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.

 

Is There Any Scientific or Nonscientific Defense to e=mc^2?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Additionally, is there any scientific or nonscientific defense to Newton's "universal gravity" statement? Use all knowledge since Big Bang and pre-Big Bang.




posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
BOOM Need I say more
in case I do
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I'm not sure what you're asking for... E=mc^2 is a consequence of the theory of special relativity, which didn't so much arise out of observation so much as a few thought experiments. However, it removed the need for there to be a "medium" in which light propagated...

In any case, Physicists have observed mass increases as they accelerate particles closer and closer to the speed of light. It takes more and more energy to acclerate them, and to keep the laws of physics valid in all reference frames, E = mc^2 becomes a necessity.

Incidentally, it's not really E=mc^2 unless you're talking just about the rest energy. Otherwise, the energy of something is actually E = ymc^2, where y = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).

Furthermore, you can look at the difference in mass between the parent and daughter nuclei in a nuclear reaction... and the difference, the binding energy, will be E = mc^2. It's what makes nuclear reactors (and bombs) work!

Physics is cool, huh?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
Additionally, is there any scientific or nonscientific defense to Newton's "universal gravity" statement? Use all knowledge since Big Bang and pre-Big Bang.


Only a million or more papers and experiments.

As the others have said, it's not clear what you're asking. I don't want to sound rude, here, but how much have you studied these subjects (not websites... how many textbooks have you read about them and how much of a math background do you have)?

Have you read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" yet? Or Holton's "Physics, the Human Adventure: From Copernicus to Einstein and Beyond"? Or any of Issac Asimov's science books (easily found in the libraries and the chapters are short and understandable)? Or Wilkinson's "God Time and Stephen Hawking "? Or Sing's book on the Big Bang?

There's a lot more to the "e=mc^2" concept; a whole wealth of physics and science behind that, the theories of time and space and cosmology and the Big Bang. Please don't treat them as simple ideas that you can read one website about and think that you understand all of it.

So, please explain your question a bit more. And if you haven't done more than watch a tv show or two on it or read one or two websites, I'd like to recommend that you pick up one of the science books about it and start reading.

It's a fascinating subject but not one that we could cover exhaustively (or more than trivially) on a BBS.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Have you read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" yet? Or Holton's "Physics, the Human Adventure: From Copernicus to Einstein and Beyond"? Or any of Issac Asimov's science books ....

I think more than any of these "novels" the author of the thread need to now some math like how e=mc^2 is derived and what are the various concepts involved in relativity.
It is better to try some basic books like " Fundamentals of Physics" by Robert Resnick and David Halliday etc which would more serve the purpose here.




top topics
 
0

log in

join