Re: energy and mass

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: energy and mass
De : bill.sloman (at) *nospam* ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity sci.electronics.design
Date : 10. Mar 2026, 18:33:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <10opkma$dn3t$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/03/2026 3:25 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/09/2026 11:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/09/2026 10:58 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/03/2026 4:07 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/09/2026 09:37 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 10/03/2026 9:24 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/09/2026 01:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
On 03/09/2026 05:59 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 9/03/2026 2:04 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/08/2026 06:52 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 9/03/2026 2:29 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/08/2026 07:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 8/03/2026 2:19 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/07/2026 04:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 8/03/2026 1:59 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:12 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 7/03/2026 2:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/06/2026 05:36 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill
Sloman:
On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill
Sloman:
On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill
Sloman:
On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb
Ross
Finlayson:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder
wrote:
Ross Finlayson
<ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
<snip>
>
The Dark Matter / Dark Energy their posited existence is since
otherwise the usual premier theories are violated.
>
Now, these theories already have gravity always doing
work for free, which is a constant violation of
conservation of energy, the energy budget of the universe.
>
Gravity applies a force. That isn't doing work. The earth orbits
the sun
without doing much work at all. The consequent tidal forces
inside the
sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement, in the
same
way that tides on earth are causing the moons orbit to change.
>
We can see that happening if we look very closely.
>
https://www.hummingbirdpc.com.au/as-it-slowly-drifts-away-from-earth-the-m
>
>
>
oon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/
>
>
>
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are un-observable by definition,
this un-falsifiable, thus not science, while the otherwise
premier theory has been falsified.
>
People have been looking for Dark Matter particles for decades
now.
They seem to have a different definition from yours.
>
Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for the expansion of
the
universe, as observed by Hubble. It has been argued that Hubble
misinterpreted what he saw, but few accept that argument.
>
"... as would require being theoretical _physicists_."
>
>
I don't even care what I say: only what's said.
>
So you aren't all that careful about what you say.
>
Everybody knows that applying force over distance is work.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)
>
That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force
moves the
object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the
force was applied, then work was done.
>
A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at
right-angles to
the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work.
>
The idea that "curved space-time in relativity theory"
does that for free is fallacious.
>
Then, quantum mechanics also has no usual "quantum gravity".
>
It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that
electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are
pretty
small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can
see
any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects
>
Newton: pull (gravitic)
Fatio/LeSage: push (gravific)
Einstein: follow (Newton's)
Finlayson: fall (Fatio/LeSage's)
>
To be bending space-time all around, or the usual idea
of the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity, and that
gravity's cause is "down", or as per Einstein,
"straight down", has that that's giving an
explanation to a non-explanation. If it curves
space-time then it must involve what curves space-time,
which otherwise would be doing work for free.
>
You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work.
>
Then, how it can be that quantum gravity gets defined,
that gravity is the gravific and furthermore is as of
an overall balance and resolving the potentials of
the total field instead of anywhere locally being
a constant violation of the energy budget and
the most usual principles of conservation of energy
and least action, it's a fall gravity explained by and
explaining the nuclear force.
>
You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy
budget.
>
This way this unification of sorts also helps explain
both the (strong) nuclear force and gravity, together.
>
You may think so.
>
Another example of the constant violation of
the energy budget is electron orbitals with
regards to otherwise classical orbits would
always be decaying.
>
Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth,
not
towards it.
>
The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so
there's no
reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies
involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small
amounts of
energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured
by the
nucleus in an inverse beta decay).
>
I very much care what I say, for that
what I say is so.
>
You can't even define work accurately.
>
The academic authority is one hopes
hard-earned and hard-learned, more
than merely a convenience of assignation
of blame and direction of guidance.
>
But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education.
>
I only care what the words say,
and science cares about _all_ the data.
>
And you clearly don't.
>
Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron
isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio.
>
Millikan doesn't agree with you.
>
Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work,
whenever it can.
>
I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the
SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT,
back when those were top scores, so, theoretically
I'm at least _ready_ for higher education.
>
I even found somebody who's made a greater account
of continuity and infinity in mathematics for
Foundations. It's me, though, ....
>
So you learned the lessons, did some excercises, perhaps,
and in the end you didn't understand a thing,
>
Millikan was a studious and able technician
who ran with what he had.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Millikan
>
He got the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for the work.
>
He's not Thomson or Rutherford, ....
>
True, but not far behind.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson
>
"In 1897, [ Thomson ] showed that cathode rays
were composed of previously unknown negatively
charged particles (now called electrons), which he
calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms
and a very large charge-to-mass ratio."
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rutherford_(mathematician)
>
"William Rutherford (1798–1871) was an English mathematician
famous for his calculation of 208 digits of the mathematical constant
π in 1841. Only the first 152 calculated digits were later found to be
correct; but that broke the record of the time, ...."
>
>
"[Ernest Rutherford] has been described as "the father of nuclear
physics" and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday.""
