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 Challenge to E=MC2, Any and all feedback welcome.

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 09:47 AM

Food for Thought.
Remember,
All the thoughts of a turtle are turtle.

I am not, by far, wanting to challenge Albert Einstein. Rather, I want to see if anyone else has had the insight that the E=MC2 is missing something.

In the mid 90s, I was otherwise inspired and sketched the following:

In the picture, I circled the E=MC2 equation and as you can see, MC2 is divided by "Spirit Force". I have been wondering for over 15 years what was the significance, if any, of this.

Depending on what "Spirit Force" (I now call it Source Energy) is, it would imply that you no longer need an infinite amount of energy to travel beyond light speed.

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 09:59 AM

I hope it's of use to you:

According to my friend these black tunnels, with by the way have vortexes at the end that always turn clockwise at the starting point, are not a natural phenomenon. Another thing about them is that they never form the whole path in one go. They form the starting vortex, jump in, it closes and acts like a soliton. During the start the direction is chosen. the end of the journey is calculated, on the basis of the gravity measurement on board to correct for the nearby passing of heavy gravity fields, and corrected during the trip. The journey ends as the soliton is broken by an energy pulse.

I posted this in a thread I have here on ATS.
I must admit it is a very strange thread, but it is as honest as can be.
It describes things I learned from a good friend. He got these "knowledge" during OBE sessions.

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:37 PM
E=M*C2 is a balanced equation. If there was something missing it wouldn't work mathematically.

Look into "Transposition of formulae".

edit on 24-12-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:04 PM
E=Velocity
V=Mass
M=Energy

E=MV2

xploder

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:09 PM
I hesitantly suggest that it may be flawed due to the speed of light being calculated wrong?

Time will tell.

Rock on science!

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:44 PM
I'm trying to think of the anti Einstein or Tesla theories that say you can't get energy from
mass m so there should be a physics game of chicken to see who squawks first.
I think there is something in the works.
Expect the challenge.
Energy is being transmitted at all times by the exploding matter in the stars.
I think that is one of the precepts.
Thus the atomic bomb gets energy from the environment that is already there.
Mass continues as smaller bits.
Even radioactive stones that have alpha and beta and energy losses in heating and will
lose no mass in millions of years because it is capturing energy being transmitted
and is just an energy pick up module. Energy, heat, and mass, electrons and protons,
losses with no converted mass loss is either some new unknown phase or mass to
energy is just plain silly.
ED: So "Spirit Force" is perhaps the Tesla discovery of 5x sol neutrinos from the
billions and billions, Carl Sagan, of stars detected with Tesla 4 million volt equipment
we are not allowed to see or talk about.
edit on 12/24/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:19 AM
I don't want to be a killjoy. but this is a science forum, where is the science that shows this soul/spirit energy exists? As it is this looks like a ripe candidate for the philosophy forum. Oh and to answer there is no signifigance. Einsteins equation works as written, meaning your equation does not work, unless you prove it does.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I don't want to be a killjoy. but this is a science forum, where is the science that shows this soul/spirit energy exists? As it is this looks like a ripe candidate for the philosophy forum. Oh and to answer there is no signifigance. Einsteins equation works as written, meaning your equation does not work, unless you prove it does.

If I may?

Some of us religious types adore science and mathematics. I consider mathematics to be as much a sign of the mystical (unseen) nature of mankind as is music, art or any other language man has devised or discovered. Beauty is beauty; and truth is truth.

Therefore, it is very much connected as theological speculation into metaphysics includes paying attention to scientific and mathematical models. As a theologian, I am grateful for the terminology and modeling science provides us in our speculation.

Scientifically speaking: I suspect (to the point of nearly assuming it to be so) that the spirit of a man is something more likened to energy than it is likened to matter.

If your foundation is good theology, then science is yet another language of truth-- one of many such languages.

I know, I know (looks down, kicks at dirt)... the stereotype most hold is that religion and science are opposed and hate each other to the point of denying each other-- but those are only the few (and often loud) types. The majority of religious and the majority of science find them equally full of wonder and wisdom.

It is a bad theologian who objects to science just as it is a bad scientist who seeks to thwart the religious. I did not state "ignorant," I stated "bad."

Hawking is brilliant and after failing with his brilliant scientific theory (which was speculative, but happened to be wrong) has degenerated, of late, into sniping at religion. A bad use of a great brain. And for every Stephen Hawking, there is some preacher, brilliant as he may otherwise be, attempting to discredit science in the Name of God-- every bit as out of his league as Hawking.

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:14 PM

That diagram signifies one thing for sure: you are baffled by mathematics!

Why don’t you learn how E = mc^2 is derived? Then you’ll understand the real significance of it.

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:24 PM

The stereotype most hold is that religion and science are opposed and hate each other to the point of denying each other-- but those are only the few (and often loud) types. The majority of religious and the majority of science find them equally full of wonder and wisdom.

I agree, but this is true only because most people don’t examine their beliefs, or the logical consequences that arise from them, very carefully. They just hold mutually contradictory views and never realize it.

It is a bad theologian who objects to science just as it is a bad scientist who seeks to thwart the religious. I did not state "ignorant," I stated "bad."

Yes, but it is a much worse theologian, or scientist, who attempts to marry the two.

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:40 PM
• Mathematical derivation is based on equality and inequality; a formula represents a true relationship between expressions. There are specific rules that allow derivation of true equations from other true equations. If those rules are violated, even once, the resulting equation is no longer necessarily true. Those rules state that any operation may be performed on one side of an equation if and only if the exact same operation is performed on both sides of the equation.

Placing an unknown value on one side of the equation negates the validity of that equation. It changes it form a true statement to a meaningless jumble of symbols.

