[puppypower]

If you look at the equation E=MC2, rest mass M is an invariant, the speed of the light C is the same in all references, yet observed energy is variable and reference dependent. How can the product of two invariants become variant?

[jeffreyH]

If you look at the equation E=MC2, rest mass M is an invariant, the speed of the light C is the same in all references, yet observed energy is variable and reference dependent. How can the product of two invariants become variant?

Via inertia, acceleration and Lorentz transformations.

[alancalverd]

If you look at the equation E=MC2, rest mass M is an invariant, the speed of the light C is the same in all references, yet observed energy is variable and reference dependent. How can the product of two invariants become variant?

Not a problem on my planet. The energy of electron-positron annihilation photons is always exactly the same, as is the yield of hydrogen-helium fusion. The parts of the universe where relativity doesn't apply seem to be confined to psychiatric hospitals.

[William McC]

Scarecely relevant, but who cares? The mathematics of relativity is simple enough but I dare you to derive a maximum-entropy MRI reconstruction algorithm on the KISS principle. Not sure about drooling but I have people queuing in the street to use mine!

Years ago there were MRI systems that did not have the giant magnets, they used radio waves basically. And there was almost no danger from them. So perhaps KISS could be reapplied to the newer machines.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McC]

On March 25th, 1934, in Corning, New York, the largest disk, made of a special glass containing borax (borosilicate glass), was poured. It was 16.6 feet across, and referred to as the 200 inch disk. It was 26 inches thick, and weighed 20 tons. Its ultimate destination, when ground, polished and coated with a layer of bright aluminum, was the Hale Telescope on Mt. Palomar in north San Diego County, California.

During the manufacture, the furnace was so hot that several cores in the brick mold broke away from the metal anchor rods and floated on top of the molten glass. Though the accident meant that the disk would never be used as the great mirror, it wasn't considered a complete failure. It was used to test the annealing process for the pouring of the second disk, and for experimenting with packing and crating methods to be chosen for shipping it to California.

But your version is much more fun.

The accident I was talking about happened in the sixties. I was told about it on a tour of the plant.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[alancalverd]

Years ago there were MRI systems that did not have the giant magnets, they used radio waves basically. And there was almost no danger from them. So perhaps KISS could be reapplied to the newer machines.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

The first published MRI image of a human was made in a superconducting 0.1 T magnet (I used to work for the inventor, and I met the patient). There were some systems that used the earth's magnetic field  as a polariser but they were never more than curiosities. You need at least 0.2 T to get enough signal/noise ratio to produce a useful image before the patient dies of boredom.

All MRI systems use RF energy.

And they all use reiterative 3D inverse-space reconstruction algorithms to produce the image because that's the only way you can do it. Whilst the algorithms themselves are fun, proving that a new algorithm is indefinitely stable and uniquely convergent is a mathematical orgasm, way beyond a mere KISS.

[William McC]

Years ago there were MRI systems that did not have the giant magnets, they used radio waves basically. And there was almost no danger from them. So perhaps KISS could be reapplied to the newer machines.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

The first published MRI image of a human was made in a superconducting 0.1 T magnet (I used to work for the inventor, and I met the patient). There were some systems that used the earth's magnetic field  as a polariser but they were never more than curiosities. You need at least 0.2 T to get enough signal/noise ratio to produce a useful image before the patient dies of boredom.

All MRI systems use RF energy.

And they all use reiterative 3D inverse-space reconstruction algorithms to produce the image because that's the only way you can do it. Whilst the algorithms themselves are fun, proving that a new algorithm is indefinitely stable and uniquely convergent is a mathematical orgasm, way beyond a mere KISS.

Or perhaps the government occasionally paranoid did not want everyone that worked with the little MRI emitter to know that you could walk around with a handheld transmitter capable of heating your body nicely to a point you pass out with a fever.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[alancalverd]

And why would you want to do that? Beer is so much nicer.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Being a scientist, I prefer numbers to rhetoric. Your political prejudices and amateur psychology are irrelevant: please show your calculations.

Einstein made three basic mistakes in his interpretation of the E=MC2 equation. Einstein’s first mistake with E=MC2 was to take a simple equation and then try to interpret it with two contradictory and paradoxical ideas of mass and energy.
In the general interpretation, E=MC2 defines the relationship between mass and kinetic energy. This means that when a body of mass is decelerated it loses mass and energy and when it is accelerated it gains mass and energy. This mass increase/decrease for all matter is proportional to each body’s kinetic energy relative to a common position of rest for all matter. In this interpretation of E=MC2, energy and mass coexist together. When a body is accelerated to a given velocity, the kinetic energy inherent in that velocity contributes to overall mass of the body. One Joule has a mass of 10,-17 kg and a kilogram of mass weighs 1017 Joules. Here their is no conversion of matter to energy. While a Joule is a quantity of energy it is also a quantity of mass.
A single Joule of mass and energy is at the same time very small and very large. It takes 1014 joules of mass just to weigh a single gram but a one Joule photon would be a formidable event indeed. It would have an energy 1,000,000,000,000 times greater than a typical X-ray photon. A one Joule photon could not be produced in the laboratory with even the most powerful of accelerators. The only place where such photons could be found would be among the most powerful of the cosmic rays.
Moving bodies contain both Joules of kinetic energy and Joules of kinetic mass contained in that energy. When a body is decelerated its kinetic mass decreases as it is slowed and its kinetic energy is lost in the deceleration process.
Einstein refused to believe in deceleration as a meaningful concept that could be differentiated from acceleration to establish a position of absolute rest because the mass changes caused by motion cannot be measured locally.

[chiralSPO]

It takes 1014 joules of mass just to weigh a single gram

I think you need to check your math on this one... by my calculations the energy equivalent of 1 gram is about E = 0.001 * 90000000000000000 = 90000000000000 Joules (90 TJ)

[EDIT] perhaps you meant 10¹⁴, in which case I agree!

[alancalverd]

Allowing for poor typography, there is no doubt that the conversion of 1 gram of matter to energy releases about 10^14 joules by calculation. And since this is borne out by measurement, in what sense can E = mc^2 be considered "wrong"?

[jerrygg38]

  Over the years I have been lucky to have some top professors ask for a copy of my books. They have been kind enough to provide me with comments. Some have won the Nobel prize. My work was never good enough for them. One recently said "Do not attempt to discard the work of the past with an entirely new theory. Most scientists attempt to make small improvements in the recognized theory." So now here some question Einstein's work. That is human nature. Yet I am revising my work to include Einstein's results and I am beginning to find that I can explain things a lot better this way.

[alancalverd]

I disagree. Small improvements led to the fantastic complexities and epicycles of the geocentric universe, and achived nothing in the explanation of the ultraviolet catastrophe.