E=mc^2 Credibility

**Cosmo** · July 14th, 2009, 03:00 PM

E = mc^2

This is Einsteins Mass Energy formula that I decided to do a Dimensional Analysis for its credibility.
Let us take the 1st component that is 'energy', for its applications. Here there are too many variations for any specific applications if it were to be used in reference to the universe.
So let us confine it to the largest sources of energy.
The greatest single source of energy in our universe is the light radiated by the stars. My estimate would be that this light amounts to about 95% of all the energy. This light has NO mass. So E'n's formula would be useless here.

So now we have just 5% available for E'n's formula application.
Since he has mass as a componant, we could apply it to the deBroglei matter waves created by the electrons.
The electron in hydrogen atoms Ground State, radiates a 'standing contiuous sign wave as illustrated in the older physics books.
But this radiation does NOT radiate or absorb any energy!

The Bohr planetary model of the HA, tells us that the HA's radiate energy only when an electron has been bounced to an outer orbit to absorb a quanta and then as it is drawn back to its original state, it radiates a quanta (emission state) of energy.
So this is the nature of Plancks pulsed light that we see and the plants 'absorb' for their growth. The Balmer series of light is second in energy to the Lyman series.
Again, this light has no MASS, so E'n's formula here is useless again.

There is one source of energy that does come directly from matter decay that could give E'n some credibility and that is the POTENTIAL energy that is radiated by elemental decay by the heaviest of elements.
This energy is utilized by the Nuclear Reactors to create electricity.

Also, the final form of star life is the neutron stars that have burned themselves out. My opinion is that these neutron stars are decaying to generate all the Gamma Ray Bursters that permeate space. These have been detected to be HIGH velocity protons.
There is an enormous amount of these protons in space but their energy cannot be utilized.
So, we have to conclude that E 'n's formula is useless in a total sense..

Cosmo

Related Discussions:

**Dishmaster** · July 15th, 2009, 07:39 AM

Hi Cosmo. So you are back with your old and already often discussed statements. I have no hope that you could be convinced that your views are unsubstantial. So, I only reply for the sake of those viewers that need some arguments based on physics.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

E = mc^2

This is Einsteins Mass Energy formula ...

... already wrong. It is the TOTAL ENERGY formula.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

... that I decided to do a Dimensional Analysis for its credibility. Let us take the 1st component that is 'energy', for its applications. Here there are too many variations for any specific applications if it were to be used in reference to the universe.
So let us confine it to the largest sources of energy.
The greatest single source of energy in our universe is the light radiated by the stars.

No, it is gravity, or better: gravitational potential energy.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My estimate would be that this light amounts to about 95% of all the energy.

Based on what? Your guess? Where is the evidence? And where does the energy come from. Out of nothing?

Originally Posted by Cosmo

This light has NO mass.

The stars that emit this light have very well mass. And the photons that are emitted have been produced by nuclear fusion, where the mass deficiency (sum of four nucleons larger than helium nucleus) is transformed into electromagnetic energy, just like the formula describes it.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Since he has mass as a componant, we could apply it to the deBroglei matter waves created by the electrons.

Why? BTW, this guy is called de Broglie. What mass would that be? The relativistic mass, the rest mass? Why electrons? The light emitted by stars originates from nuclear fusion, where electrons are not involved. Ionic/atomic orbitals are only a catalyst in the transport of the photons to the surface of the stars.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The electron in hydrogen atoms Ground State, radiates a 'standing contiuous sign wave as illustrated in the older physics books.

This electron does NOT radiate electromagnetic waves! However, the wavelength of the material wave of the electron according to de Broglie must fit on the lowest allowed orbital of an atom in order to allow for constructive interference. So, figuratively speaking, the "size" of the orbital must be a multiplicative integer of the material wavelength of the electron. But this material wave is not the same like the photon. Photons are bosons with an integer spin, while electrons are fermions with a spin of 1/2. Electrons confined to atomic/ionic compounds only radiate, when they change from a higher to a lower orbital. The photon emitted has then the energy of the potential difference of the two orbitals.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

But this radiation does NOT radiate or absorb any energy!

Radiation does not absorb or emit energy. It is energy.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The Bohr planetary model of the HA, ...

... is wrong and outdated and only explains a limited amount of atomic phenomena.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

... tells us that the HA's radiate energy only when an electron has been bounced to an outer orbit to absorb a quanta and then as it is drawn back to its original state, it radiates a quanta (emission state) of energy.
So this is the nature of Plancks pulsed light that we see and the plants 'absorb' for their growth. The Balmer series of light is second in energy to the Lyman series.

Correct!

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Again, this light has no MASS, so E'n's formula here is useless again.

It just has no meaning in this context. But any photon can spontaneously decay into matter, e.g. by the process of pair production. The energy of a photon can be transformed into two particles having the sum mass according to the Einstein formula. So, if you replace m by twice the mass of an electron (or positron), you can calculate, what energy the photon must have in order to be able to produce these two particles. So, it is not useless at all. If transformed into wavelengths, the photons would be hard X rays. This is NOT the same like the de Broglie material wavelength which depends on the momentum (i.e. velocity) of the electron.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

There is one source of energy that does come directly from matter decay that could give E'n some credibility and that is the POTENTIAL energy that is radiated by elemental decay by the heaviest of elements.

Indeed!

Originally Posted by Cosmo

So, we have to conclude that E 'n's formula is useless in a total sense.

Rubbish! Uselessness does not imply it being incredible. And: Physics is not about application or usefulness, it is about how nature works. The formula can be deduced.

This was not a dimensional analysis! Dimensional analysis means that you reduce the units in a formula to the SI units and compare both sides of the equation. If they are equal, you can be sure that both sides represent the same physical quantity.

I suggest reading the following sections for a deeper insight in the meaning and the derivation of that formula.

**Cosmo** · July 15th, 2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

... already wrong. It is the TOTAL ENERGY formula.

Wow, more work! I am going to be selective as to what to reply to,.
Does that formula represent 'electric circuits, inflamible substances like coal, human labor, various engines, CMBR and there are other such diverse energies, I am sure?

No, it is gravity, or better: gravitational potential energy.

A more accurate description of gravity is that it is a 'force'. It is contained in neutral matter. So the 'motions' resulting from gravity is energy.

Based on what? Your guess? Where is the evidence? And where does the energy come from. Out of nothing?

Get real, Dish. The stars scattered in the universe are 'noithing?

The stars that emit this light have very well mass. And the photons that are emitted have been produced by nuclear fusion, where the mass deficiency (sum of four nucleons larger than helium nucleus) is transformed into electromagnetic energy, just like the formula describes it.

See my article on 'The THEORY of EVERYTHING'.

Why? BTW, this guy is called de Broglie. What mass would that be? The relativistic mass, the rest mass? Why electrons? The light emitted by stars originates from nuclear fusion, where electrons are not involved. Ionic/atomic orbitals are only a catalyst in the transport of the photons to the surface of the stars.

