## It’s Elementary My Dear Watson. Lorentz is to blame!

Posted: January 20, 2012 in Physics

After doing more research and if this site* is correct even Einstein backed off the idea of using E=mc2 for anything other than mass at rest. So in effect his E=mc2 equation should be used for Atomic energy. And it should not combine multiple masses to try to solve for kinetic energy as well. It is not a one size fits all. This goes to my point that we need a robust Object Oriented Universe that builds off of Newton, Minkowski and Einstein etc…

– “Einstein’s conventions and interpretations were sometimes ambivalent and varied a little over the years, however examination of Einstein’s papers and books on relativity show that he almost never used relativistic mass himself. Whenever the symbol m for mass appears in his equations it is always invariant mass. He did not introduce the notion that the mass of a body increases with velocity, just that it increases with energy content. The equation E = mc2 was only meant to be applied in the rest frame of the particle.”

– “To find the real origin of the concept of relativistic mass you have to look back to the earlier papers of Lorentz. In 1904 Lorentz wrote a paper “Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving With Any Velocity Less Than That of Light.””

Especially knowing even Einstein was backing of E=mc2 for anything but mass at rest. And I believe that Minkowski’s Spacetime is a true 4d Universe. How can we even consider a Lorentz’s transformtaion with a frame at rest and the use of the word velocity like it refers to some absolute time and or reference point. Quoting Minkowski from http://www.spacetimesociety.org/minkowski.html  “A point of space at a point of time, that is, a system of values, x, y, x, t, I will call a world-point. The multiplicity of all thinkable x, y, x, t systems of values we will christen the world… Not to leave a yawning void anywhere, we will imagine that everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible. To avoid saying “matter” or “electricity” I will use for this something the word “substance”. We fix our attention on the substantial point which is at the world-point x, y, x, t, and imagine that we are able to recognize this substantial point at any other time. Let the variations dx, dy, dz of the space co-ordinates of this substantial point correspond to a time element dt. Then we obtain, as an image, so to speak, of the everlasting career of the substantial point, a curve in the world, a world-line, the points of which can be referred unequivocally to the parameter t from – oo to + oo. The whole universe is seen to resolve itself into similar world-lines, and I would fain anticipate myself by saying that in my opinion physical laws might find their most perfect expression as reciprocal relations between these world-lines. [1, p. 76]“

So as we build our OO Universe each object would be aligned with it’s own World\Universe Line. Each World\Universe Line having it’s own known “Shared Static Time Progression”. And the laws of nature including Newton, and Einstein as well as the speed of light are all perceived true within each World Line.

The more I research this the more it seems like I am right. My biggest problem is that I shouldn’t use the words “Relativistic Mass”. They knew that smelled and they have been trying to bury it for years. But it is from the original use of it that it was stated that there was no amount of energy that could be applied to get mass to exceed the speed of light. But to move from the mechanical view to Minkowski 4d spacetime makes me even more certain that you can not have a frame at rest. And the biggest problem looks like they let Lorentz join their party and he introduced the word “velocity” and it stuck. So only the people who believe that there is an absolute time/reference point or Galileo’s Spacetime can allow for a 4 dimensional frame to be at rest. Otherwise if we truly believe in Einstein and Minkowski we all should dispute Lorentz and the idea of any frame being at rest. It doesn’t hurt that they have current experiments cloaking events by altering time either.

So finally leave E=mc2 alone. Just know that solving for c is not a velocity it is an acceleration.

If you really look at it, aren’t they by using LTs to say nothing can go faster than light saying that you can not have cycles. If I was traveling at 2 miles per second around a 1 mile loop. I would travel around the loop twice in one second. In no way would I expect to bump into myself.  Ultimately it doesn’t matter how fast you travel. The faster the more cycles you make. But in no way do you ever leave before you start. And since light as well as anything  else that travels at any “constant velocity” by definition is traveling in a straight line the point is moot. To even traverse a loop like what is being proposed would require out side forces to make course modifications. Either friction, magnetic fields our even gravity would be required. This is a logical fallacy.