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: 2
3
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:11 AM
Also,

E = hf

so, hf = mc2

which gives an expression for mass as hf/c^2

... a product of frequency, wavelength and the speed of light! No particles!

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:46 AM

You may, but my point still stands. If you wish to blend science and faith you are welcome to do so, this is simply the improper forum for it. I have no problems with him posting, it simply belongs elsewhere, such as the philosophy and metaphysics forum perhaps. If you can show me the actual science in his post, please do, I don't see it.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Glargod

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.

What you just said is that it is balanced with what we know, but there is something more we have to add. How do you add something to a balanced equation and keep it balanced?

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:50 AM

Science is about new discoveries. You have not presented one. You have presented musings, which is philosophical, not scientific. If you want this to be science show HOW something is missing and EVIDENCE for it, and EVIDENCE your addition makes the equation whole.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:07 AM
Any theory or law or equation that uses speed of light as a constant is not correct because speed of light is not constant, speed of light is slowing down.
edit on 28-12-2011 by mwuhi because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

If you wish to blend science and faith you are welcome to do so, this is simply the improper forum for it.

The problem is not "blending" or "marrying" science and faith-- the problem is divorcing them or ignoring one in lieu of the other.

Likewise, I do not choose music or language-- I choose both.

In this case, the OP is looking at the possibility. It is analogous to biologists studying how the ear tells the brain what it perceives, and how the brain anticipates certain tones which will follow; meanwhile the mathematician is noting a frequency pattern in music which is dubbed "pleasing" and still another, a song-writer, plays the music. They are all about understanding the same principle-- but from the perspective of their own fields of study.

And when a writer speaks of a "muse" it is understood by song-writers as well as poets and considered by theologians, physiologists and literary scholars.

I have no problems with him posting, it simply belongs elsewhere, such as the philosophy and metaphysics forum perhaps. If you can show me the actual science in his post, please do, I don't see it.

It is not my point to correct mathematics. My post did not address that.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Glargod

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

Scientists are open minded, and science is about new discoveries. New discoveries aren't beliefs but intelligently analyzed intellectual constructs backed by reams of repeatable empirical evidence and rigorous precision in language and definitions.

Scientists are not open-minded about accepting unjustified and fuzzy beliefs as a discovery, and that is a good idea.
edit on 28-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by chocise
Also,

E = hf

so, hf = mc2

which gives an expression for mass as hf/c^2

... a product of frequency, wavelength and the speed of light! No particles!

This is wrong, because there's a difference between understanding physics and superficial manipulation and equating two quantities only because they have the same units.

The statement E=hf is about the energy of a single photon, intrinsically quantized, because there is Planck's constant in there. E=mc^2 is about the energy equivalent assigned to the rest mass of a particle. Photons have zero rest mass. More generally E^2=p^2*c^2 + m^2 c^4, and this works even with electromagnetic waves (with no rest mass) because (even classically) they do have momentum without rest mass.

Therefore for a photon, where E=h*f you can then take E=p*c (as m=0) and get p = h*f/c.

Now this is interesting, as it means that per photon, the higher frequency the more momentum it has. Roughly it leads one to understand why X-rays and gamma rays are damaging to the molecules making up humans, and lower frequency E&M radiation is much less damaging: high frequency photons have enough energy & momentum to knock out individual electrons from atoms and cause substantial chemical changes as a result.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

If you wish to blend science and faith you are welcome to do so, this is simply the improper forum for it.

The problem is not "blending" or "marrying" science and faith-- the problem is divorcing them or ignoring one in lieu of the other.

Likewise, I do not choose music or language-- I choose both.

Music is a form of language/expression. Are you saying science is a form of faith? If so, I think we are done here. If not, your analogy is worthless.

I haven't bothered because it's irrelevant, but I do not think science and faith are mutually exclusive. However, it is not science when you start using faith as evidence. Instead use your faith to drive your science, but the evidence must not be faith-based.

For instance, the OP has a belief rooted in faith that the equation is missing something. He believes it to be this spirit force. He then tests his hypothesis and presents the data. This is science.

What the OP did is use his faith to determine something was missing, use his faith to determine what that was, and then said what do you think. There is no science there, at best it would be philosophical, although I think I am even being generous there.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:41 AM

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

If you wish to blend science and faith you are welcome to do so, this is simply the improper forum for it.

The problem is not "blending" or "marrying" science and faith-- the problem is divorcing them or ignoring one in lieu of the other.

Likewise, I do not choose music or language-- I choose both.

Music is a form of language/expression. Are you saying science is a form of faith? If so, I think we are done here. If not, your analogy is worthless.

Music is a language-- not a form of a language. That is rather clear from what I have posted.

I have said metaphysical theology is a language, I said nothing about faith.

I don't much care if we are "done" or not, nor whether or not you "get it." You seem to care about taking offense. I only care about explaining.

I am not defending the specifics of his argument-- I am defending his attempt to understand and to reconcile two studies which he holds as true.