See my article on the Creation of Photons

This electron does NOT radiate electromagnetic waves! However, the wavelength of the material wave of the electron according to de Broglie must fit on the lowest allowed orbital of an atom in order to allow for constructive interference. So, figuratively speaking, the "size" of the orbital must be a multiplicative integer of the material wavelength of the electron. But this material wave is not the same like the photon. Photons are bosons with an integer spin, while electrons are fermions with a spin of 1/2. Electrons confined to atomic/ionic compounds only radiate, when they change from a higher to a lower orbital. The photon emitted has then the energy of the potential difference of the two orbitals.
Radiation does not absorb or emit energy. It is energy.

The standing wave of an electron is the 'vibrating' field that surrounds the electron.
It does not transfer energy like the QUANTA does.

We do not SEE these SW's.

... is wrong and outdated and only explains a limited amount of atomic phenomena.

It explains the Suns spectrum. Isn't that enough?

It just has no meaning in this context. But any photon can spontaneously decay into matter, e.g. by the process of pair production. The energy of a photon can be transformed into two particles having the sum mass according to the Einstein formula. So, if you replace m by twice the mass of an electron (or positron), you can calculate, what energy the photon must have in order to be able to produce these two particles. So, it is not useless at all. If transformed into wavelengths, the photons would be hard X rays. This is NOT the same like the de Broglie material wavelength which depends on the momentum (i.e. velocity) of the electron.

This is trivial abstract stuff that I ignore and it violates the Conservation of Matter Law.

Whew!

Cosmo

**Dishmaster** · July 15th, 2009, 06:17 PM

I will produce a mirror of this thread in the physics section, because the Theory of Relativity is nothing belonging particularly to astronomy.

Honestly, I don't see how this new thread is any different to the previous one, now contained here:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/E-%3D-mc%5E2-18577t.php

I am afraid, it will end there sooner or later as well.

Dishmaster
(Moderator Astronomy)

**Dishmaster** · July 15th, 2009, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

... is wrong and outdated and only explains a limited amount of atomic phenomena.

It explains the Suns spectrum. Isn't that enough?

No, because it fails to describe the entire physics involved here. How can you be sure that the other results derived from that model are accurate?

Originally Posted by Cosmo

It just has no meaning in this context. But any photon can spontaneously decay into matter, e.g. by the process of pair production. The energy of a photon can be transformed into two particles having the sum mass according to the Einstein formula. So, if you replace m by twice the mass of an electron (or positron), you can calculate, what energy the photon must have in order to be able to produce these two particles. So, it is not useless at all. If transformed into wavelengths, the photons would be hard X rays. This is NOT the same like the de Broglie material wavelength which depends on the momentum (i.e. velocity) of the electron.

This is trivial abstract stuff that I ignore and it violates the Conservation of Matter Law.

As usual, you neglect what contradicts your views. This pair production is very real, and it does not violate that law, because mass and energy are equivalent, just like the famous formula says. It has been observed uncountable times in experiments, even on undergraduate level physics courses. You cannot deny what is real.

**DrRocket** · July 15th, 2009, 06:54 PM

Score:

Dishmaster 2

Cosmo 0

Further discussion will almost certainly raise the score of Dishmaster and leave that of Cosmos invariant.

Conclusion Dishmaster's arguments have gravitas.

Cosmos have neither rest mass nor energy. Zero 4-momentum.

**Cosmo** · July 19th, 2009, 01:07 PM

Dish

I prefer to give credibility to the Conservation Laws rather than any experiments credited to Einstain. I also refute his GR and SR.
All his other tiny 'twichtes' (corrections) can be spiritually manipulated as I have seen from my past experiences and that is NOT a lie.

I know science refutes the existence of spirits but science is wrong he re.

So I prefer to follow the works of, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr.

This may sound ludicrous to you but not to me.

Cosmo

**DrRocket** · July 19th, 2009, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Dish

I prefer to give credibility to the Conservation Laws rather than any experiments credited to Einstain. I also refute his GR and SR.
All his other tiny 'twichtes' (corrections) can be spiritually manipulated as I have seen from my past experiences and that is NOT a lie.

I know science refutes the existence of spirits but science is wrong he re.

So I prefer to follow the works of, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr.

This may sound ludicrous to you but not to me.

Cosmo

Great post. Never has anyone posted such nonsense so concisely -- blowing the science and simultaneously invoking the supernatural sets a new standard.

Dishmaster 2

Cosmo -1

**Arcane_Mathematician** · July 19th, 2009, 07:21 PM

That just made me curious;

Is there inconsistency with conservation in any of Einstein's experiments/models/theories/conjectures?

**DrRocket** · July 19th, 2009, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

That just made me curious;

Is there inconsistency with conservation in any of Einstein's experiments/models/theories/conjectures?

There are issues with even defining what conservation of energy means in general relativity. It is a fairly subtle thing.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html

Einstein was a theoretician. He did not perform laboratory experiments. Experimental physicists did that, adn their experiments, thus far, support relativity.

Einstein, like other theoreticians, had lots of conjectures. Like everybody else, most of them were wrong. That is not a problem. Einstein had some really good ideas that were right.

The difference between an Einstein and the nut cases you see proposing nonsense, is that he was smart enough to know when an idea was nonsense, discard it, and move on. ALL good theorists are wrong more often than they are right. That is just part of the game. The good ones know enough to not propose ideas that are blatantly false, and they are smart enough to recognize when a subtle argument invalidates an idea. Then theytoss that idea in the trash and go find a better one.

Most importantly, they know existing theory well, and they know the domain of validity of existing theory and where the problems are. NONE of them are ignorant of the state of the art. A sure sign of a wacko is someone who is proposing a radical revision of an existing theory, like relativity or quantum mechanics, but who does not understand what those theories actually say.

**Dishmaster** · July 20th, 2009, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I prefer to give credibility to the Conservation Laws rather than any experiments credited to Einstain.

???? Do I understand you right that you reject results that are based on reality?

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I also refute his GR and SR.

And still you cannot avoid its consequences. Can you run faster than the speed of light? Can you make anything go faster than the speed of light? No? Well, then Newton was wrong and Einstein was right. Newton believed that forces interact with infinite speed. This is obviously wrong. And how do you explain that a helium nucleus weighs less than four nucleons alone? How do you explain that this deficiency is exactly explained by this famous formula? Coincidence?

Originally Posted by Cosmo

All his other tiny 'twichtes' (corrections) can be spiritually manipulated as I have seen from my past experiences and that is NOT a lie.

Huh? Could you elaborate on this? So, time dilation is not real, although it has been measured many times? This is not a tiny twitch. What experiences do you mean? Telekinesis?

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I know science refutes the existence of spirits but science is wrong he re.
So I prefer to follow the works of, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr.

So you introduce a concept purely based on something being invisible and unprovable and use this to replace experiments showing reality? Come on! All of these great scientists would have had a good laugh on you.

**Cosmo** · July 20th, 2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Dish

I prefer to give credibility to the Conservation Laws rather than any experiments credited to Einstain. I also refute his GR and SR.
All his other tiny 'twichtes' (corrections) can be spiritually manipulated as I have seen from my past experiences and that is NOT a lie.

I know science refutes the existence of spirits but science is wrong he re.

So I prefer to follow the works of, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr.

This may sound ludicrous to you but not to me.

Cosmo

Great post. Never has anyone posted such nonsense so concisely -- blowing the science and simultaneously invoking the supernatural sets a new standard.

