Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

My SR Document

  1. Jun 11, 2007 #1
    I had some spare time and I wanted to compile a document that contained all the mathematical steps to obtain E=m'c^2. Anyway, I have written this PDF. If any of you have spare time, can you please look over my document and criticize it?:smile:

    Also, if this place is inappropriate to post this here, you may delete this post...:rolleyes:

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 11, 2007 #2
    Just a thought...

    You may want to do a clean-up job on the introduction. It seems too concise to convey much to the uninitiated. But you cannot dwell on the history for too long, either. It could be expanded to , say, a page or two. And make sure each sentence is complete and meaningful. For example, the sentence, "Light did not have a limit," is ambiguous. What sort of limit are we talking about??
  4. Jun 11, 2007 #3
    hmm. true I did not pay too much attention to the intro. Thanks for the feedback. "Light did not have a limit," - I can't believe I wrote that! :)

    Also is my derivation of length contraction valid?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2007
  5. Jun 13, 2007 #4
    Can some please also see if my derivation of the Mass Dilation is Valid?
  6. Jun 13, 2007 #5
    I disagree with your use of Relativistic Mass,
    Modern use of M0 is more accepted and IMO accurate.
    The idea the mass actually approaches infinity as speed nears ā€œcā€ is not realistic.
    Using the correct relative speed needed to correctly calculate momentum and energy as speed approaches infinity makes much more sense and fits in better with the current view of using only M0.
    It solves for E=mc2 just as well.

    IMO speed dilation for this calculation makes much more sense than mass dilation.
  7. Jun 14, 2007 #6
    Really? Well I wasn't actually aware of that. Hmm. so you disagree with my derivation or the use of the equation itself?
  8. Jun 14, 2007 #7
    ??? don't know what you mean by "the equation"

    What I disagree with is using the idea that mass of an object changes relative to frame of measure.

    Most current modern views of science consider it is an old, unnecessary incorrect analogy.
    A view that I agree with.

    Did you even try speed dilation?
  9. Jun 14, 2007 #8
    Funny how you have to ask this question... I mean, the fact of publishing this document has to mean you're sure of its content, right?
  10. Jun 14, 2007 #9
    Publish? I have just posted it to PF...!
  11. Jun 14, 2007 #10
    Time Dilation, Mass Dilation. Now I have heard Speed Dilation. Okay I shall research it.

    Anyway, as a side note why is MD wrong? The reason I used it is because of the proof I thought was found in the particle accelerators with electrons and their abnormal increase in B, as predicted by MD.....
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook