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:

# Einstein was a fraud. E= nothing

page: 7
34
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:23 AM
a reply to: KrzYma
Approx 1.67*10^-15 grammes.That's it's mass which is constant wherever it is in the universe, the weight will change according to gravity.

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:51 AM

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: boncho

If you have 1 billion atoms of hydrogen, it is still 1 billion atoms of hydrogen whether its on Earth or on the Sun's surface.

OK, than enlighten me and tell me what number you will put into E=mc2 for mass of those 1 billion atoms of hydrogen

Well thats my point. Mass in this equation is not weight, the two things are different things. So you are also saying that if you place 1 kg out in interstellar space, it in fact very near to 0 kg? You realise that by this very definition you get inconsistencies. If a 1kg mass goes to 0kg when it is out on its own, then might this mean by the same messed up definition that the sun itself is massless?

Mass and weight are two different things. The Avogadro project has attempted to produce a new standard 1kg mass, which is based upon the number of silicon atoms in a crystal defined by 35.74374043 moles of silicon 28. This prototype is designed to be a true representation of 1 kg. Yes, if you put it on a set of scales in different areas, it will appear to have a WEIGHT that varies around 1kg, but in terms of physics and chemistry it is 1 kg.

The m you put into the equation for 1 billion atoms of hydrogen if you are to some how convert them to energy and get a nice baking in Gamma rays, would be 1.673x10^-18 kg

It would be that number on Earth, in Space and near the sun, and in the core of the sun.

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:01 PM

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: boncho

If you have 1 billion atoms of hydrogen, it is still 1 billion atoms of hydrogen whether its on Earth or on the Sun's surface.

OK, than enlighten me and tell me what number you will put into E=mc2 for mass of those 1 billion atoms of hydrogen

I already did that with a link. To calculate mass:

Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity

1kg x 9.8m/s2

So 1kg weighs 9.8 Newtons.

Gravity on the moon 1.622 m/s2

SO:

1kg x 1.622 = 1.622 Newtons, also known as "1/6th the weight" not really, it's in between 1/6th and 1/7th. A kilo works out to be about 0.1654 kilograms, or 1.622 newtons, on Earth, weighing 9.8 Newtons.

If course, the kilogram of mass never changed.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

www.convert-me.com...

edit on 4-9-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 04:26 PM

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: boncho

If you have 1 billion atoms of hydrogen, it is still 1 billion atoms of hydrogen whether its on Earth or on the Sun's surface.

OK, than enlighten me and tell me what number you will put into E=mc2 for mass of those 1 billion atoms of hydrogen

One would use 6.166058x 10^-17 kg in equation.

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:05 PM
yes, thank you guys for your thoughts, I really appreciate this, and I'm sorry for the rough words I often use if I hear something that sounds BS to me... not only in this thread, but all over ATS

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: KrzYma
Approx 1.67*10^-15 grammes.That's it's mass which is constant wherever it is in the universe, the weight will change according to gravity.

en.wikipedia.org...

The gram was originally defined in 1795 as the mass of one cubic centimeter of water at 4 °C, making the kilogram equal to the mass of one liter of water. The prototype kilogram, manufactured in 1799 and from which the current kilogram is based, has a mass equal to the mass of 1.000025 liters of water.

this is an arbitrary number to describe the observed

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Weight = mass x acceleration of gravity
1kg x 9.8m/s2
So 1kg weighs 9.8 Newtons.

you are right

The joule is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre, or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second.

...there is an another solar system, with a planet smaller than earth - acceleration 1m/s2
About 1680-something, BNewton discovered, that the gravity force is an uniform force, accelerating all masses at 1m/s2, ...cool thing for Bplanet

Maxwell, Preston, Poincaré , De Pretto and Hasenöhrl have given idea of something like E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)... this was adapted by BEinstein and became the famous formula ever --> E=mc2

for this Bworld physics are the same... the calculated light speed, the liter of water to be 10cm3, no difference to Earth
1 Joule = 1N moved over 1m in 1s

so on the Bplanet, holding still against the gravity 1kg of mass from falling for 1s is 10N, here on earth it's 98

...thinking about it, where does this spend energy comes from ??? (sure QM has some numbers for it, like one ghost don't want to be at the same place as another angel
)

...
a reply to: ErosA433

The Avogadro project has attempted to produce a new standard 1kg mass, which is based upon the number of silicon atoms in a crystal defined by 35.74374043 moles of silicon 28. This prototype is designed to be a true representation of 1 kg.

it's a weight after all... a number of atoms to describe something, a volume of something in designated environment...

...

we don't fall into the Earth because of the Coulomb force, this one that prohibits "gravitational collapse" -> no black holes as MS presents it... just look at the numbers for forces carried by particles
( photon is not a real particle, it's a number for wave energy - change over time )

field density is an additive number, Efield carriers count is the field force... (gravity)
I'm aware of MS denying eather... I say, distance is eather and time is the carrier

and if you ask me what eather is... it's the delay in time to carry the information changes
field density affect informations exchange ->time
I can also tell you what causes this delay... but not here and now

edit on 5-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:12 PM
a reply to: SprocketUK
1.67*10^-15
a reply to: ErosA433
1.673x10^-18
a reply to: punkinworks10
6.166058x 10^-17

?????

I say
[[+1(c)] [-1(c)]] = [2[(0c)]] x 1 billion

edit on 5-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:39 PM
a reply to: KrzYma

Your whole post is as if a dog ate a few physics textbooks and blew chunks afterward.

this is an arbitrary number to describe the observed

You'd rather us describe units of weight measure as "a flickle of buckle and suckle"??

...thinking about it, where does this spend energy comes from ???

What spent energy are you talking about? Gravitational force? You have to lift the object in the air for it to come back again. So whatever expended energy to get it that high, kinetic energy, is transferred as potential energy, and then again to kinetic energy when it's falling.

www.energyeducation.tx.gov...

it's a weight after all... a number of atoms to describe something, a volume of something in designated environment...

You are getting confused again. "A number of atoms to describe something" or more appropriately the number of atoms making up an object is its mass. Not its weight. Volume is a separate calculation of how much space the object takes up:

Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by some closed boundary, for example, the space that a substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) or shape occupies or contains.
***

edit on 5-9-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:45 PM

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: KrzYma

Your whole post is as if a dog ate a few physics textbooks and blew chunks afterward.

wait till the dog #s it out, may be a nicer outcome

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:55 PM

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: KrzYma

Your whole post is as if a dog ate a few physics textbooks and blew chunks afterward.

wait till the dog #s it out, may be a nicer outcome

I updated my post, hit the reply button too early.

I can also tell you what causes this delay... but not here and now

Ah yes... The ol, "Mysterious answer to the mysteries of the universe that only I have but I can't tell you right now..."

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: boncho
according to your statement
"Oops I aborted my contraceptives."
you should watch this and think if you can

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:59 PM
a reply to: boncho

Ah yes... The ol, "Mysterious answer to the mysteries of the universe that only I have but I can't tell you right now..."

NO, it's no the answer but maybe a solution

depend who want to listen

YES.. it is more complex than few words
edit on 5-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:08 PM
a reply to: boncho

"A number of atoms to describe something" or more appropriately the number of atoms making up an object is its mass. Not its weight. Volume is a separate calculation of how much space the object takes up:

NO, this is the confusion...
it's not about measurement in given environment, this environment distorts the measurement

you need to understand that an atom has different properties in different field strength.
not just the mass, but also the behave
edit on 5-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:10 PM
a reply to: KrzYma

1.67*10^-15 g is correct.

1.673x10^-18 kg and 6.166058x 10^-17 kg are wrong.

As for the mass and weight? I don't see how you can get confused about that?

edit on 9/5/2014 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:23 PM

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: boncho

Ah yes... The ol, "Mysterious answer to the mysteries of the universe that only I have but I can't tell you right now..."

NO, it's no the answer but maybe a solution
depend who want to listen
YES.. it is more complex than few words

IF you have something to say just spit it out instead of playing the "I know everything but I can't tell you card", make a thread about it, put it in this one, whatever. We get that enough with the free energy zealots on ATS and some of the UFO prophets as well. Don't need another...

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:26 PM
a reply to: KrzYma

you need to understand that an atom has different properties in different field strength. not just the mass, but also the behave

So you are saying that mass can change under different conditions or different fields?

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:27 PM
a reply to: KrzYma

NO, this is the confusion...
it's not about measurement in given environment, this environment distorts the measurement

The environment can change certain measurements but others stay the same. Which highlights the importance of various measurements. And also, because they all can be calculated back and forth between each other, it tells us what effects the environment has on certain objects.

As we have all stated a dozen times now though, mass doesn't change.

you need to understand that an atom has different properties in different field strength.
not just the mass, but also the behave

Specific example and your point in how it related to your confusion of weight vs. mass?

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 12:19 PM

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: KrzYma

1.67*10^-15 g is correct.

1.673x10^-18 kg and 6.166058x 10^-17 kg are wrong.

As for the mass and weight? I don't see how you can get confused about that?

Hehe, i saw that too, difference answers, but two of them different in orders of magnitude only, so lets take a look how we did it, just for some clarity

1 billion hydrogens = 1,000,000,000 * 1.007 AMU * 1.66x10^-27 (kg/AMU) = 1.66x10^-18 kg

And that actually 1.67x10^-15 g and 1.67x10^18 kg is the same.

Soooooo either of those two numbers is good, though depending on the unit system you use, typically you will use kg.
edit on 6-9-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:01 PM

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: KrzYma

you need to understand that an atom has different properties in different field strength. not just the mass, but also the behave

So you are saying that mass can change under different conditions or different fields?

YES, as time/propagation speed in E field changes in "stronger" field density

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:31 PM
a reply to: boncho

What spent energy are you talking about? Gravitational force? You have to lift the object in the air for it to come back again. So whatever expended energy to get it that high, kinetic energy, is transferred as potential energy, and then again to kinetic energy when it's falling.

YES, if matter counteracts the acceleration of gravity it is doing work ! It spent energy, real energy ( and not QM demons that don't want to be at the same place at the same time)

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 11:31 PM
a reply to: KrzYma

YES, if matter counteracts the acceleration of gravity it is doing work ! It spent energy, real energy ( and not QM demons that don't want to be at the same place at the same time)

Matter is not counteracting the "acceleration of gravity". Newton's are a measurement of force, how much force is this matter putting down. No counteracting, no rising against such force. Just a calculation of the force.

So one of us and all the matter that makes us up, we are around 750 Newtons (168.6lbs). We are not doing anything against gravity, we are just there, weighing that much, and our matter doesn't change. But if you were on the moon you'd only weigh 27.9lbs and you'd be exerting 124.1 Newtons of force.

Now if you stand up or something, you are briefly overpowering the force holding you there, to which you can make calculations about if so desired.

Matter is not counteracting anything by just sitting there.

Get it yet?

top topics

34