Dishmaster 2

Cosmo -1

Dish, is that you as number 2?

Cosmo

**Cosmo** · July 20th, 2009, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

That just made me curious;

Is there inconsistency with conservation in any of Einstein's experiments/models/theories/conjectures?

I got a hacker on my home computer. Looks like he is here also giving me problems. He refused to post this in answer to your question:

YES
Einsteins conservation of his static universe is one and a big error .

Cosmo

**Arcane_Mathematician** · July 20th, 2009, 10:21 AM

For the record, I think Kepler, Newton, Planck, and Bohr would all agree with Einstein.

Cosmo, care to cite a source for Einstein's error?

I think the score is:

Dishmaster 3

Cosmo 1

at this point

**Cosmo** · July 20th, 2009, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

And still you cannot avoid its consequences. Can you run faster than the speed of light? Can you make anything go faster than the speed of light? No? Well, then Newton was wrong and Einstein was right. Newton believed that forces interact with infinite speed. This is obviously wrong. And how do you explain that a helium nucleus weighs less than four nucleons alone? How do you explain that this deficiency is exactly explained by this famous formula? Coincidence?

The velocity of light was finalized by Michelsons last measurement IMO.
Newtons time was before Michelsons.
The masses of these elements are 'inertial'. That means they are moved through a 'fixed' magnetic field.
FYI, these particles all have magnetic field patterns surrounding them. So the interactions between these two fields creates the slight discrepencies.

Huh? Could you elaborate on this? So, time dilation is not real, although it has been measured many times? This is not a tiny twitch. What experiences do you mean? Telekinesis?

I prefer to keep this personal but believe me, I have seen events that border on science fiction. That is why I now appear to be a maverick . Ha ha.

Following the power' establishment can keep you dumb. Just like the believers in the Old Testament.

I wrote an article on 'The Universal Mind. I will see if I can find it and post it in the religious sector.

Cosmo

**Dishmaster** · July 21st, 2009, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Great post. Never has anyone posted such nonsense so concisely -- blowing the science and simultaneously invoking the supernatural sets a new standard.

Dishmaster 2

Cosmo -1

Dish, is that you as number 2?

Cosmo

You must be really paranoid to think that. No, I'm not. There might be more than one person around that disagrees with you.

**Dishmaster** · July 21st, 2009, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The velocity of light was finalized by Michelsons last measurement IMO.
Newtons time was before Michelsons.

Exactly. This means, that Newton's law of gravity is flawed, because he assumed that the forces interact instantly. This is what General Relativity is about.

So, the speed of light is the same in every inertial reference frame (for a given medium). This leads you immediately to Special Relativity. If you measure the same speed of light in two inertial reference frames that are moving relative to each other, there is no other way that the times or/and the scales of these two frames are different, depending from what frame you look at it. This is all what SR means.

**Waveman28** · July 21st, 2009, 08:24 AM

I prefer to give credibility to the Conservation Laws rather than any experiments credited to Einstain. I also refute his GR and SR.

I originally thought this thread was going to be about who really discovered the equation, e=mc2, which was certainly not einstein (as you and many, many others believe). It was actually first derived by henri poincare many years before einstein.
You are right in refuting both SR and GR (GR is especially absurd), but you dont really have any scientifically concrete reason as to why. Any intelligent scientist should admit that relativity is obviously a well proven fact, but this phemomenom really isnt explained sensibly or logically at all in SR.

I know science refutes the existence of spirits but science is wrong he re.
So I prefer to follow the works of, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr.

This may sound ludicrous to you but not to me.

Wow. That is one very irrational belief you have there.

**Cosmo** · July 21st, 2009, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The velocity of light was finalized by Michelsons last measurement IMO.
Newtons time was before Michelsons.

Exactly. This means, that Newton's law of gravity is flawed, because he assumed that the forces interact instantly. This is what General Relativity is about.

So, the speed of light is the same in every inertial reference frame (for a given medium). This leads you immediately to Special Relativity. If you measure the same speed of light in two inertial reference frames that are moving relative to each other, there is no other way that the times or/and the scales of these two frames are different, depending from what frame you look at it. This is all what SR means.

My opinion is that the speed of light is FIXED relative to the SOURCE of the light.
So relative to space, it will vary according to the 'local space motion' of the source.

Tp any observer. it will vary according to the relative motions of the two observers to each other (redsdhifts).

I posted my article on the Universal Mind in the 'science of religion' sector.

Cosmo

**Cosmo** · July 21st, 2009, 11:15 AM

Waveman

See my article on the Universal Mind in the 'science of religion' sector.

Cosmo

**Dishmaster** · July 21st, 2009, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My opinion is that the speed of light is FIXED relative to the SOURCE of the light.
So relative to space, it will vary according to the 'local space motion' of the source.

Tp any observer. it will vary according to the relative motions of the two observers to each other (redsdhifts).

It does not. Shown by experiments. Redshift is not produced by a change of the speed of light but the wavelength.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I posted my article on the Universal Mind in the 'science of religion' sector.

Trust me. You don't want me to comment on that. But it clarifies a lot of things.

**DrRocket** · July 21st, 2009, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

. There might be more than one person around that disagrees with you.

I certainly hope so.

**Arcane_Mathematician** · July 21st, 2009, 04:37 PM

I count 3, at least

**drowsy turtle** · July 21st, 2009, 06:37 PM

We can safely consider it 4.

**Waveman28** · July 22nd, 2009, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Waveman

See my article on the Universal Mind in the 'science of religion' sector.

Cosmo

What about it? I dont see what a few coincidental happenings has to do with the equation, e=mc2.

But in relation to your ideas about a universal mind though, it really is quite pointless at the moment to generate illogical speculation about the human "mind", because nowhere near enough research has been done into determining what conciousness actually is, how it begins and whats its mechanics are. Until we at least get a brief understanding of that, or make some theoretical advancements in that field, theres not much use in talking about paranormal events, de ja vu, and all that crap.

**Cosmo** · July 22nd, 2009, 07:42 AM

[quote="Dishmaster"]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My opinion is that the speed of light is FIXED relative to the SOURCE of the light.
So relative to space, it will vary according to the 'local space motion' of the source.

Tp any observer. it will vary according to the relative motions of the two observers to each other (redsdhifts).

It does not. Shown by experiments. Redshift is not produced by a change of the speed of light but the wavelength.]/quote]

I said the speed of light is fixed relative to the source.

So the relative velocity between the observer and the source determine the redshifts.

You are misinterpreting what I say.

Cosmo

**Cosmo** · July 22nd, 2009, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Waveman

See my article on the Universal Mind in the 'science of religion' sector.

Cosmo

What about it? I dont see what a few coincidental happenings has to do with the equation, e=mc2.

But in relation to your ideas about a universal mind though, it really is quite pointless at the moment to generate illogical speculation about the human "mind", because nowhere near enough research has been done into determining what conciousness actually is, how it begins and whats its mechanics are. Until we at least get a brief understanding of that, or make some theoretical advancements in that field, theres not much use in talking about paranormal events, de ja vu, and all that crap.

I just introduced that UM to show that it could account for all those tiny corrections that Einstein made in the gravity effects, time variations and etc.