>
I think Thomson bears more than a passing resemblance to Planck.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck
>
Sort of like Einstein and Carl Neumann.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Neumann
>
Feynman was famous for his calculation, ...,
about whether his records ever broke.
>
Electrical current is not "a fine mist of charged oil
droplets in the fields of gravity and electromagnetism".
>
But it can be carried by charged oil droplets, and the oil droplets
were
small enough that the difference between one electron and two electrons
of charge was perceptible and measurable. That's what experimental
physicists exist to exploit.
>
These days besides the usual model with a fixed and finite
charge to mass ratio, and what makes "Higgs" theory, there
are quite altogether various accounts of where the ratio is
infinite, and another where it vacillates. "Little Higgs" and
"higgsinos" is not Higgs theory, and neither is "charginos".
>
"Super-symmetry: not dead, again."
>
But not in the least useful.
>
Everybody who sat physics/chemistry class through Millikan and
for what's given as electron orbital theory and later about
Lienard-Wiechert and the account of the sum of, "potentials",
the usual account, has often it was never introduced these
other ideas and their theoretical and experimental backing,
for example that there are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert,
with a usual account of "test particles" and "electron holes".
>
I was certainly taught about Millikan in my elementary physics courses.
Lienard-Wiechert didn't feature.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential
>
O.W. Richardson has a great account of at least three ways to
look at the particle conceit besides laying out the entire standard
narrative in "The Electron Theory of Matter". O.W. Richardson:
just another "Nobel prize winner". Also he gives three different
constants 'c'.
>
He even has more than one where Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born
don't even get included.
>
Richardson looked at the thermal emission of electrons from heated
cathodes. Schottky added in the effect of negative bias in increasing
the emission.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Schottky
>
Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born wouldn't have missed that.
>
Of course, Faraday is really pretty great, and "Faraday Rotation"
is up again almost as much as "supplementary variables".
Copenhagen: grasping at straws.
>
The Copenhagen interpretation may be intellectually lazy, but it evaded
a lot of pointless rationalisation.
>
I don't have much for "understanding" and "compromise"
when there are "knowledge/wisdom" and "science/decision".
>
Why would you? All four skills seem to be out of your reach.
>
>
I'll leave it to an electrical engineer
to explain the significance of Lienard-Wiechert,
"test particles", and "electron holes", to you.
>
Since I am an electronic engineer, I do happen to know that you don't
have to know about Lienard-Wiechert to work on stuff like electron
microscopes - as I did for nine years - though electron microscopes do
rely on a steady stream of electrons as test particles.
>
(With regards to what "electrical current" is
and the usual derivation of the formalism,
and about statistical mechanics into entropy and information.
I.e., it's an integral. These, or those, days, current
was electron-holes not electrons themselves, and electrons
a usual spatter or beam live more in cloud chambers
than conductors.)
>
The average speed on an electron in a conductor is walking pace. This
doesn't stop electromagnetic waves from propagating at about 70% of the
speed of light across printed circuit boards, and if you want to get a
half-nanosecond wide pulse of electrons out of a stroboscopic electron
microscope you can end up exploiting this.
>
U.K. patent 2139411 "Moving Plate" (also US patent 4614872) on an
improved blanking system for charged particle beams, easily adjusted to
match a wide range of particle velocities; assigned to Cambridge
Instruments in 1983.
>
<snipped more pretentious nonsense>
>
>
That's not nonsense, that's the mathematics of the mathematical physics
of the electricity (and some of the magnetism), "the theory".
>
Pretty much all that, and that's all is necessary for the usual formalisms.
>
Of course there's Coulomb's law, ....
>
Then also I added some more, about the magic squares.
>
>
Don't shoot the messenger.
>
>
How about the measurement of the electron being charge/mass ratio?
>
How about the charge/mass ratio its character being variable under
considerations?
>
You kind of left the point without being agreeable, so, ...,
I figure then you updated your mind about it.
>
Or, you know, didn't.
>
>
I suppose I'd be interested if your moving plate was piezoelectric,
or as with regards to the solid-state. If so you might be interested
in something like G.A. Maugin's "Nonlinear Electromechanical Effects
and their Applications".
>
>
 You mentioned electrical currents' waves propagating about 70% c,
O.W. Richardson gives accounts of three constants 'c' with regards
to light's and electrostatics' and electrodynamics', so one might
find one of the other definitions of 'c' more apropos.
Don't be silly. The speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant. Richardson was working back before this had been sorted out, and before people had got the tools to let them think about fringing fields.
