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.

# A Problem with Einstein

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:51 PM
Everyone's heard of e=mc2, right? It's Einsteins theory for the conversion of energy to matter. So, why can't we change matter to energy? We can by using a slightly different formula, m=c2/e. Okay, lets do some math here. With fractions, the higher the denominator is, the lower the fraction itself is. So, therefore, the higher the energy is, the lower the matter is. Let's have e=infinity, for the infinite possibilities for it. Having e being the greatest number possible, m must be the lowest, so m=0. Easy right? Wrong.Let's put it into the famed equation. Here, I'll make it easier and have infinity be ~. E=~ and m=0, so the equation will be ~=0(c2), but 0 multiplied by anything is 0, making ~=0. What the heck?! Can someone help me? Please?

[edit on 4/2/2009 by Dragonfriend]

[edit on 4/2/2009 by Dragonfriend]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Dragonfriend
Everyone's heard of e=mc2, right? It's Einsteins theory for the conversion of energy to matter. So, why can't we change matter to energy? We can by using a slightly different formula, m=c2/e. Okay, lets do some math here. With fractions, the higher the denominator is, the lower the fraction itself is. So, therefore, the higher the energy is, the lower the matter is. Let's have e=infinity, for the infinite possibilities for it. Having e being the greatest number possible, m must be the lowest, so m=0. Easy right? Wrong.Let's put it into the famed equation. Here, I'll make it easier and have infinity be ~. E=~ and m=0, so the equation will be ~=0(c2), but 0 multiplied by anything is 0, making ~=0. What the heck?! Can someone help me? Please?

[edit on 4/2/2009 by Dragonfriend]

M=E/C^2 ; you messed up the math.

[edit on 4/2/2009 by pteridine]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Dragonfriend
Everyone's heard of e=mc2, right? It's Einsteins theory for the conversion of energy to matter. So, why can't we change matter to energy?

Actually, Einstein's theory IS for the conversion of matter into energy, hence energy is by itself on one side of the equation.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:33 PM
I seen a show on Einstein that said he went to his grave wishing he had never told any one about E=mc2. I think he took a lot of his secrets with him. And by the way your formula, m=c2/e is the bases for the Replicator on Star Trek.

You will have to copy and paste the URL below. The perenthises around Star Trek mess up the link

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Star_Trek)"

[edit on 4/2/2009 by fixer1967]

[edit on 4/2/2009 by fixer1967]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Actually, Einstein's theory IS for the conversion of matter into energy, hence energy is by itself on one side of the equation.

Personally, I would state it simply shows the relationship between mass and energy is directly proportional as c is a constant. Conversion to or from is represented by rearranging the terms.

More interestingly perhaps: c^2 = e / m.

[edit on 4/2/2009 by EnlightenUp]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:40 PM

The fault lies in the representation and the transposition.
First, M does not equal matter.
E= Energy. M = Mass C = Velocity or the constant. And, of course the 2 means the velocity must be squared, or multiplied by itself to balance that side of the equation.
Your transposition of: m=c2/e is not a balanced equation.
So any conclusion derived from m=c2/e would be inherently faulty.
Make sense?

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:41 PM
Hi, science fans !

Originally posted by Dragonfriend
~=0(c2), but 0 multiplied by anything is 0, making ~=0.

HEY HEY ! You just prooved/explained the BIG BANG ! ! B-)))

Right after the BANG, energy changed to more and more matter. . .right ?

And, don't forget; one day science will tell us:
! " All matter is made of solid light " !

Blue skies.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:51 PM

Originally posted by C-JEAN
And, don't forget; one day science will tell us:
! " All matter is made of solid light " !

Is it saying anything much different now other than its leaving out the "solid" part?

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:55 PM
It is probably best to master basic algebra before trying to take on nuclear physics. If you wanted to solve for mass, it's m=e/c^2.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:10 PM

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Actually, Einstein's theory IS for the conversion of matter into energy, hence energy is by itself on one side of the equation.

Personally, I would state it simply shows the relationship between mass and energy is directly proportional as c is a constant. Conversion to or from is represented by rearranging the terms.

More interestingly perhaps: c^2 = e / m.

[edit on 4/2/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Though it does represent a relationship b/w mass and energy and the equation can be rearranged, this formula is useful because it shows that a relatively small amount of mass can be transformed into (equals) huge amounts of energy. That is why it made the atomic bomb possible.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:13 PM
yeah,its not m=c2/e but m=e/c2,which means mass equal energy proportional of light squared,which is freaky cause then mass is just energy and light, but then if m=1/0(where e=0 and m=1) then is it plain energy? as well as m=0/1 plain light?