Regarding his formula, it is not practical in any context as my article explains.

The only place it could be used is in the deBroglei matter waves that uses the mass of the electron and its momentum.

However, as I said, these standing waves do not create any useful energy.

Cosmo

**Dishmaster** · July 22nd, 2009, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My opinion is that the speed of light is FIXED relative to the SOURCE of the light.
So relative to space, it will vary according to the 'local space motion' of the source.

Tp any observer. it will vary according to the relative motions of the two observers to each other (redsdhifts).

It does not. Shown by experiments. Redshift is not produced by a change of the speed of light but the wavelength.

I said the speed of light is fixed relative to the source.

So the relative velocity between the observer and the source determine the redshifts.

You are misinterpreting what I say.

My statement still holds. It has been shown by experiments that the speed of light is independent of BOTH the source and the receiver. It does not vary, it is constant regardless of whether the source or the receiver moves. The phenomenon of redshift is independent of whether the source or the observer moves radially. Both movements have the same effect. Only the relative radial velocity determines it.

**Cosmo** · July 24th, 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

My statement still holds. It has been shown by experiments that the speed of light is independent of BOTH the source and the receiver. It does not vary, it is constant regardless of whether the source or the receiver moves. The phenomenon of redshift is independent of whether the source or the observer moves radially. Both movements have the same effect. Only the relative radial velocity determines it.

Dish
Do you realize what you are 'implying'?
You are implying that the carrier of light is independant of the source.
So the carrier then is 'Space'?
This would then be similar to the 'train whistle' and air as a carrier of the sound.

These two situations CANNOT be identical.

Cosmo

**marcusclayman** · July 24th, 2009, 04:18 PM

Light hasn't been shown to need a carrier, unlike sound. I learned this in fourth grade. You can do some very basic experiments yourself if you have doubts.

Sound relies on a medium: it has no existence in and of itself; it is the effect of vibrations in matter. Light is its own medium, it exists in and of itself, it is the effect of it's own vibration.

While it may be true that there is a fundamental substance that we refer to as "space" -- some refer to that theory as ether -- a carrier is not required to rationalize the presence of light, since light and sound are two very different things.

Consider that sound doesn't travel through the vacuum of space, and that crossing sound waves interfere with each other. Light can travel through the vacuum of space, and crossing light beams do not interfere with each other.

**Arcane_Mathematician** · July 24th, 2009, 10:01 PM

Light IS independent of the souce, Marcus and Dish are right, Cosmo, you are wrong. You're looking at the situations the wrong way

**baftansowibat** · July 24th, 2009, 11:43 PM

E=mc^2 "equation suggests that tiny amounts of mass could be converted into huge amounts of energy and presaged the development of nuclear power." (Wikipedia)

But that equation does not claim that all matter in the universe potentially (c^2) holds the total amount of energy in the universe. It does not claim anything about the whole universe at all; it only says that mass can be converted into a form of energy (nuclear, light, heat, pressure), differently saying this could be that mass is a packed form of harvestable energy. It is a product of cooling down process of Big Bang. Quarks, protons and atoms were simply not possible in the beginning.

Imagine this: Activity = Matter times formation squared itself (A=MF^2). According to such a formula, I would guess that it is possible to deduce a huge amount of Activity out of Matter. Yet, it does not say that Matter creates or potentially preserves the total amount of Activity in whole Universe: There is a phenomenon called "expanding universe" of which speed is faster than light (so we can see the light of galactic incidents in distance of 13.7 billion light years as of today, although they were emerged 380 000 years after the Big Bang). There are more Activities are going on in Universe other than what A=MF^2 may offer. That does not mean that the formula is wrong: You can still get plenty of Activity out of Matter, since Matter is nothing but a form of Activity (Energy).

**DrRocket** · July 25th, 2009, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by baftansowibat

E=mc^2 "equation suggests that tiny amounts of mass could be converted into huge amounts of energy and presaged the development of nuclear power." (Wikipedia)

But that equation does not claim that all matter in the universe potentially (c^2) holds the total amount of energy in the universe. It does not claim anything about the whole universe at all; it only says that mass can be converted into a form of energy (nuclear, light, heat, pressure), differently saying this could be that mass is a packed form of harvestable energy. It is a product of cooling down process of Big Bang. Quarks, protons and atoms were simply not possible in the beginning.

Imagine this: Activity = Matter times formation squared itself (A=MF^2). According to such a formula, I would guess that it is possible to deduce a huge amount of Activity out of Matter. Yet, it does not say that Matter creates or potentially preserves the total amount of Activity in whole Universe: There is a phenomenon called "expanding universe" of which speed is faster than light (so we can see the light of galactic incidents in distance of 13.7 billion light years as of today, although they were emerged 380 000 years after the Big Bang). There are more Activities are going on in Universe other than what A=MF^2 may offer. That does not mean that the formula is wrong: You can still get plenty of Activity out of Matter, since Matter is nothing but a form of Activity (Energy).

The profound conclusion reached by Einstein is that matter and energy are simply two manifestations of the same thing. Matter is energy and energy is matter.

What seems to be conserved is matter-energy in total.

There is no such concept as "activity". You made that one up.

**baftansowibat** · July 25th, 2009, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The profound conclusion reached by Einstein is that matter and energy are simply two manifestations of the same thing. Matter is energy and energy is matter.

What seems to be conserved is matter-energy in total.

There is no such concept as "activity". You made that one up.

Obviously I made it up to explain your statement (:matter and energy are simply two manifestations of the same thing) in a different way. If you have realized that "activity" is a made up term, why did you not bring any objection to "formation" term? It was equally a "made-up" concept. My post does not say anything different than your statement. What I was trying to say is this: Einstein constructed his formula in order to show the unity of physical reality and its transformable nature. He united two concepts (matter and energy) which were previously thought and accepted as separate entities.

I read OP as a separation attempt if it says "Let us take the 1st component that is 'energy', for its applications..." or "My estimate would be that this light amounts to about 95% of all the energy. This light has NO mass..." Mass is only a form; a formation where energy is condensed; or energy is organised in such a way that mass became something we can talk about it. In a way, according to the rule, mass can only form itself (or "exist") if it is slower than the speed of light. I am definitely not insisting upon the term "Activity", but there is/are energy activity/activities going on in "observable" universe (such as background radiation or expansion of space) where energy can not/does not form any mass, yet still exist(s). Mass is only one form of many energy applications and mass formation requires certain special conditions such as cooler environment than the beginning of Big Bang and slower speed than light can travel in space.

Here is a passage from Wikipedia under the title of "Energy". I said I am not insisting on term "activity", but I see that the root of the word actually comes from there. This paragraph also states light as a form of energy:

" In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working") is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force. "

Take "photon": It is massless, and has no electric charge... It is still a form of energy and it has physical effects on mass form of energy. I repeat my initial statement: Mass is a form of energy and can not exist without the energy; but energy can take different forms in this universe other than mass. Universe has different interpretations and forms of energy.

**Cosmo** · July 25th, 2009, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Light hasn't been shown to need a carrier, unlike sound. I learned this in fourth grade. You can do some very basic experiments yourself if you have doubts.

Sound relies on a medium: it has no existence in and of itself; it is the effect of vibrations in matter. Light is its own medium, it exists in and of itself, it is the effect of it's own vibration.

While it may be true that there is a fundamental substance that we refer to as "space" -- some refer to that theory as ether -- a carrier is not required to rationalize the presence of light, since light and sound are two very different things.

Consider that sound doesn't travel through the vacuum of space, and that crossing sound waves interfere with each other. Light can travel through the vacuum of space, and crossing light beams do not interfere with each other.

If you learned your basic physics, then you should know that charged particles are surrounded by FIELDS. These fields will ACT at a distance. So this proves that they are REAL, not virtual as they are assumed to be.

I defined these fields as composed of REAL SIMILAR CHARGED particles. They are NOT virtual particles as is assumed by the current science community.
These fields disperse themselves by mutual repulsion to form these fields
Currently, there is no data on these field particles because of their very miniscule size. But the nature of these fields are well known.

So these fields TRANSMIT the Quanta through space.

Also, matter does not convert to energy or vice versa.

Those tiny mass discrepancies are due to the fact that they are INERTIAL masses. These masses have their own magnetic field patterns that interact with the FIXED MF to cause these tiny mass discrepancies. So these energies are not created from mass conversions but only by the 'intrinsic forces contained in the matter.

Cosmo

.

**Cosmo** · July 25th, 2009, 09:18 AM

Arcane and Baft

See my reply to Marcus

Cosmo

**drowsy turtle** · July 25th, 2009, 09:22 AM

If the original particle still has its charge, and the field is made of same-charge particles, where is the charge coming from? Sorry, but this violates the conservation of charge law.

**Scifor Refugee** · July 25th, 2009, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by baftansowibat

E=mc^2 "equation suggests that tiny amounts of mass could be converted into huge amounts of energy and presaged the development of nuclear power." (Wikipedia)

I'm pretty sure people realized that huge amounts of energy were being released by radioactive materials, and that radioactive materials could thus be good power sources, back in the late 19th century. E=mc^2 showed that there should be a slight change in mass associated with the energy release, but people were already well aware that there was energy to be harvested from radioactivity. It's not like people were inspired by E=mc^2 to go looking for a way to convert mass into energy, and came up with nuclear power as a way to do that.

**Arcane_Mathematician** · July 25th, 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

If you learned your basic physics, then you should know that charged particles are surrounded by FIELDS. These fields will ACT at a distance. So this proves that they are REAL, not virtual as they are assumed to be.

I defined these fields as composed of REAL SIMILAR CHARGED particles. They are NOT virtual particles as is assumed by the current science community.
These fields disperse themselves by mutual repulsion to form these fields
Currently, there is no data on these field particles because of their very miniscule size. But the nature of these fields are well known.

So these fields TRANSMIT the Quanta through space.

Also, matter does not convert to energy or vice versa.

Those tiny mass discrepancies are due to the fact that they are INERTIAL masses. These masses have their own magnetic field patterns that interact with the FIXED MF to cause these tiny mass discrepancies. So these energies are not created from mass conversions but only by the 'intrinsic forces contained in the matter.

Cosmo

Those fields aren't charged particles, you are making an argument for the aether, and a bad one at that. Electromagnetic fields aren't real 'fields' its just a method we have of explaining the forces involved, because they happen to be dependent on distance from the source of the force. You are getting stuck on terminology Cosmo, get passed that and realize that all those funny words are just analogies, as we are attempting to think of a way of explaining the phenomenon WITHOUT inventing a new language for it.

**Cosmo** · July 26th, 2009, 09:01 AM

Those fields aren't charged particles, you are making an argument for the aether, and a bad one at that. Electromagnetic fields aren't real 'fields' its just a method we have of explaining the forces involved, because they happen to be dependent on distance from the source of the force. You are getting stuck on terminology Cosmo, get passed that and realize that all those funny words are just analogies, as we are attempting to think of a way of explaining the phenomenon WITHOUT inventing a new language for it.

If these 'fields are not real, than how do you account for their 'action' at a distance?
How do you account for the gases dispersing themselves in space?
How do you account for the fact that our Moon has no atmosphere?

Cosmo

**DrRocket** · July 26th, 2009, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Those fields aren't charged particles, you are making an argument for the aether, and a bad one at that. Electromagnetic fields aren't real 'fields' its just a method we have of explaining the forces involved, because they happen to be dependent on distance from the source of the force. You are getting stuck on terminology Cosmo, get passed that and realize that all those funny words are just analogies, as we are attempting to think of a way of explaining the phenomenon WITHOUT inventing a new language for it.

I think you went off the deep end this time.

Electromagnetic fields are pretty real. That is how your radio works. It is also explains light and how you see. It is pretty hot out today, entirely due to the electromagnetic field emanating from the sun. Energy is stored in those fields, and without that energy you would not be able to generate the power to run the computer that you use to visit this web site.

**Arcane_Mathematician** · July 26th, 2009, 03:53 PM

But the electromagnetic fields are entirely energetic, not material. That's more what I meant, that they aren't physical, material fields that can be touched and played in. It seemed that's what Cosmo was inferring by fields.

**Cosmo** · July 27th, 2009, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

But the electromagnetic fields are entirely energetic, not material. That's more what I meant, that they aren't physical, material fields that can be touched and played in. It seemed that's what Cosmo was inferring by fields.

Arcane
If you want to feel these fields, go to the hobby shops and get yourself a couple of those small 'magnetic' blocks.
You can 'feel' their atraction and repulsion.
These tiny blocks (1/2"x1"x2") are very strong.
Amuse yourself.

Cosmo

**baftansowibat** · July 27th, 2009, 08:58 PM

Excuse me, but this is your thread Cosmo, and it is not ethical to play with words just to amuse your theory, or whatever you call it. Arcane said twice that forces or what we call in our daily lifes as "fields" created by these forces are not tangible, he did not refuse their existence.

Why don't you start defining what you understand from "energy" as well as "matter" in order to make this topic bit more concrete, or at least you can "amuse" us. Playing with words can lead two ways; One, we can clarify concepts and think more clearly, secondly, we can blur the main issue and masturbate with it. Choice is yours...

**Cosmo** · July 28th, 2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by baftansowibat

Excuse me, but this is your thread Cosmo, and it is not ethical to play with words just to amuse your theory, or whatever you call it. Arcane said twice that forces or what we call in our daily lifes as "fields" created by these forces are not tangible, he did not refuse their existence.

Why don't you start defining what you understand from "energy" as well as "matter" in order to make this topic bit more concrete, or at least you can "amuse" us. Playing with words can lead two ways; One, we can clarify concepts and think more clearly, secondly, we can blur the main issue and masturbate with it. Choice is yours...

I did provide my own definitions for the separate components in physics.
Here it goes again. My definitions:

Matter - What we see and feel.

Energy - Motion or change. This definition can apply to 'time' as well.

Forces - The power that creates the motions. The only forces in existence are the
ones that are 'intrinsic' to matter. But you can also include 'momentum'
as a counter force to gravity or the coulomb force in the hydeogen atom.
Another way to describe momentum is 'inertia'.

Cosmo

**baftansowibat** · July 28th, 2009, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Matter - What we see and feel.

Energy - Motion or change. This definition can apply to 'time' as well.

All right, so let’s put your definition into E’n’s formula, E=mc^2:

Motion and Change (E) = What We See and Feel times speed of light squared.

What is wrong with that? Do “What We See and Feel” not have a huge power or possibilities of “Motion and Change”? Or, are "What We See and Feel" not the form of "Motion and Change"? Are they not transformable and interpretable with one another?

**Waveman28** · July 28th, 2009, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by baftansowibat

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Matter - What we see and feel.

Energy - Motion or change. This definition can apply to 'time' as well.

All right, so let’s put your definition into E’n’s formula, E=mc^2:

Motion and Change (E) = What We See and Feel times speed of light squared.

What is wrong with that? Do “What We See and Feel” not have a huge power or possibilities of “Motion and Change”? Or, are "What We See and Feel" not the form of "Motion and Change"? Are they not transformable and interpretable with one another?

Good post.
Cosmo, clearly you must know by now that your definitions are very vague and rather unscientific aswell. I dont think anyone in this forum at present knows what you are talking about when you refer to your fields, matter and energy. For me at least, youve turned it into one big blur. If people dont even know what you are refering to, how can you expect them to understand your theory?

**Cosmo** · July 29th, 2009, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by baftansowibat

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Matter - What we see and feel.

Energy - Motion or change. This definition can apply to 'time' as well.

All right, so let’s put your definition into E’n’s formula, E=mc^2:

Motion and Change (E) = What We See and Feel times speed of light squared.

What is wrong with that? Do “What We See and Feel” not have a huge power or possibilities of “Motion and Change”? Or, are "What We See and Feel" not the form of "Motion and Change"? Are they not transformable and interpretable with one another?

Why is 'c' squared?
We do not see the light itself. We see only the sources of light and its reflections.

We see matter from all angles and feel it wherever we handle it.

Cosmo

**baftansowibat** · July 29th, 2009, 08:36 AM

How do you calculate the area of your living room? You square it. "c^2" is conversion factor, you are converting unit of mass to unit of energy.

**Scifor Refugee** · July 29th, 2009, 09:34 AM

Just looking at the units for kg and joules, you can see that you need some factor of velocity^2 to convert one to the other.

**Arcane_Mathematician** · July 29th, 2009, 09:38 AM

even Cosmo should know that, it IS a classical experiment that goes way before Einstein, after all.

**Janus** · July 29th, 2009, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Why is 'c' squared?

Cosmo

If you had actually done the dimensional analysis that you promised in your first post, you'd know why.

**Cosmo** · July 30th, 2009, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by baftansowibat

How do you calculate the area of your living room? You square it. "c^2" is conversion factor, you are converting unit of mass to unit of energy.

Light is not space.
However, light can be radiated into one, 2 and 3 dimentions.

Quanta (photons) are single one line radiations.

De Broglie matter waves such as the 'standing waves' that are radiated by the hydrogen atoms are 'pi' type of radiations like a pizza. Yum Yum. However, I do not eat pizza because I am a Vegan. So that excludes cheese.

The stars radiate into 3 dimentions but the photons are still one dimentional. Its just that the Sun radiates them in all directions.

Cosmo

**Janus** · July 30th, 2009, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by baftansowibat

How do you calculate the area of your living room? You square it. "c^2" is conversion factor, you are converting unit of mass to unit of energy.

Light is not space.
However, light can be radiated into one, 2 and 3 dimentions.

Quanta (photons) are single one line radiations.

De Broglie matter waves such as the 'standing waves' that are radiated by the hydrogen atoms are 'pi' type of radiations like a pizza. Yum Yum. However, I do not eat pizza because I am a Vegan. So that excludes cheese.

The stars radiate into 3 dimentions but the photons are still one dimentional. Its just that the Sun radiates them in all directions.

Cosmo

And none of this has the slightest thing to do with E= mc^2.
I'm still waitng for the dimensional analysis.

**DrRocket** · July 30th, 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Light is not space.

true

But trivial.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

However, light can be radiated into one, 2 and 3 dimentions.

false

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Quanta (photons) are single one line radiations.

false

Originally Posted by Cosmo

De Broglie matter waves such as the 'standing waves' that are radiated by the hydrogen atoms are 'pi' type of radiations like a pizza. Yum Yum. However, I do not eat pizza because I am a Vegan. So that excludes cheese.

false

In fact worse than false, just gibberish.

"That's not right. It's not even wrong," -- Wolfgang Pauli

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The stars radiate into 3 dimentions but the photons are still one dimentional. Its just that the Sun radiates them in all directions.

Cosmo

false

**Cosmo** · July 31st, 2009, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by baftansowibat

How do you calculate the area of your living room? You square it. "c^2" is conversion factor, you are converting unit of mass to unit of energy.

Light is not space.
However, light can be radiated into one, 2 and 3 dimentions.

Quanta (photons) are single one line radiations.

De Broglie matter waves such as the 'standing waves' that are radiated by the hydrogen atoms are 'pi' type of radiations like a pizza. Yum Yum. However, I do not eat pizza because I am a Vegan. So that excludes cheese.

The stars radiate into 3 dimentions but the photons are still one dimentional. Its just that the Sun radiates them in all directions.

Cosmo

And none of this has the slightest thing to do with E= mc^2.
I'm still waitng for the dimensional analysis.

Go back to Page ONE .
I have used all the components in E'ns F and have isolated them and determined how they can be used.

So if you can provide some constructive criticism, then do so. Simply just refusing what I say is ignorance.
So I would like to read your contructive alternative if you have one. Thank you .

Cosmo

**Cosmo** · July 31st, 2009, 09:29 AM

Dr.

You are simply acting like a judge rather than a critic. Even judges provide explanatios for their decisions. Can you do that? Thank you.

Cosmo

**Janus** · July 31st, 2009, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Go back to Page ONE .
I have used all the components in E'ns F and have isolated them and determined how they can be used.

So if you can provide some constructive criticism, then do so. Simply just refusing what I say is ignorance.
So I would like to read your contructive alternative if you have one. Thank you .

Cosmo

I read your first post, and it had nothing resembling a dimensional analysis, Just some non-sequitor statements. It is obvious that you don't know what a dimensional analysis is.

So I'll explain:

Dimensional analysis takes a formula and converts it to the base dimensions of time(T), mass(M), length(L), charge(Q) and Temperature(theta).

Thus area would be L^2, volume L^3 etc.

Force is Mass x acceleration, and since acceleration is distance over time squared, dimensionally, force is ML/T^2

to do a dimensional analysis of a formula, you simply are checking to see if the two sides of the equation match dimensionly.

Thus for E= mc^2:

c is a velocity which is L/T, which squared becomes L^2/T^2,

Thus the right side of the equation is dimensionly written as

ML^2/T^2

Energy can be written as force x distance, and from above, Force is ML/T^2, so energy is written dimensionly as

ML^2/T^2

which the same as we got for the the right side, meaning the formula is dimensionally valid.

**DrRocket** · July 31st, 2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Dr.

You are simply acting like a judge rather than a critic. Even judges provide explanatios for their decisions. Can you do that? Thank you.

Cosmo

Certainly.

You are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Out of touch and out to lunch. Not even in the ball game. Mysticism is not science.

What is humerous is that each time you have been handed your head you have failed to even recognize that fact. Your delusion marches on, even as you make statement after statement that is recognized as rubbish by any high school freshman of average intelligence.

There is no need to go into details. ANY modern physics book can elaborate for many pages. Even "Google" will do in this case.

Your misconceptions are so broad, so deep and so ubitquitous that to address them all in a cogent fashion would require one to write a physics text. But there is no need, as there are many good physics texts already availiable. For those interested, The Feynman Lectures on Physics is one of the best. Open it to almost any page at random, and I think you will find at least one item contradicting some assertion of yours. I KNOW you will find a clear and correct explanation of physics.

"He had delusions of adequacy." -- Walter Kerr

**Janus** · July 31st, 2009, 05:37 PM

You can actually get rid of the c², if you want, by a simple substitution. This is done by noting that according to Maxwell's equations, c can be obtained from two fundamental physical constants: the permeability and permittivity of free space, giving us

Substituting into E=mc² gives us

Which essentially says that the energy equivalence of a mass is equal to the value of that mass divided by the product of these two constants, and we've done away with that nasty old c² that seems to throw some people into a tizzy fit.

**DrRocket** · July 31st, 2009, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Janus

You can actually get rid of the c², if you want, by a simple substitution. This is done by noting that according to Maxwell's equations, c can be obtained from two fundamental physical constants: the permeability and permittivity of free space, giving us

Substituting into E=mc² gives us

Which essentially says that the energy equivalence of a mass is equal to the value of that mass divided by the product of these two constants, and we've done away with that nasty old c² that seems to throw some people into a tizzy fit.

True, but ugly.

You can also work in fundamental units where c=1. This yeilds

which gets across the main point -- energy and mass are the same thing.

**Cosmo** · August 1st, 2009, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Janus

I read your first post, and it had nothing resembling a dimensional analysis, Just some non-sequitor statements. It is obvious that you don't know what a dimensional analysis is.

We are dealing here with the E 'n Fo and the 3 dimentions are ENERGY, MASS and
VELOCITY.

So what kind of energy are you talking about? Energy in its general form covers a LOT of different energies.

What kind of mass are you talking about? Electron, proton, elemental or gravitational?

What kind of velocity? Electron, Quanta or accelerating?

When you analyze, details are required IMO.

Cosmo

**Cosmo** · August 1st, 2009, 09:05 AM

Dr.

Can you give me an example of E'ns formula solving a problem like the energy of a photon?

Cosmo

**Waveman28** · August 1st, 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Dr.

Can you give me an example of E'ns formula solving a problem like the energy of a photon?

Cosmo

Last time I checked, the energy of a photon was given by: E=hf

**Janus** · August 1st, 2009, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

We are dealing here with the E 'n Fo and the 3 dimentions are ENERGY, MASS and
VELOCITY.

Energy and velocity are not fundamental dimensions but are derived from fundamental dimensions. Secondly, such a set of set of dimensions is redundant since Energy is derived from Mass x velocity²

So what kind of energy are you talking about? Energy in its general form covers a LOT of different energies.

It makes no difference. It is a generalized formula for any conversion of energy to mass or mass to energy. It is like the formula
E = WT , where E is energy, Wattage and T is time. One can use this formula to convert from Joules to watt-seconds or watt-seconds to Joules. It makes no difference what form the energy took before or after. The energy could have come from water going over a dam, or burning coal or nuclear power. At the end, the energy could have been used to light a house, cook a meal, or dry your hair. It has no bearing on the conversion between Joule and watt-seconds.

What kind of mass are you talking about? Electron, proton, elemental or gravitational?

Again it makes no difference, as what form the mass takes. It is irrelevant to the equation[/quote]

What kind of velocity? Electron, Quanta or accelerating?
[/quote] In the formula it is the speed of light (Just the speed, no other property of light is inferred or needed), which happens to be a universal constant, and provides the conversion factor between energy and mass.

When you analyze, details are required

The details are determined from case to case. In a fission reaction, some of the energy is in the form of gamma radiation, some is in the form of kinetic energy of the resulting fragments. How much energy is in each form depends on the type of fission reaction. I repeat, this is irrelevant to E=mc² which only deals with how much energy is liberated by the mass loss.

IMO.

Cosmo

I'm going to be frank:

Nobody cares what your opinion is. The Universe doesn't care what your opinion is, It continues to operates by its rules whether you approve of or understand them or not.

There may be an old saying that: "Everyone is entitled to an opinion.", but not every opinion is worthy of attention.

When it comes to opinion, it is only informed opinions that are worth notice. You, on the other hand, have been posting vastly ill-informed opinions.

**DrRocket** · August 1st, 2009, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Janus

I read your first post, and it had nothing resembling a dimensional analysis, Just some non-sequitor statements. It is obvious that you don't know what a dimensional analysis is.

We are dealing here with the E 'n Fo and the 3 dimentions are ENERGY, MASS and
VELOCITY.

So what kind of energy are you talking about? Energy in its general form covers a LOT of different energies.

Cosmo,

You hereby have conclusively proved that you have no idea what "dimensions" really are. That fits in well with your apparent total misunderstanding of physics in general. You haven't gotten much right yet.

Energy and mass are the same thing. That is the content of

and it is why mass in particle physics is commonly measured in electron-volts. So those two dimensions are redundant.

Mass is typically measured in grams or kilograms. Length is measured in meters and time in seconds.

Now you can indeed make speed a fundamental unit, and that is what is done when one uses units in which c=1. In those units time is measured in meters, and one second is approximately the time during which light travels

cm.

However it is more common to measure distance in meters and time in seconds in which case speed is a derived unit distance/time.

Velocity, on the other hand, is a vector quantity and so is never a fundamental dimension.

Energy manifests itself in different forms, but it is all energy. If you fail to understand this basic point, then that explains why your misconceptions regarding physics are so pervasive. You really do need to get a good physics book and read it so that you have some small chance of understanding what people are telling you.

The dimensional analysis that goes with

goes like this.

c has dimensions of speed and those are

so

has dimensions of

. So

has dimensions of

Now force has dimensions of

so we see that

has dimensions of

which is energy.

**Cosmo** · August 2nd, 2009, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Waveman28

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Dr.

Can you give me an example of E'ns formula solving a problem like the energy of a photon?

Cosmo

Last time I checked, the energy of a photon was given by: E=hf

Yes, but that is not E'ns formula.
That is deBrogleis formula.

Even though he came up with the idea of matter waves, he knew that photons do not have mass.

Cosmo

**Cosmo** · August 2nd, 2009, 09:34 AM

Janus

You sound like a BB'er.

I do not believe in the BBT.
They use the same kind of replies when it comes to real physics.

For instance, when you throw the Conservation Laws at them, they say it is irrelevant because the CL's did not exist then.
Also used whenever you ask them any question.
It is 'irrelavant'.

For your information, matter is matter and energy is energ. They are NOT convertible.
Those matter discrepancies resulting from the fusion process are due to the magnetic field patterns surrounding the individual matter particles such as the deuterons and the helium nuclei because these mass values are INERTIAL mass values. So these different fields around these particles going through the FIXED measuring fields cause these slight discrepancies. The real masses are not individualy variable.

The BBT is fiction and yet just about everyone swallows it .

Cosmo

**Cosmo** · August 2nd, 2009, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Dr

c has dimensions of speed and those are length/time, so c^2 has dimensions of length^2/time^2. So has dimensions of Now force has dimensions of so we see that has dimensions of which is energy.

Did not paste properly. Right mouse button disabled by HACKER.

Your substitution of force for mass is not credible.
Forces are intrinsic to matter but they are NOT the same.
Electron mass and the force it contains are not equal values.
And you cannot use c with mass because it has NO mass.

Cosmo

**DrRocket** · August 2nd, 2009, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Dr

c has dimensions of speed and those are length/time, so c^2 has dimensions of length^2/time^2. So has dimensions of Now force has dimensions of so we see that has dimensions of which is energy.

Did not paste properly. Right mouse button disabled by HACKER.

Your substitution of force for mass is not credible.
Forces are intrinsic to matter but they are NOT the same.
Electron mass and the force it contains are not equal values.
And you cannot use c with mass because it has NO mass.

Cosmo

"That's not right. It's not even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli

You conitnue to display total ignorance of both mathematics and physics. Why don't you try something for which you are better suited ? I think there may be a local opening for a shepherd.

I did not substitute force for mass. But if you recall

you will find that the dimensions for force are

Forces are not intrinsic to matter. That is simply ridiculous.

Of course force and matter are different. They have different dimensions, which you would understand if you understood what a dimension is. But you don't.

Electrons do not contain a force. That idea is patently ridiculous. You quite clearly do not understand the concepts of either "mass" or "force".

c is a speed. It has the dimension of length/time. The idea of associating mass with speed is just one more example of your complete lack of understanding of all of physics and mathematics.

You have managed to clearly demonstrate total and complete ignorance of all aspects of physics. It is hard to imagine but you have managed to get everything wrong. And not just a little bit wrong. There is no hope for you whatever. None.

**drowsy turtle** · August 2nd, 2009, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Did not paste properly. Right mouse button disabled by HACKER.

Your substitution of force for mass is not credible.

Mass is measure, here on Earth at least, by the force caused due to gravity in a the Earth's gravitational field.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Electron mass and the force it contains are not equal values.

Force, no.
Energy, yes.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

And you cannot use c with mass because it has NO mass.

c is just a velocity, it does not have mass, correct. But, to show you how it is linked to mass:

take these two formulae:

These formulae show the same thing.

In both, energy is proportional to mass multiplied by velocity squared.

Unless you are suggesting they are both wrong, the only arguement I can see that you have is that the value for c is wrong. Is this what you are trying to say?

**fizzlooney** · August 3rd, 2009, 12:11 PM

time for ancient Chinese proverb:Never argue with a fool ,for soon no one knows which is which. E still equals m^2 in my book.

**DrRocket** · August 3rd, 2009, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by fizzlooney

time for ancient Chinese proverb:Never argue with a fool ,for soon no one knows which is which. E still equals m^2 in my book.

How about E=mc^2 ?

**Cosmo** · August 4th, 2009, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Force, no.
Energy, yes.

I never knew energy has weight? Ha ha.

c is just a velocity, it does not have mass, correct. But, to show you how it is linked to mass:

take these two formulae:

These formulae show the same thing.

In both, energy is proportional to mass multiplied by velocity squared.

Unless you are suggesting they are both wrong, the only arguement I can see that you have is that the value for c is wrong. Is this what you are trying to say?

No. c is a well proven constant. But c does not include mass in its value.

Cosmo

**Cosmo** · August 4th, 2009, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Dr

Forces are not intrinsic to matter. That is simply ridiculous.

Of course force and matter are different. They have different dimensions, which you would understand if you understood what a dimension is. But you don't.

The electron mass is = 9.109^-31 kgs.........This is a dimension
The electron has 'charge' equal to 1.602 ^-19 Couloms. This is a dimention.

The charges are really 'forces' because they create 'action at a distance'.

Need I say more?

Cosmo

**DrRocket** · August 5th, 2009, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Dr

Forces are not intrinsic to matter. That is simply ridiculous.

Of course force and matter are different. They have different dimensions, which you would understand if you understood what a dimension is. But you don't.

The electron mass is = 9.109^-31 kgs.........This is a dimension
The electron has 'charge' equal to 1.602 ^-19 Couloms. This is a dimention.

The charges are really 'forces' because they create 'action at a distance'.

Need I say more?

Cosmo

No you need not say more -- at least to prove that you remain clueless regarding physics.

Charge is not force. Force can be calculated from a knowledge of charge (with distance to define the electric field), velocity and magnetic field strength using force equations from electrodynamics (the Lorentz force equation). But that hardly says that charge and force are the same thing, any more than F=ma makes acceleration and force the same thing, which they most certainly are not.

You have clearly demonstrated that you have no knowledge of either physics or mathematics. In fact, the situation is even more dire. That which you think you know is false. You have actually managed to reach a state of negative knowledge of physics.

**Dishmaster** · August 6th, 2009, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The electron mass is = 9.109^-31 kgs.........This is a dimension
The electron has 'charge' equal to 1.602 ^-19 Couloms. This is a dimention.

The charges are really 'forces' because they create 'action at a distance'.

Care to look here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

Charge is not a force. But it can produce a field that again influences another charge that feels a force from that.

This equation tells you that a charge, labelled Q, produces an electric field, whose strength depends on the distance from the charge. Now, if you have a second charge, labelled q, this charge feels the field. The electric field produces a force that influences that charge q. The resulting force depends on the distance from the initial charge Q.

So, alone from this result you see that the charge alone is not a force. At least the distance between the two charges is a crucial parameter you seem to forget.

**Cosmo** · August 6th, 2009, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The electron mass is = 9.109^-31 kgs.........This is a dimension
The electron has 'charge' equal to 1.602 ^-19 Couloms. This is a dimention.

The charges are really 'forces' because they create 'action at a distance'.

Care to look here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

Charge is not a force. But it can produce a field that again influences another charge that feels a force from that.

This equation tells you that a charge, labelled Q, produces an electric field, whose strength depends on the distance from the charge. Now, if you have a second charge, labelled q, this charge feels the field. The electric field produces a force that influences that charge q. The resulting force depends on the distance from the initial charge Q.

So, alone from this result you see that the charge alone is not a force. At least the distance between the two charges is a crucial parameter you seem to forget.

Dish

That website has 2 illustrations. The top one shows the nature of a magnetic field created by an electric current in a coil. So this combination represents the EM forces.
That illustration should have had the bi-polar nature of the MF 's shown where those fields rotate from north to south.

What I said above pertains to only the 'electron' and the proton. So the 2nd illustration can be viewed by scrolling down a short distance.
This illustration shows the nature of the coulomb forces.
These fields radiate in all 3 directions and these fields create attraction between opposite charges and repulsion between similar charges.
So this is what I was referring too.

Magnetic fields also exist in isolation in the iron elements.
So both forces can exist independantly.

Cosmo

Thread: E=mc^2 Credibility

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Related Discussions:

Bookmarks