In other words, dividing one side of an equation by a value without dividing both sides by the same value means you just made the equation irrelevant, regardless of whether the value is known or unknown.

• E=mc² does not have anything to do with travel faster than the speed of light. It has to do with the equivalence of energy and matter. The General Law of Relativity defines the interactions between velocity, mass, time, and distance.

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:56 PM

Real world example.
Well, the computer network you are using and the video you watch on your TV, are most likely supplied in the data's ultimate journeys via fiber optic cabling and satellite transmission. Concentrators that interface large distance media have to take the speed of light into account in order to make the multiplexing work correctly in the input and output nodes to take the signals off the backbone. If they did not operate taking the speed of light into effect, and it was not predicted to be what it is, then how are you watching this?

Edit: In order to get your location to within a road width, your GPS uses the same algorithms that absolutely account for the known speed of light so you get the feedback "Arrived at Destination"
edit on 27-12-2011 by charlyv because: clarity

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Glargod
I want to see if anyone else has had the insight that the E=MC2 is missing something.
You haven't shown anything is missing.

You've presented an idea, with virtually no evidence to support it.

Until you have some evidence, your idea isn't considered scientific, so this is in the wrong forum.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:46 PM
Any number of equations might be acceptable if the official authority of learning tells
you the that is to be believed. Anything else has no merit.
There might be plenty of thinkers with other views.

To make solid the equation or validate a binding law we might want to see what
bankers do. Or insurance companies. Investing money is a risky business unless
its a sure thing. If making A bombs is an investment then they can't be built unless
its a sure thing to explode. But now its a valid product and has nothing to do with
the theory because it works. But things don't always work that way. A story I saw
on the net, but can't find now, cause an embarrassment to Newton when the specification
for wind damage forces on the proper build for a roof caused undue losses and the
correct calculation was sought to bolster up the roof before any policy was given.

We all would like to see and verify other theories.

edit on 12/27/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:52 PM

I understand that with what we "know", it is a balanced equation.

I am trying take the position that something else which "we don't know" is a part of the equation.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I don't want to be a killjoy. but this is a science forum, where is the science that shows this soul/spirit energy exists? As it is this looks like a ripe candidate for the philosophy forum. Oh and to answer there is no signifigance. Einsteins equation works as written, meaning your equation does not work, unless you prove it does.

I thought scientists were opened minded.

I thought science was about new discoveries

In your case, I guess that I must make an exclusion to my belief

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax

That diagram signifies one thing for sure: you are baffled by mathematics!

Why don’t you learn how E = mc^2 is derived? Then you’ll understand the real significance of it.

How exciting that you can deduce that about me. I deduce of you that you may be arrogant and condescending in you life and perhaps that you have few friends who smile as you walk into a room and more "friends" who smile when you leave.

The way the mathematical equation is derived does not matter. I am trying to open peoples mind to the possibility that there are other constants or variables at play that were not considered to produce the equation.

Having an open mind is hard on people who hate change

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:31 PM
IF E= MC2 then M = E/C2 and C2 = E/M. OK so far? All encompass the SPEED of light. Speed requires both TIME and SPACE. Must not time and space have existed before (or concurrent with) the creation of matter and energy? Without time there can be no matter or energy!

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:38 PM
Still another equation.
Tesla's energy equation, "C=E/R",

Einstein’s contradictory theory presupposes that mass is not “energy”, since, only during some non-spontaneous process of interconversion of mass into radiant energy, or radiant energy into mass, could “work be done”. Mass appears impertinent, and “C = E/R” (Tesla’s equation, which excludes mass) appears true, saying that, at C, Energy E, is divided by resonant frequency R. ‘Massless’ radiant energy, or “cosmic radiation”, is dynamic energy stored in transit in space, by the vibrations of the ether. I define space as a volume, which is never empty, but contains an ether, and omnidirectionally interpenetrating radiant energy, of many frequencies. The energy level of radiant energy is determined by its frequency. This radiant energy is the ZPR.

No Mass. Tapping the energy E is only done at a resonant frequency R occurs at the speed
of light C. How does the tap work. Radiation and the activity taking place in critical mass
taps the energy. High voltage and high frequency taps Nitrogen into burning and other
various methods might be found but voltage and frequency taps the energy.
tech.groups.yahoo.com...
and in some atomic gas of which only one is:
tech.groups.yahoo.com...
heat producer.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:52 PM

I deduce of you that you may be arrogant and condescending in you life and perhaps that you have few friends who smile as you walk into a room and more "friends" who smile when you leave.

There’s no need to be insulting. I was merely pointing out what is obvious to anyone who knows a little algebra.

The way the mathematical equation is derived does not matter.

Do you think E = mc^2 was just plucked out of a hat? The way a mathematical equation is derived shows whether it is trustworthy or not.

What were the original terms from which you derived 'spirit force'?

I am trying to open peoples mind to the possibility that there are other constants or variables at play that were not considered to produce the equation.

Well, there are not. All the variables involved are already represented by terms in Einstein's equation. There is nothing he left out for some passing internet 'genius' to add in.

Do you know how children at play sometimes jabber nonsense, pretending they are speaking a foreign language? Your equation is the mathematical equivalent of that. Unfortunately for you, maths is a language many people on this site understand. We're calling your bluff.

As to the metaphysical aspect, you are saying nothing original, nothing that human beings all over the world take for granted every day of their lives – that there is more to life than the purely physical.

Having an open mind is hard on people who hate change.

More insults. Yet none of them will efface the ignorance and arrogance of a post about E = mc^2 written by someone who doesn’t know the rules of high-school algebra. You can jump up and down, cry and beat the floor all you want – the egg is still on your face.

new topics

top topics

3