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.

 

A Problem with Einstein

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I haven't laughed so hard at a thread in a long time


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Thanks everyone, I have seen many flaws in the research I have conducted. For example, M=E/C^2 is the proper formula (thank you all), and E=MC^2 is conversion from mass to energy. Sorry for false info, and thanks for the correct info. Peace!


Dragonfriend



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a problem with einstein yeah he was a jew muhahahahha



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
I haven't laughed so hard at a thread in a long time


en.wikipedia.org...


It takes a genius to paste a link to wikipedia right? I personally think we need more people like those of this thread "Thinkers problem solvers" in Mainstrem science . I encourage everyone on here to keep up the good work.Also where would one start to be able to understand these equations, becuase im lost when it comes to this.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN
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.


I guess that makes sense, if all matter has a denseness, then so should light .

right?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
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.


Hmmmmmm... not exactly correct in the predominant theories.

Some energy might very well be infinite, though certainly not all. What many refer to as dark energy is possibly infinite. A misconception is that it's a bland term that means physics has no explanation for an accelerating Universe. There's a pretty good idea of how it works and what it does but some debate over exactly what it is. 'Normal' energy, that is radiative energy usually in the form of photons including any electromagnetic waves, is in a sense dying off. The vacuum energy, which has been measured at 10^-8 ergs/cm3, appears to be constant despite inflation of the Universe. As a good contender for dark energy, it does a fairly good job of explaining why the Universe is accelerating. Anyway, too keep this short, it amounts to adding space continuously to the Universe. The extra space causes the galactic red shifts, but the nature of it's mechanism actually reduces the energy of waves/photons travelling through it.

Also, there's nothing in Einstien's Relativity that needs conservation of energy; that's a Newtonian concept. It was in the origianl published paper, and was removed in 1929. Energy conservation is an artifact of a static Universe. Einstein added a constant to his equation because general relativity predicted a dynamic Universe either expanding or contracting and the astronomers of the time believed in a static Universe until Hubble came about showing galaxies moving apart.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

I guess that makes sense, if all matter has a denseness, then so should light .

right?


Well, the problem with that logic is that light is not matter. It does have an energy density, which can be thought of as intensity and is an underlying theory that allowed the development of lasers. It doesn't have a density in the form of mass per volume.

To address something else, E=mc^2 applies only to fermions. For those not schooled in Quantum Thoery, it applies to things which have a rest mass and a rest energy; technically photons have neither.

********edit:

just an added note... photons carry energy, you can not create matter, at least as currently understood, from photons alone. You can deliver their energy to raise the energy of something else and use that energy to create new matter, but not with pure photons, not matter how many you put in the same place.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by TonyBravada]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
There is apparently errors in this simplistic approach to science.
This is Illuminati fed science to the masses.

The elite hold the better more complicated explanations.
Also some of the best Tesla science available.
I doubt we will see such wonders benefiting their existence.

Tesla was against Einstein all the way and I guess you now
found some holes in the science.

Tesla: ".... matter being changed into force and force being
changed into matter by the cosmic rays. This is absurd."

NT April 15, 1932

Tesla's statement relating to force and matter, to Einstein's
theories and Tesla's own theory of gravitation. Courtesy
of Nikola Tesla Papers, Rare Book and Manuscript Library,
Columbia University.

This presented in "Tesla Said" Compiled by John T. Ratzlaff

I would say its a compendium of science facts for all to enjoy.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TonyBravada
Quantum Thoery, it applies to things which have a rest mass and a rest energy; technically photons have neither.


Technically nothing has either, and I mean that literally, whatever nothing is anyway. To describe a condition of "at rest", not to be mistaken with 'from an inertial frame of reference', is to describe non-existence (or infinite-without measure-boundless) since everything is in motion of some kind; call it vibrating, rotation or oscillating.

The amount of energy needed to accelerate a mass to the speed of light is the amount of mass multiplied by the velocity of light squared which is a big number.

Gravitational force is acceleration and accelerating a mass increases it's inertial mass i.e. gravitational force. The energy needed to accelerate a mass to the velocity of light increases the closer it gets to 'c', because the inertial mass increases, and eventually 100% of the energy is converted into inertial mass therefore inertia inhibits a higher velocity...if that makes any sense.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Well I have an equation that involves acceleration and mass and
electron charge and the electric field over millions of miles.
This perhaps never considered by Einstein with all these particles
flying around the universe.

Force from billions of volts from the Sun over millions of miles
still gives an electric field in the thousands.

F = Eq where q is electron charge e, q = e.
F = Ee

This force is applied to the electron mass to give it acceleration.
There is no in between step like velocity.
And the rule according to Newton that a body set in motion remains
in motion applies to the velocity and looks like acceleration as well.

Let do a division cause nothing is zero here.
F = Ee = F = ma and solve for a as a = (e/m)E

E might be in the thousands magnitude but the ratio e/m
can be a billion.

That is getting up in magnitude to the speed of light.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 

Deleted since there's no point in arguing the few fractions of a percent E=mc^2 is not accurate... or a theoretical concept that is derived from the math.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by TonyBravada]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

This force is applied to the electron mass to give it acceleration.
There is no in between step like velocity.
And the rule according to Newton that a body set in motion remains
in motion applies to the velocity and looks like acceleration as well.

Let do a division cause nothing is zero here.
F = Ee = F = ma and solve for a as a = (e/m)E

E might be in the thousands magnitude but the ratio e/m
can be a billion.

That is getting up in magnitude to the speed of light.



F=ma and most of Newtonian theory has been shown to be not agreeable with observations at high speeds and tiny objects... that's part of the point of using relativity or QED. But besides that, electrons can be accelerated to over 99.5% the speed of light... so I'm not sure what you're getting at?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
A problem with Einstein?

His mustache was far too big.

And he needed a haircut also.

E (Einstein)= M (for mustache) and C2 (cut too).



[edit on 15-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TonyBravada
 


Are these observed tiny objects charged objects that you know of.
Charged objects would radiate energy and slow down and cause
the mass effects of increase in weight.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
You are just pulling random numbers out of the sky, while also chopping up the equation...



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
zero does not exist

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


theoretically the only place zero can exist is outside of our universe.
don't be silly. of course it does.

I have 0 gold gold bars in my possession right now.
And it doesn't make sense to have a digit, after infinitely many others.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by stander

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.
We arn't not actually turning matter into energy in this case. Chemical bonds are being broken and energy is released. The matter is conserved but in different molecules/compounds.

Matter is turned into energy however in nuclear bomb explosions.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
lol

What did you think?

Einstein was wrong and youwere right?

Consider these ideas have been studied by many many thousands of very very bright minds...... apart from the fact that they had the formula right.

Enthusiasm is good but so is coolness with things. Sometimes being more reserved pays wonders.




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Lol...

Energy = Mass Times Velocity Squared... Whats so hard to figure out about that? Its the formula for energy contained in matter.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


Light does have mass (well sorta) its called a photon....



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join