So, you sit right down next to that self-styled preacher man and the two of you heckle from the back that science and religion have no part with each other. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, the more reasonable of us will continue our discussion apart from your non-sense. There, are you sufficiently offended?

You're welcome.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:29 AM
Actually everyone here is missing something quite important.

E = mc^2 is the rest energy of the mass in question.

The actual equation for the energy is E = ymc^2 where y (gamma) = 1 / sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) which implies that as the velocity v approaches the speed of light c, then (v/c)^2 = 1 and then y = 1 / sqrt(1-1) = 1/0 which then leads us to 2 possible interpretations:

1: It is impossible to divide by zero so you can take this to mean that anything with mass cannot travel at the speed of light.

2: Anything divided by zero is actually equal to infinity so perhaps when a mass approaches the speed of light the energy becomes infinite.

I would have to say that such infinite energy as explained in 2 could even be what the OP is referring to spirit energy or source energy (infinite energy = spirit energy/ source energy)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:32 AM

Science and religion are rival firms in the same business: providing explanations for life's mysteries. Their explanations, unfortunately, do not tally very often. This places them in a mutually antagonistic position.

On the side of science, long and bitter experience has taught circumspection. It is common for scientists to avoid confrontation with religion, stating that science has its set of mysteries to solve and religion a different set. The palaentologist Stephen Jay Gould coined the wonderful phrase 'non-overlapping magisteria' to describe these discrete fields of inquiry.

You seem to be suggesting that there is the prospect of a merger.

That could be disastrous. Imagine the monolithic weight of a belief system that was scientifically tenable, yet had all the personal and social implications of religion. A more tenacious despotism could not be imagined. Imagine how a perverse reading of scientific determinism could be applied to St. Paul's teaching on slavery, and what the political consequences of that could be. Remember, scientists don't much believe in free will.

Fortunately, such a catastrophe doesn't seem very likely. I really don't see religion and science ever settling their differences. And frankly, I don't see what would be the benefit to mankind if they ever did.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:10 AM

One thing you did miss: the gamma value only applies to observed mass. That's not to say your equation is not accurate, but that it is relativistic. This application does open up the possibility of zero-point energy and is a regular visitor to my thoughts.

It also brings up the relevant question: since all mass is relative to observed velocity, is E=mc² at all applicable without the inclusion of the gamma value?

Nice post.

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax

You seem to be suggesting that there is the prospect of a merger.

No. That is presumption on your part-- stereotyping me according to your own bias. It is not in my words.

That could be disastrous. Imagine the monolithic weight ...

Whereas you are preaching to choir-- I am apparently preaching to the deaf.

Please do not put words in my mouth so you can push over a straw man of your own construction. You argue from a position of weakness, otherwise you would not do it.

I have stated that science and other studies (including theology) are attempts at discovering truth and can (and in fact, do) provide analogies for one another.

That you cannot reconcile that truth because of your bias does not mean you have a position from which to argue it-- it means you have a bias of which there is need to rid from yourself. It remains true that persons like me study many fields-- including theology-- so get over it. I and others like me, exist whether we fit your model or not.

Geez. I take this grief because I am open minded? You realize that is the core of your objection, right? That I am open minded. Go and try and reconcile that to your own prejudice and objection to the prejudice of others-- if you can.

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

One thing you did miss: the gamma value only applies to observed mass. That's not to say your equation is not accurate, but that it is relativistic. This application does open up the possibility of zero-point energy and is a regular visitor to my thoughts.

It also brings up the relevant question: since all mass is relative to observed velocity, is E=mc² at all applicable without the inclusion of the gamma value?

Nice post.

TheRedneck

Yes, it is applicable without the gamma value when v=0, i.e. the body is at rest, which why it is called the energy equivalent of the 'rest mass'.

What special relativity actually does:

There are consistent rules for the (differential) equations of motion, extending the validity of what were once Newton's laws. These rules preserve conservation of momentum and energy.

The laws of relativity show how to transform apparent quantities in various inertial reference frames, and still maintain all those conservation relations.

The laws of relativity also apply to classical electromagnetic fields, and there is consistent relationships between zero-mass E&M fields and massive particles also respecting conservation of momentum and energy. (it is well known that in other reference frames, length and time are are altered, in E&M, electric and magnetic fields can switch between one another---and this was precisely the core subject of Einstein's paper!)

This is what it takes to do actual physics, and these laws have been verified exceptionally well for a hundred years.
edit on 29-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:22 PM

The laws of relativity show how to transform apparent quantities in various inertial reference frames.

Exactly. Newtonian physics is not incorrect, only incomplete where observed velocities approach the speed of light ('c'). Einstein expanded Newtonian physics to allow for such observed velocities

Where I tend to focus my thoughts on this is the fact that observation is reality. Einstein's field equations do not alter reality; they state that observable reality is still applicable, but only in the frame of reference of an observer. The reality I am primarily concerned with is the one I observe, and the fact that this reality is not applicable to an observer in another frame of reference has inherent potential (I believe) in the area of energy production.

