR 477.5 Joules is a crazy value.
>
A more realistic temperature when we know that the cavity
must get rid of 5W is:

<snip>

So the stored radiation energy within the cavity would be:
>
E = 4⋅σ⋅V⋅T_f⁴ = 1.15e-08 Joules
>
Quite far from the 477.5 Joules you fantasised  about.
>
In fact, the heat energy stored in the aluminium would be much higher,
  E = 0.06 Joules. (If my calculation is correct.)
>
Not much to weight, is it? :-D

Don't smile that much, dyslexic charlatan.
You have barely written an OP in the last 5 years, and when you did, you
fucked it up big time. Ashamed of those who mocked you, you went into
the "silence cone" for months. But you were reading every single post,
looking for what? Consolation? A friendly hand to rescue you from exile?
I did that for you, remember? I LIED to save your ass(face), and you
thank me.
********************************************************************
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/Anb8KZYi2Lk/m/I76dnj5CAwAJ
Paul B. Andersen   Nov 21, 2021,
Or equation (14): ε = 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²)
This is the equation you will find in many books and papers.
T² = 4π²a²/GM (1)
where T is the period of a test particle in orbit
around a mass M. a is the semi-major axis.
My equation (8): ε = 6π(GM)²/G(M+m)a(1−e²)c²
If we in this equation set (GM)²/G(M+m) ≈ GM when m/M << 1
and from (1): GM = 4π²a²/T²
we get the equation: ε ≈ 24π³a²/T²c²(1−e²)
which is the same as Einstein's equation (14)
The difference is that Einstein's equation (the equation commonly used)
is the perihelion advance of a test particle in orbit around a mass M,
while my equation (8) is the perihelion advance of a mass m in orbit
around a mass M.
The relative difference is (as you said):
((GM)²/G(M+m) - GM)/GM = -1.66E-7
which obviously is negligible, probably less than the precision
of G, M and m.
That's why Einstein's equation (14) safely can be used.
BTW, thanks for a sensible post.
You haven't produced many of those lately.
--
Paul
*************************************************************
I LIED because I took pity of your "exile", so I wrote that your
calculations were correct, within an error margin.
After that, you started to writing posts again, but NEVER tried again to
write an OP (Original Post). You should keep this in mind.
Instead, you choose to continue with your usual M.O., which is to read
everything and insert comments, but not an OP again.
My behavior is exactly THE OPPOSITE ONE: I mostly write OP, even with
the most ridiculous idea that I come up with, BECAUSE I'm here to have
fun. FUN, not scientific research.
To do that, I think about different ideas (as a hobby), and if I find
something that can stir the waters, creating controversy to animate this
circus, I wrote the OP with my best criteria and my best thoughts.
I pretend to animate the circus, not to gain a Nobel Prize. And, of the
most importance, I INVENT most of the content (original thinker), taking
care to make the most of sense and the lowest amount of ridiculous
equations and assessments. To do so, I first think, then I do some
research to validate the ideas. Even if I can't find any support, but
I'm convinced the idea is good, I create the OP and wait for the hell
broke loose.
Your behavior is mostly parasitic, as you live from the ideas of others.
You live citing and quoting papers from others that support relativity.
This behavior of you, playing safe from your comfort zone shows, among
other things, that you are an intellectual coward. You are afraid that
you might publish something wrong or stupid.
I don't care about what others think about me, but you CAN DIE if you
fuck it up, which you did many times in the last decade and a half.
I also learn by successive refinements of the ideas in the OP, through
interactions with others. And if I make a mistake, and I realize it, I
APOLOGIZE without any shame.
Now, think about what I wrote, and keep smiling, asshole.