Well I took a look, started reading the first page. One needs to release the usual definition of mainstream, naturally. The linear force is not a force, and later is called force constant F
l and is defined as F = r m, with r the classical radius of the electron and m the mass of the electron. So
the linear force is not a force at least not in the normal sense.
Then I found:
Quote:
|
The problem with Einstein's formula is that it gives the energy in the direction of movement (the energy on the compressed lead radial). If the speed is zero then E = m regardless of volume! Einstein does not take into account the difference in density across the diameter of a moving body, but gives a value related to the density on the shortest radial. Removing speed from the equation gives the 'structural' formula in place of the 'moving' or 'collision energy' formula found by Einstein.
|
(My bolding) Well, that does not make sense at all. This deals with Einstein's equation E = m c
2, which has absolutely noting to do with a movement, this holds also for a body at rest. The c
2 is just a conversion factor in this equation. And the assumption that for a body at rest E = m shows again that on this page, one does not take very seriously the normal definitions of force (unit N = kg m / s
2) and Energy (unit J = kg m
2/c
2.
Without reason they also write that the vacuum wavelength of a particle is defined by twice the electron radius, where 2r suddenly takes on the value of r in the beginning.
So then I stopped reading.
__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin (
http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )