It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# E=MC^4^2...A thought experiment regarding Energy and the Speed of Light.

page: 2
2
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:35 AM

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
a reply to: Arbitrageur Believe it or not I can do math just fine.I just forgot to add the brackets. In my haste I also used the order of operations for a much simpler equation.Welcome to Confusion 101. Maybe our benevolent MODS will see fit to edit my title and OP so things are less confusing.

The units are:

E : Joule =Watt*seconds = kg m²/s²
m: Kilogram
c: Meter/seconds

Therefore, you are not receiving Joule, but Joule * m^4/s^4... Which doesn't make much sense, or could you elaborate?

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:11 AM

This is not a trivial point. If the units don't match on both sides of the equals sign, or aren't at least equivalent, then it's not really an equality.

I remember a couple of times forgetting an equation while taking an exam, and I could usually solve the problem anyway to get the correct answer just by matching the units, if the problem was simple enough.

More commonly though I remembered the formula, and then used unit checks to make sure I'd applied it correctly since non-matching units was a sure-fire way to tell I'd made some kind of mistake.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:29 AM

Soon it will be known that all matter is made of tiny rings of light. The Higgs-Boson is made of light.

Light bends space and time.
scienceline.ucsb.edu...

As we all know, light is also electromagnetic, and it travels very fast. So what do you think happens if you take light and bend it into a very tiny orbit?

The light will complete its orbit so fast that it will actually get attracted to the tail end of itself. The light will cause itself to travel faster than you have ever measured it, in this tiny orbit, forming a large amount of energy. Enough energy to drastically bend space-time in the center of its orbit, and create what we know as mass and gravity, and some other neat forces.

When the light travels faster than you have ever measured it, the point at which the head of the light is attracted to its tail will start to move so fast that the point itself actually gets attracted to itself as well. This causes that one orbit of light to exist in multiple places at once, all joined at the center point. Forming what you see below:

All has been discovered long ago. Maybe I am revealing too much.

Anyway, why do you think that matter and antimatter transform into gamma rays when they collide?

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:51 AM

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
The standard theory is that you can't accelerate an object that has Mass to the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy; But Light itself must have Mass because it can be affected by Gravity- The more Mass an object has the greater the effects of gravity..........Please feel free to go cross-eyed at any time(I already have). Enjoy!

Light has no rest mass, and so does not become infinitely massive upon going the speed of light in a vacuum.

The mass it has is due to the stress-energy tensor. Or you could do the engineering meatball and say that its relativistic mass is h (nu)/c^^2, but mbkennel will say I'm being crude.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:48 AM

I agree with you WeAre0ne
,

In fact I have reason to believe that it is the electron that is made from a photon circle that you describe.
There are several physicists out there on the web that believe this now.
And the idea is not new in the geon

I have not yet heard about the rings connecting at a single point.
Do you have a source for this?

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:57 AM

Light is emitted energy motion through a void. It is the void that is effected by gravity not the light it self.

The void acts like a carrier for the emitted light. Like light traveling by fiber optics. The fiber optics is just a different void that light can travel through.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:40 PM
You first need to take Everything you think you know/learned and THROW IT OUT THE WINDOW. The way we measure things is wrong, the way we do math is wrong. Please understand that my intent is to confuse you. Start thinking from outside the little box you were taught to work from. Once you start bending/folding space/time all our precious equations fall short of explaining anything at all. Scrap the concept of linear time first; Light only appears to be moving. The universe is not a logical construct.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:45 PM

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 09:24 PM

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

Soon it will be known that all matter is made of tiny rings of light. The Higgs-Boson is made of light.

Light bends space and time.
scienceline.ucsb.edu...

As we all know, light is also electromagnetic, and it travels very fast. So what do you think happens if you take light and bend it into a very tiny orbit?

The light will complete its orbit so fast that it will actually get attracted to the tail end of itself. The light will cause itself to travel faster than you have ever measured it, in this tiny orbit, forming a large amount of energy. Enough energy to drastically bend space-time in the center of its orbit, and create what we know as mass and gravity, and some other neat forces.

When the light travels faster than you have ever measured it, the point at which the head of the light is attracted to its tail will start to move so fast that the point itself actually gets attracted to itself as well. This causes that one orbit of light to exist in multiple places at once, all joined at the center point. Forming what you see below:

All has been discovered long ago. Maybe I am revealing too much.

Anyway, why do you think that matter and antimatter transform into gamma rays when they collide?

That you for contributing something that is thought provoking and relevant to my experiment.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 09:26 PM

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
a reply to: Arbitrageur Believe it or not I can do math just fine.I just forgot to add the brackets. In my haste I also used the order of operations for a much simpler equation.Welcome to Confusion 101. Maybe our benevolent MODS will see fit to edit my title and OP so things are less confusing.

