Frogton

I like Feynman because he tries to make nature understandable, but that inevitably leads to errors which books that merely quote equations avoid. If your time was valuable you would not be on here sneering. I only read the thread today since my last post, because I had other things to do with my valuable time. Actually people posting on here should enjoy my book, because just about everything they have said, is said by a character in my book. Interesting that you started as my harshest critic, but are apparently now the only person interested. You posted my blog several days ago, but according to Wordpress I have had only 1 visitor. The point is that special relativity is based on the 3 Lorentz transformations, that is all that is needed for the principle of relativity to hold. You can easily derive the E² equation from the Einstein??? mass dilation formula, but only if you start off by assuming E=MC². However why go out of your way to make things more complicated? The thread is about to be closed, but it is boring anyway because I pretty much know what people are going to say before they say it. But anybody can always contact me via my blog.

Thanks. It is fantastic to have finally found somebody who appreciates my sense of humour. What a pity you spoilt your post by reverting to type at the end. Also a shame that you are not an etymologist, because then you could have ascertained the origin of the name Isaac Frogton, and reached the opposite conclusion. Have you found many errors? If you could share your solution that would be very interesting. “Dimensionally inconsistent” was not a good choice of words, as by definition it implies in-correctness. I should have confined myself to giving you your due for spotting the issue with so little to go on. There may be some dark corner of your mind panicking about the catastrophic possibility that the Frogton Universal Force Law might be correct, but the title of the thread is “Is E=MC² the optimal description of nature?” Thank you for rushing in where Swansont feared to tread, with that monstrous equation. But you are doing what I object to, by trying to impress with jargon. To demonstrate that you understand nature, and are not just repeating what you have read, derive that equation, explain how it relates to E=MC², and reveal the true meaning of 'petitio principii'. No. I do not know why I put a dot there, but to my untrained eye it looks neater. You need to consider just the first 3 paragraphs of my post together, and say what you disagree with. I do not have unlimited time to reply to everything.

Yes. That is what I want to discuss. Unfortunately my thread has been hijacked by Jogius with a torrent of meaningless nonsense, irrelevant jargon and personal abuse. My equation is dimensionally inconsistent but agrees with experiment. It was introduced merely as a mathematical challenge which nobody has yet accepted. Jogius has racked all 3 corners of his brain in a desperate attempt to prove me wrong, and has just come up with utter nonsense, yet you immediately found the one valid criticism. I was tempted to compliment you by saying that you are clearly many orders of magnitude cleverer than Jogius, but then I realised that is not much of a compliment. I am just trying to get you to express a clear opinion about E=MC², so I can give you an argument. It seems that we are both trying to play a game of cat and mouse, but making no progress because we both insist on being the cat. I don't think Jogius has any real interest in learning or teaching physics, he just needs to convince people that he is amazingly clever. But using Feynman's analogy, he is doing this by reciting the names of various birds in different languages, when in reality he cannot tell a snow-goose from a mongoose. In the words of the greatest philosopher, he is sick of self-love. I am hoping that if I ignore him, he will go away, but it seems he is so convinced I am a heretic that he will not rest till he sees me burnt at the stake. Actually I am the biggest fan of the principle of relativity and the Lorentz transformations, but E=MC² is not one of the Lorentz transformations. What I object to is those narrow-minded bigots who insist that if people do not use the politically correct special relativity jargon, then that means they are scientifically wrong.

So you've made desperate attempts to disprove my derivation without knowing what it involved. Is your philosophy “all new truths start as heresies”, so any heresy against special relativity needs to be suppressed to stop it being acknowledged as a truth? So you are unable write a equation for dropping a ball from stationary because at T=0, V=0? You are confusing me with Max Planck. What I said was that Einstein's derivation was “the only valid method of deriving E=MC²”, and that it is E=MC² itself that is inexact. I cannot work out if you think Einstein's 1905 derivation is 'both right and wrong' or 'neither right nor wrong'. Is it possible for you to open the box and reveal all?

If you believe that Einstein's derivation was wrong, please can you point out where he erred, and how you would correct his paper. Sorry, I should have rearranged the equation to FT=(M+FʃV.dT)V, that way it would have been clear that if F=0, then however long the force is applied for, V will be 0; and also that when T=0, V=0. My derivation was based on a constant force, F is not a function of T, so some of the extra Ts you added are not needed. The solution I am looking for is V expressed in terms of T, F, and M (the constant rest-mass). An explanation of the customary notation would be interesting, but mostly I was interested in seeing the equation solved.

Einstein's 1905 derivation of E=MC² involved a thought-experiment using photons to derive a Lorentz factor equation and (ignoring higher powers in the Taylor expansion) comparing that equation to the classical Kinetic Energy Equation. This is actually the only valid method of deriving E=MC², other methods such as the one involving a photon in a box, are merely examples of 'petitio principii', something Herbert Ives wrongly criticised Einstein's 1905 derivation for. Indeed Ives' own attempt at a derivation was an example of 'petitio principii', as well as containing a mathematical error. The problem with a derivation involving the classical Kinetic Energy Equation, is that KE=½MV² is not just an incomplete description of nature, but an equation that is only accurate at low-speed. Since it is the season of goodwill to all men, I wondered whether I might be able to speculate that the Frogton Universal Force Law is actually a better description of nature than E=MC²? The Frogton Universal Force Law leads to the integral equation F=(M+FʃV.dT)V/T, with V integrated between T=0 and T=T. I know what V is in terms of the variable T and the constants F and M, but does anybody know how to go about solving such integral equations other than by guessing?

I read that Philip Gibbs claimed to have set up viXra to provide a platform where people who lacked the necessary credentials to publish on arXiv could establish priority for their work. By all accounts viXra will indiscriminately publish the most absurd of crackpot nonsense, so imagine my dismay when I tried to publish my scholarly paper containing the most beautiful integral equation in physics “E=MC² AND THE FROGTON UNIVERSAL FORCE LAW”, only to receive this merciless rebuttal: Dear Isaac Frogton, Your submission cannot be processed because pseudonym is not allowed and one should not name a law under his own name whether real or fictitious. Both these actions are not within the scholarly norm. Please be kindly guided. Any future non-compliant submission or replacement will be rejected without further notice. Sincerely, viXra Admin Does anybody else feel that this is the most depraved example of scientific censorship since the banning of Galileo's book?