I wish I could be more precise here, but the fact that BBCode does not do well with mathematical formulas and the fact that post lengths are regulated make that very difficult. Perhaps, if luck holds, I will publish a paper one day with my thoughts. Until then, you'll have to do with that explanation. Please understand that I am well-versed in the mathematics and derivations behind Einstein's field equations, but that I also tend to try and couch these posts in language that most readers can understand and HTTP can easily reproduce.

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by chocise
Also,

E = hf

so, hf = mc2

which gives an expression for mass as hf/c^2

... a product of frequency, wavelength and the speed of light! No particles!

This is wrong, because there's a difference between understanding physics and superficial manipulation and equating two quantities only because they have the same units.

The statement E=hf is about the energy of a single photon, intrinsically quantized, because there is Planck's constant in there. E=mc^2 is about the energy equivalent assigned to the rest mass of a particle. Photons have zero rest mass. More generally E^2=p^2*c^2 + m^2 c^4, and this works even with electromagnetic waves (with no rest mass) because (even classically) they do have momentum without rest mass.

Therefore for a photon, where E=h*f you can then take E=p*c (as m=0) and get p = h*f/c.

Now this is interesting, as it means that per photon, the higher frequency the more momentum it has. Roughly it leads one to understand why X-rays and gamma rays are damaging to the molecules making up humans, and lower frequency E&M radiation is much less damaging: high frequency photons have enough energy & momentum to knock out individual electrons from atoms and cause substantial chemical changes as a result.

Thank you, I was hoping someone would be along to clear that up!

But... Photons have zero rest mass is a bit of an enigma isn't it? Do you ever get a photon at rest? And if it does have mass when not at rest, how can it possibly travel at the speed of light?

Also ... Roughly it leads one to understand why X-rays and gamma rays are damaging to the molecules making up humans, and lower frequency E&M radiation is much less damaging: high frequency photons have enough energy & momentum to knock out individual electrons from atoms and cause substantial chemical changes as a result.
X-rays & gamma rays are damaging precisely because they have more energy btw, which is given by their frequency in the E = hf equation, not because they have more momentum!*... which is a product of mass. It would be easy to knock you with a comment like "there's a difference between understanding physics and superficial manipulation", but it's still the holiday season so I'll pass on such glib remarks.

edit on 29-12-2011 by chocise because: *addition

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 09:41 AM

Don't mind the anal retentive here, Glargod. It's as if just chatting about an idea will make their heads explode. You wish to discuss something (to just toss an idea out there so that maybe some of the geniuses might find it interesting enough to research) and the anal's are more concerned with which category the thread belongs in.

That said, I have also pondered (with no great mathematical wizardy in this brain) why if Time is so weaved into the fabric of space, then why is it not needed in E=MC2 ? Wasn't it Time itself that led Einstein to figuring this out?

Also, I thought that in order for a mathematical statement to be true, it must remain true when reversing it. If E=MC2, then M=E/C2, and C2=M/E. So, how do we produce the speed of light by ripping apart Mass with energy?

For me, I have NO idea.

edit on 3/3/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:53 AM
There is no end to speed, just as you can add one number to another, and so on. I have my own theory which has been advanced recently while working with electromagnetism. The conflict between gravity and electromagnetism. I believe the universe is almost entirely electric in nature. While considering magnets for instance, they seem to have a uniform basic pattern. A force runs through them. To like poles will repel and to opposites will attract. As I considered this I compared it to gravity which inter-reacts with all mass, drawing it in. Then it hit me. Both the magnet and gravity draw in, but to have an equality, something must flow back out at the same time. therefore I believed that a magnet and gravity from some large body both do the same thing in that force draws in and flows out at the same time. I used the sun as my example. The larger the body the more the gravity and thus the outflow. So the sun's gravity pulls inward, yet light flows outward. So just as magnets work to influence electrons, so too the sun works to influence another part of atomic or even quantum substance. And that substance is in everything. The two can't be the same because the earth has both an electromagnetic field, and gravity. A magnet can draw steel or Iron but not effect other materials. Gravity can effect all materials including the magnets. In the end I guess that some tiny particle related to all things does this, maybe something like an opposite neutrino particle.

Because of this I believe that faster than light speed is possible because that tiny "other particle" permeates all things. Of course, I can't prove it, yet.

edit on 3-3-2012 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Fromabove
Both the magnet and gravity draw in, but to have an equality, something must flow back out at the same time.

edit on 3-3-2012 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

I say again, no genius am I, but I like how you can explain things so that even I understand what you're saying. Good job!

And, with this simple mind I have to ask, when you say that something must flow back out, do you mean flow out and away from (say,) earth? Also, if this something has been flowing out for 4.5 billion years, would it have been utterly depleted by now?

new topics

top topics

3