I've forgotten how the concept of time travel came from this,but through this value of speed of light under energy proportional m=0/1 means no mass at speed of light if value for speed of light is squared under 0.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:14 PM
Your also saying that energy is infinite. Energy is not infinite it dies or halts somewhere in it's lifetime. That's why we need generators to produce energy from matter, but then the matter runs out and we're are eventually left with nothing.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:33 PM

I hope you took into account the first law of thermodynamics?

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 12:13 AM

I remember seeing quite abit about Einstein not actually being very smart when it came to science.... Apparently his wife wrote alot of his papers and he was the goof ball sort of scientist... She was in the same class as E and then married where she, as a woman scientist in a man's field, could not make claims that he could and therefore made these claims through Albert's voice. She actually did all the work...

Here's a good one on E's copy skills...

Rgds

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:06 AM
Since others on here have delved into Einstein's Equation of Mass-Energy Equivalency, which is a product of his Special Theory of Relativity, I will simply say that the man was a COMPLETE Genius. As a matter of fact, it was this VERY formula which precluded our creation of the Atomic Bomb roughly 40 years later.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:30 AM

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether

I remember seeing quite abit about Einstein not actually being very smart when it came to science.... Apparently his wife wrote alot of his papers and he was the goof ball sort of scientist... She was in the same class as E and then married where she, as a woman scientist in a man's field, could not make claims that he could and therefore made these claims through Albert's voice. She actually did all the work...

Here's a good one on E's copy skills...

Rgds

A family member of mine actually had a Professor in College who worked with Einstein on the Princeton Campus, and YES, he was VERY Intelligent. I am certain that his wife was a smart woman as well, and I do not doubt her ability to formulate some theories aside from or with him, but please do not take away from this man's great accomplishments.

I will say this, Einstein had a profound ability to conduct "Thought Experiments", which meant that he did not need to write-out equations in order to ordain his Hypotheses into Well Established Theories. In correlation to this, it has often taken nearly 40-100 years after his formulations, to even prove his theories, and/or establish them as laws. He was FAR ahead of his time. As a matter of fact, it was only last year (2008), that Scientists around the world finally corroborated Einstein's Mass-Equivalency Formula of E=MC^2. It took Massive Computer Banks, a Global Scientific Effort, and OVER 1 Century to Establish what Dr. Albert E. Einstein already knew!

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:55 AM

Originally posted by CrlJester
Your also saying that energy is infinite. Energy is not infinite it dies or halts somewhere in it's lifetime. That's why we need generators to produce energy from matter, but then the matter runs out and we're are eventually left with nothing.

Energy is not infinite, but it does not die or halt ever. Mass/energy is eternal. Because of entropy, though, energy tends to wind up in an unusuable state pretty quickly. Since heat only flows in a useful fashion when there's a temperature gradient, a system with a uniform temperature isn't very useful, even though it could have plenty of energy. Similarly, a bunch of photons zipping around through largely empty space isn't useful for most purposes either.

Generally, generators don't create energy from matter, except in the strictest sense. except in antimatter reactions, atoms aren't consumed. By the very nature of the mass-energy equivalence, the energy stored in a chemical bond has a tiny amount of mass, which is converted to energy when the bond is broken. In a nuclear reaction, much more mass is converted to energy, because of the correspondingly much higher strength of nuclear bonds.

Then we have stuff like wind power that takes power from the movement of the air, or solar that uses up pure energy in the form of photons to generate more useful electrical energy. I do not know if the relativistic virtual mass increase from velocity is equivalent to the kinetic energy of an object. I'll check later.

What's important is that there will never be a time where there is no energy, just a time when there is no USEFUL energy. Functionally, though, there really isn't a difference.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:06 PM
zero does not exist

.0000...~...1
where ~=infinity

theoretically the only place zero can exist is outside of our universe.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:50 PM

but please do not take away from this man's great accomplishments.

I'm not taking away from his accomplishments.... There are other scholars and scientists that have shown that he was not all he was made out to be... Check my link and then do some more research. You will find that he was an intelligent person but was placed on the pedestal with some of the information that previous scientists had in their knowledge base.

To say that I'm trying to LESSEN this man and take away from his accomplishments would be like saying that anyone in any authoritative position should not be questioned after making statements. The PTB throughout history have shown that they will put prominent men and women in a position with knowledge gained from others, thereby making them the spokesperson that few will question. I question all and then find the truth within the lies. It's been shown that his wife was the real intelligence behind alot of his ideas. That couldn't be allowed in his day. Therefore he became the genius and not his wife...

IMO
Rgds

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Dragonfriend
Everyone's heard of e=mc2, right? It's Einsteins theory for the conversion of energy to matter. So, why can't we change matter to energy?

We can and we do. Stopping at a gas station is a prime example.

new topics

top topics

2