Another false assertion by you.  Newtonian mechanics work just fine at relativistic speeds.  So, it is your ideas which are in deep trouble, and not mine.  The measured wavelength and the real wavelength of the photon differ by a factor of c². This is because the linear motion of the photon stretches the spin wavelength. The linear velocity is c, of course, and the circular velocity approaches 1/c. The difference between the two is c².  Energy, like velocity, is a relative measurement. A quantum with a certain energy has that energy only relative to us, since it has its velocity only relative to us. If the wavelength has to be multiplied by c² in order to match it to our measurements, then the mass or mass equivalence will also. Hence, the equation E = mc².  In this way, c² is not a velocity or a velocity squared, it is a velocity transform. It tells us how much the wavelength is stretched, and therefore how much the mass and energy are stretched, due to the motion of the object.

The kinetic energy equation, like the equation E = mc², always included the spin energy, but you apparently have never recognized that.  Just as with the photon, all matter has a wavelength (see de Broglie), and the wavelength is determined by the spin.  As the linear velocity increases, the spin velocity relative to the linear velocity decreases, by a factor of 1/v. This makes the difference between the linear velocity and the spin velocity v². The term v² transforms the local wavelength into the measured wavelength.

Gravock

@minnie

One step at a time...preferably moving forward. Which raises the question how can we move forward if we are stuck in the past?. I think one scholar had it right, we do not move forward because a new idea is truly accepted we we move forward when those who oppose new idea's grow old and die. So yes it is a waiting game of sorts and much of the nonsense debated here will be debated in the future in the same light as those in the past. Stupid old men debating antiquated concepts by whale oil lamp dictating notes with a quill ink pen... and we are them only the context has changed.




The thing to remember is that while you and I may believe we may understand many things within the context of our ever so short existence here, 85 years give or take, it is but a drop in the ocean. As well some may believe our children can do no better but intuitively we know they will... they will do impossible things we cannot even imagine.




So we should enjoy our own ignorance while we can because those little devil's we call our children will not be buying into our stupidity. I can see that little twinkle in there eye... that same twinkle I had so many years ago when I knew my father was a genius compared to most but I had learned more new things than he would ever know.



So yes have fun with it but do not believe our ignorance will prevail in the future, it is but a stepping stone to greater things we cannot imagine. The trick here is imagining what they might before they do which means your not behind the learning curve but slightly ahead of it...progress. It should be understood that in this day and age with the exponential growth of knowledge growing as it is if your not moving forward learning new things at a fantastic rate your actually falling behind. At which point we might add a little of Einsteins relativity to the equation. If mankind's understanding is moving forward growing at an exponential rate and we are not moving forward at all then where do you think we will be relative to them next year?.  My only answer is...Lost in transition.






AC

@Mark E

What is evidence?, I know many people in the oil patch who were driving so drunk that when the cops stopped them they literally fell out of there truck. They never received a fine, no jail time and they were driving the next month. They told me they were guilty as hell but their expensive lawyers could show evidence that apparently ... they were not guilty?...go figure.




You see there is no reliable evidence when anyone can simply change the context of the facts to suit their own beliefs or interests. Evidence is always open to interpretation by those who have something to gain from their own interpretation. So while your "reliable evidence" scenario sounds good in theory I have found it seldom works as planned in reality. Your reliable evidence theory is simply not reliable, lol.










AC

@MarkEPeople... obviously.
Science and scientific inquiry will always rely on the perspectives and interpretations of observations by people. I understand some may like to portray science as an all knowing all seeing entity in itself not unlike a religion to serve their interests however it is simply a process. This forum is a perfect example and it boggles the mind that so many could have such different views of a simple equation such as F=mA.
There is also that little issue of 47% of scientists who have falsified data or know someone who has in the past... so what is reliable evidence again?. You see it's hard to believe in reliable evidence and the purists view of scientific inquiry when we see almost one half of the scientific community is effectively making up shit as they go along. 47% is a pretty big number Mark... what do you think of that?, I find it incredible.
 
AC

@MarkE
I think I have a pretty good idea of how it is supposed to work as well as how it doesn't in reality. For instance I read a pretty comical article a while back concerning the peer review process. A researcher presented a paper for review and a few years later it was found that there was conflicting data presented. Then when the researcher was questioned he said his thesis was not the paper in question but another paper showing that the peer review process was fundamentally flawed because very few papers are read and even less actually verified... brilliant. The researcher essentially wrote a paper in which everything was fabricated and substantiated by a prior paper in which everything was also fabricated. Not unlike many accepted theories which are also based on a foundation of quicksand.

It would seem the process is inherently flawed and many "scientists" are recieving large grants and investment funds based on nothing but vaporware. It sounds very much like pseudo-science in my opinion. Obviously the real issue here is not science but people who have bought into the religion of professionalism and credibility rather than hard facts which are proven beyond all shadow of doubt. You see I cannot believe you Mark for the same reasons you do not believe others because what your implying lacks credibility in light of the facts.
 
AC