Even I know enough to be aware that an electromagnetic wave propagating along microstrip on the top of a printed circuit is propagating through the air above the printed circuit board as well as the printed circuit board material under the microstrip. It males it a dispersive transmission line. I rather prefer buried stripline sandwiched between two ground planes, which isn't dispersive, but hard to probe.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Date Sujet#  Auteur
23 Feb 26 * Re: energy and mass1090Ross Finlayson
23 Feb 26 +* Re: energy and mass1075J. J. Lodder
24 Feb 26 i`* Re: energy and mass1074J. J. Lodder
24 Feb 26 i `* Re: energy and mass1073Ross Finlayson
24 Feb 26 i  +- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
25 Feb 26 i  `* Re: energy and mass1071Bill Sloman
25 Feb 26 i   +* Re: energy and mass1069J. J. Lodder
25 Feb 26 i   i+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
25 Feb 26 i   i+* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
26 Feb 26 i   ii`- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
26 Feb 26 i   i+* Re: energy and mass1026Bill Sloman
26 Feb 26 i   ii+- Re: energy and mass1Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   ii+* Re: energy and mass4Gerhard Hoffmann
26 Feb 26 i   iii`* Re: energy and mass3J. J. Lodder
26 Feb 26 i   iii `* Re: energy and mass2Gerhard Hoffmann
26 Feb 26 i   iii  `- Re: energy and mass1Domingo Totolos
26 Feb 26 i   ii+* Re: energy and mass1019Ross Finlayson
26 Feb 26 i   iii+* Re: energy and mass527Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii`* Re: energy and mass526Ross Finlayson
26 Feb 26 i   iiii +* Re: energy and mass3Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii i`* Re: energy and mass2Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii i `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
28 Feb 26 i   iiii `* Re: energy and mass522Thomas Heger
28 Feb 26 i   iiii  +* Re: energy and mass518Bill Sloman
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  i`* Re: energy and mass517Thomas Heger
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  i `* Re: energy and mass516Bill Sloman
3 Mar 26 i   iiii  i  `* Re: energy and mass515Thomas Heger
3 Mar 26 i   iiii  i   `* Re: energy and mass514Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i    `* Re: energy and mass513Thomas Heger
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i     `* Re: energy and mass512Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      +* Re: energy and mass10Jeroen Belleman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i`* Re: energy and mass9Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
6 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i `* Re: energy and mass8Ross Finlayson
6 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i  `* Re: energy and mass7john larkin
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i   `* Re: energy and mass6Bill Sloman
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i    `* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     +* Re: energy and mass3john larkin
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     i`* Re: energy and mass2Bill Sloman
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     i `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      +* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i+- Re: energy and mass1Don
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i+* Re: energy and mass2Don
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      ii`- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
8 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      `* Re: energy and mass496Thomas Heger
8 Mar 26 i   iiii  i       `* Re: energy and mass495Bill Sloman
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i        `* Re: energy and mass494Thomas Heger
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         +* Re: energy and mass101Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i+* Re: energy and mass77john larkin
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii+* Re: energy and mass5Jeroen Belleman
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iii+* Re: energy and mass3john larkin
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iiii+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iiii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii`* Re: energy and mass70Thomas Heger
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii +* Re: energy and mass62john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i+* Re: energy and mass12john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii+* Re: energy and mass5Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii`* Re: energy and mass4john larkin
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii  `* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii   `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii`* Re: energy and mass6J. J. Lodder
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii `* Re: energy and mass5john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  +- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii   `* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii    `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i+* Re: energy and mass13Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii`* Re: energy and mass12J. J. Lodder
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii `* Re: energy and mass11Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  `* Re: energy and mass10J. J. Lodder
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii   `* Re: energy and mass9Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii    `* Re: energy and mass8Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii     `* Re: energy and mass7Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii      `* Re: energy and mass6Maciej Woźniak
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii       `* Re: energy and mass5Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii        `* Re: energy and mass4Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii         `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii          `* Re: energy and mass2Maciej Woźniak
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii           `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i`* Re: energy and mass36Thomas Heger
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i `* Re: energy and mass35Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i  `* Re: energy and mass34Thomas Heger
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i   `* Re: energy and mass33Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i    `* Re: energy and mass32Thomas Heger
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i     `* Re: energy and mass31Bill Sloman
16 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i      +- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i      `* Re: energy and mass29Thomas Heger
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       +* Re: energy and mass27Bill Sloman
20 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i`* Re: energy and mass26Thomas Heger
20 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i `* Re: energy and mass25Bill Sloman
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i  `* Re: energy and mass24Thomas Heger
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   +* Re: energy and mass14john larkin
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i`* Re: energy and mass13Ross Finlayson
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i +* Re: energy and mass10john larkin
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i`* Re: energy and mass9Ross Finlayson
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i `* Re: energy and mass8john larkin
22 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i  `* Re: energy and mass7J. J. Lodder
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i `* Re: energy and mass2Bill Sloman
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   `* Re: energy and mass9Bill Sloman
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii `* Re: energy and mass7Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i+* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i`* Re: energy and mass18Paul B. Andersen
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         `* Re: energy and mass392Bill Sloman
28 Feb 26 i   iiii  +* Re: energy and mass2Ross Finlayson
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  `- Re: energy and mass1Thomas Heger
28 Feb 26 i   iii`* Re: energy and mass491Thomas Heger
26 Feb 26 i   ii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
28 Feb 26 i   i`* Re: energy and mass39Don
25 Feb 26 i   `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
24 Feb 26 `* Re: energy and mass14Bill Sloman

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal