It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

E = mc2 malfunction

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I think that Einstein was wrong when he said E = mc2, I think he missed a trick. This is why :

Einstein's equation : Energy = mass * speed of light squared

Kinetic energy equation : Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * mass * speed ( velocity).

The only difference between these 2 equations is the '1/2' in the Kinetic Energy equation. This means that one of the equations is WRONG !!!
I am tempted to think that Einstein's equation is wrong, for 2 reasons, one reason more obvious than the other. But before I tell you those reasons.
POST YOUR THOUGHTS AND ARGUEMENTS. That will make it easier for me to explain my two reasons.




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Ok, I don't undersan anything of that ... But i guess that Alexander Tau has some thoughts...


[edit on 9-8-2005 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by siddharthsma
The only difference between these 2 equations is the '1/2' in the Kinetic Energy equation. This means that one of the equations is WRONG !!!


Its not the only difference.

The Einstein equation contains 2 variables (Energy and Mass, with c as a constant) whereas the Kinetic energy equation contains three variables (Kinetic Energy, Mass and Velocity). Yes, c denotes SPEED of light, but this is a non-variable (in this instance) quantity. Trying to "solve" this pair of equations will never work as the number of variable quantities is different in each equation.

also, the Kinetic energy equation will break down as speed gets close to c. i.e. Ek is not equal to 1/2 m (c)^2 (i think you meant to say) as the mass of an object changes close to the speed of light. its is a non-relativistic equation that makes sense in the "classical" world. Also Kinetic energy is a subset of Energy in these two equations.

There are several more, but the first is the important note.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   
kinetic energy equation is 1/2mv^2

Einstein's equation includes both the kinetic energy as well as the rest mass energy.

It is the difference in energy of the moving relativistic mass (m) over the kinetic energy of the particle if it's rest mass (i.e. mass when it wasn't moving) (m0) was moving at the speed of light. Since as the particle approaches the speed of light its relativistic mass approaches infinity (i.e. as v->c, m->infinity), then the product of m0 (rest mass) times the speed of light becomes insignificant relative to the product of m times the speed of light so it is negligible. As the velocity of a particle significantly decreases away from the speed of light (i.e. v < < c) the rest mass and the mass approach one another (v < < c, m->m0) and E=mc^2 becomes 1/2mv^2.

You may see the math here:

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




[edit on 8-9-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I sort of Understood what you said Valhall. Thanks

I am coming up with more theories and connections, and I am sure a day will come when no one will find any objections !



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Perhaps before trying to disprove these equations, you may want to take some physics courses. Being a physicist, I kind of laughed at this thread - no offense.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by siddharthsma
I sort of Understood what you said Valhall. Thanks

I am coming up with more theories and connections, and I am sure a day will come when no one will find any objections !


Gotta agree with T_Jesus here.

The first mistake that people make when they come here and announce they have proof that some famous theory is wrong, is that they haven't researched the theory. Generally they will look at the first equation (as you did) and not bother to dig any further.

Something that you need to know about theories is that they are accepted WHEN (and only when) they have been tested in the real world in some fashion and are shown to be able to predict things. In other words, BOTH those forumlas have been used and are being used constantly in engineering and physics applications.

Ask yourself this: If there was something wrong with them, why would anyone continue to use them?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus
Perhaps before trying to disprove these equations, you may want to take some physics courses. Being a physicist, I kind of laughed at this thread - no offense.


I wasn't even going to reply to this thread until i saw your post.

The whole thing is obnoxious since he hasn't even grasped that he is comparing Newtonian Classical Energy Equations to Relativity.

I forget the term for them, but he sounds like those guys who like to take firm established math/science/ideas and "reinvent" or "disprove" them to fufill a delusion of gandeur.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Maybe the OP is surprised to find that Einstein wasn't totally original. Though one thing I have found funny is that light (photon) has energy but no mass.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Maybe the OP is surprised to find that Einstein wasn't totally original. Though one thing I have found funny is that light (photon) has energy but no mass.


The photon is *assumed* to have no mass to make their nice QED equations work. It is impossible to prove that a photon has zero rest mass.

math.ucr.edu... ml



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
WOW! I just noticed that a big chunk of my post above didn't even show up! LOL...apparently putting two < right in a row will lop off everything after it!
Whodda thunk.

I fixed it. Maybe it won't look near as incomplete a thought now. maybe



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Sorry, I will never post a topic like this again. I'm really sorry if I wasted your time.
You're all right I don't know anything about relativity and stuff, and so I do mix Newtonian Mechanics with it.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
You could try to take a look at

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

or some other site to get started in special relativity, which is not that complicated.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Frosty: Nobody is original anymore. Anything worth doing has already been done. You can only take it a bit farther. Einstein didn't invent relativity, that's been around since Galileo, but he did take it farther.

siddharthsma: Don't not post. If you've got an idea, why not post it? Next time, though, do a little research, because 1. you might answer your own question, but 2. your idea might become more formulated and structured, and a real discussion can take place.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by siddharthsma
Sorry, I will never post a topic like this again. I'm really sorry if I wasted your time.
You're all right I don't know anything about relativity and stuff, and so I do mix Newtonian Mechanics with it.


Don't be sorry.Einstein has been quoted as saying something like:"knowledge is nothing,imagination is everything"or something like that.If you don't explore,you don't learn.If you don't learn you don't grow.If you don't grow you die.

Perhaps you'd like to share your original thoughts?Maybe these physisists can help us learn about the equations if you do.I myself was never very good with the math part of science.Numbers keep getting mixed up and all that you know.

Give it a shot and see what happens!



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I don't mind if anyone sends me a private message with questions like these before they post it here...just know I'm a physicist, not an astrophysicist.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
The whole thing is obnoxious since he hasn't even grasped that he is comparing Newtonian Classical Energy Equations to Relativity.


Thats pretty much what I was going to say.
One is newtonian and the other is relativistic and as such you can't use them together.
But still if he didn't know much about physics you can't really blame him

[edit on 12/8/05 by llama009]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
indeed, einstein forgot to mention(maybe purposely) that he meant moving mass not mass resting.
That would mean that light stands still(=zero) and we (mass) is moving through the universe with 300.000 km per sec.

interesting theory nevertheless



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join