The units are:

E : Joule =Watt*seconds = kg m²/s²
m: Kilogram
c: Meter/seconds

Therefore, you are not receiving Joule, but Joule * m^4/s^4... Which doesn't make much sense, or could you elaborate?
The bulk of the universe is matter and energy that we have not been able to measure and quantify. I also stated that the equation was WRONG.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 09:38 PM
It just struck me...
We talk about "Speed of light"
And photon particles....

Were do they get their motion?
How does a photon propel itself?

Let say a flashlight....

How does the photons from the bulb
go from the source to the wall....

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:03 PM
This is sort of explained in QED or quantum electrodynamics which is a little but complicated, but you can sort of answer part of this simply even in the classical model. "An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force"

A photon isn't exactly a classical object but ignoring that, it explains how it can travel long distances without anything pushing it. It is slowed down a tiny bit in Earth's atmosphere maybe 1% compared to a vacuum.

That classical analogy is kind of a stretch but if you try to explain much more than that with a classical analogy it just won't work, which is why quantum mechanics and QED became necessary to explain observations, like the photon apparently already leaving the flashlight at the speed of light without having to do any acceleration like a massive object might have to do classically.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:44 PM
I puzzles me that there seems to be very little support for this kind of thread on this site. Thank you to everyone who has contributed in this discussion. Still doesn't seem like anyone has figured out WHY I wrote this thread the way I did though(and I admit that I did mess up my OP pretty bad).

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:51 PM

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
I also stated that the equation was WRONG.

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
I puzzles me that there seems to be very little support for this kind of thread on this site.
You mean the kind of thread where the OP posts an equation, others point out it's wrong, then the OP says "I also stated that the equation was WRONG."?

Exactly where do you expect such a discussion to go? I don't understand the train of thought/logic here but maybe if you explain it better I can follow what you're thinking.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:52 PM

the op was (admittedly) terrible. you wished for the op to change the title. the math has no meaning, it is (admittedly) wrong. you displayed a lack of basic math skill. you told us that you did all of this to confuse us ON PURPOSE.

well, you win, I am confused.

back to my "little box" I go.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:57 AM

originally posted by: tgidkp

the op was (admittedly) terrible. you wished for the op to change the title. the math has no meaning, it is (admittedly) wrong. you displayed a lack of basic math skill. you told us that you did all of this to confuse us ON PURPOSE.

well, you win, I am confused.

back to my "little box" I go.
This was designed as a social experiment to see how people would react to reading something that challenged a well established belief structure. SCIENCE is no different than RELIGION in many ways. After reading something that challenged a well establish scientific principle most people attacked like a swarm of bees. The same happens when you challenge a belief that someone considers to be sacred. I hope this serves to highlight how rigid we can be with some of our thought processes.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 07:18 AM

originally posted by: TheWetCoast
This was designed as a social experiment to see how people would react to reading something that challenged a well established belief structure. SCIENCE is no different than RELIGION in many ways. After reading something that challenged a well establish scientific principle most people attacked like a swarm of bees. The same happens when you challenge a belief that someone considers to be sacred. I hope this serves to highlight how rigid we can be with some of our thought processes.
So the equation failed, the math failed, and now it's revealed the social experiment was a failed design, and then failed logic is applied to say that believing that 3 is not equal to 4 is comparable to believing that flying spaghetti monster created the Earth in 3.5 days 3000 years ago.

There is absolutely no comparison at all between the two. One is scientifically verifiable with objective evidence, while the other is either totally unsupported by evidence or even contradicted by evidence.
edit on 1-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 10:02 AM
So the motion of a photon cant be easily explained.
But a flashlight that is fixed in place, doesnt have
motion other than the rotation of the planet itself.
So the photons shouldnt move faster than the rotation.
Yet the "Speed of light" 300k km/s is staggering..
I am out of my league in so many ways here....

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 10:15 AM

originally posted by: Miccey
But a flashlight that is fixed in place, doesnt have
motion other than the rotation of the planet itself.
So the photons shouldnt move faster than the rotation.
Since this is a hoax thread and the OP is a hoax, er, um, social experiment, I guess it's on topic to post this other hoax, er, um, social experiment, about that. It's not being used as a social experiment here because I'm already saying it's false, but I actually found it on another site conducting a social experiment to see if people would believe it:

This famous scientist didn't really say this, he knows better. But if you can figure out why this is false, you've solved the problem. It has to do with speed being a distance measured per unit time, and the fact that time doesn't pass at the same rate at different relative speeds.

See the video in this thread if you want to watch a video explaining it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 1-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 10:20 PM
The thought experiment is still valid if it made you think. I had to see if a few assumptions I had were true. Yes I used myself as a bit of a lab rat to do so. Two birds with one stone.

new topics

top topics

2