so what does "E=MC^2" imply?

To me "E" is the quanta that represents Energy.
"M" represents the quanta of Mass which so happens to be found to occupy a maximum area equal to C^2..

Therefore obviously the more mass we compress into C^2 the more Potential energy we could state we have stored in C^2, we should also note the more solid this area would present the more mass therein, and the question now is where does kinetic energy come into the equation...

"Energy" we may or may not know represents the ability to do work and or better inferred to cause change and when we have a stored amount of energy the energy can be inferred as Potential Energy, a single mass occupying a C^2 area can be said to be with a potential of a single mass and if we introduced another mass to the C^2 area we could imply we now have the potential of two masses and or the energy of two, but how can we utilise this energy? we are already somewhat doing this via the use of common Air compressors..

Lets briefly turn our attention to change or the inference to kinetics and or Kinetic energy where stored and or Potential energy is converted to Kinetic energy energy exerting change and or some sort of momentum (velocities)..

Change can be expressed best via a fraction of a velocity at "c", keep this in mind because when we have two or more velocities at "c" meeting we have an area that is more dense or we could see this as an area experiencing opposing forces (or think of two or more breezes meeting in a set area), better expressed as a Space-Time area via the calculus of implied area experiencing velocities for a given time frame and or rate and it should be noted the central meeting point presents as an area with simply a fraction of implied meeting velocities even though the velocity remain constant relative to all other local velocities and this is the same as with in all space-time areas..

Momentum and or a velocity is the result of change, and momentum can only be possible via force and it should be noted force is the result of velocities and can only ever be repulsive, no ifs and no buts!

OK having established that an area with some density the minimum being near vacuum is an area equal to C^2 and is what a single mass can occupy (as anything greater in area its potential would equal closer to zero) and therefore it should be considered with the least potential and or presence as we refer to it as (space) hence the maximum velocity at "c" being of course with least opposing potential.

We can now imagine to introduce enough mass so that an area of C^2 is with somewhat more density to it, we should note this can be done via introducing velocities from new origins and or via two or more established space-time areas with implied velocities can be compressed together, Importantly the area should be seen with a lot more Potential energy to it by us doing this, this also implies the compressed area must be experiencing an ongoing opposing exertion if it is to exist in an ongoing manner, and that's where the ongoing velocities come into it, as other wise the compressed mass would spread out back to occupy its maximum occupancy again...

And here is where many do not understand that all areas that present as solids must be experiencing an ongoing exertion to it as in (gravity) but note here and now gravity is not a magical pulling force but rather the result from the inbound force/s and or velocities that created the local space-time and or solid area in the first place, and no where more is this confusion apparent than when we have before us a solid mass surrounded by highly kinetic mass that is in a near vacuum state, this may seem at first a contradiction and if one does a search on gravity and relativity images - Not one of the images have depicted the relativity grids correctly because of this misunderstanding..

Every single image I have come across have the compression grids exerting space-time incorrectly and if one was to animate them would have the implied solid area exerted away from implied meeting velocities ending up in the solid area able to become kinetic from the lacking inbound velocities~ allowing it to spread out and resume to occupy its maximum area again..

Any questions?

which so happens to be found to occupy a maximum area equal to C^2..

Wrong. Check the units.

Crackpot += 1.

Gotcha!

E=MC^2

One mass can only have the energy of one..
Have two compressed into the same area and we double the Potential kinetic energy..

Looks like your the crackpot nay quack pot!

One mass can only have the energy of one..
Have two compressed into the same area and we double the Potential kinetic energy..
Eh? I can see that you and Farsight will get along.

And:
so what does "E=MC^2" imply?
It implies that a particle of mass m has rest energy E = m c^2.

Have you ever considered what your beloved particle consists of?

Have you considered what and how does your postulated particle present its presence to the rest of the universe?

My guess is you dont have a clue, by your choice of the easy way out! by just advocating as a crank buster..

of course you can turn things around and gain some credibility by conveying why and how your views stand..

And I see you have done this somewhat to which we now can consider why the inference to mass at rest...

Lets consider what you mean by mass at rest, becuase when we refer to newtons laws on force and motion mass at rest simply can not ever be possible, correct me if I am wrong but for one if mass is to exude its presence it must consist with forces, forces infers velocities are apparent, and velocities imply Kinetic energy and well kinetic energy implies Potential energy is being expended..

one should also note that all mass is at all times with a certain kinetic energy, momentum and or jiggle and this is due to the propagation of the electromagnetic spectrum and or electron charge if we are reffering to areas of our universe that are solid.

Have you ever pondered as to why the speed of "c" is propagated slower in a solid? have you crunched the numbers for your self?

well nows your chance by doing it here.. and I dont take kindly to cut and paste~n BTW and i may question your calculus..

We can now imagine...

Agreed, you will get along with Farsight.

Yep, Farsight all over again :rolleyes:

But what the hell:
Have you ever considered what your beloved particle consists of?
Is there an answer I could provide (either serious or pulled out of my ass) that would be immune to the same question being recursively applied to it?
Have you considered what and how does your postulated particle present its presence to the rest of the universe?
Via interactions with other particles in the universe?
of course you can turn things around and gain some credibility by conveying why and how your views stand..
Your respect isn't really important to me, so I won't bother. Incidentally, it's why I am not moved by your views and arguments that I would have to explain. I haven't expressed any views of my own here that need defending. I have in other threads, though, where you're welcome to challenge, agree with, or ignore them as you see fit.

Tell you what though. I'll give you a little tip regarding more effective ad hominem attacks against your opponents: when you want to accuse us of indoctrination and so on, don't compare us to the Catholic church or yourself to Galileo or Bruno. It's getting old. Instead, consider comparing us to Nazis, Communists, or perhaps even the Borg. You may also like to accuse us of being the types of people who would willingly eat babies/sell our grandmothers/drown cute puppies etc. You can safely conclude all of this about anyone who disagrees with you and dares to express this opinion.

Sorry if I come off as arrogant and dismissive, but I've been through this too many times before. If you were really interested in making serious contributions, you'd have first taken the time to catch up with and ensure you properly understand the 400 years of physics that has preceded you.

Yep, Farsight all over again :rolleyes:

But what the hell:

Is there an answer I could provide (either serious or pulled out of my ass) that would be immune to the same question being recursively applied to it?

Via interactions with other particles in the universe?

OK a good starting point would be with your inference to postulated Particles reacting with other postulated particles, and let ME say that's nicely expressed BTW...

But the problem is you have failed to express exactly what constitutes and or is the make up of your implied and or postulated particles and as to how such an area pertaining to a particle is even possible?

Let alone how implied particle is able to be part of the dynamics that give rise to electron flow and or the propagation of the electromagnetic spectrum, which also can be referred to, by way of treating the implied dynamics via the reference to Potential and Kinetic energy with all its implications to General and Special relativity..

Obviously an easy way is to manage and explain ones constructs would be via the assigning of language and or quanta to our observations, so lets start from scratch and let me ask what quanta best fits your particles construct?

As in the expected energy and lets consider its area of occupancy

So hows that sound?

Err~ if that's to complicated for you just resume with the crackpot remarks so that I know who I am dealing.. :cool:

Boy the pseudoscience forum is becoming a busy place:)

So hows that sound?

Like gibberish.

Pseudoscience!??? What The!???

Obviously the moderators of Sciforum are so stupid they know squat!:cool:

At least this site is able to show me what a moron is... :p

Thanks for that all of you!..

Please feel free to further post any comments

But only if your real intent is to acknowledge that you are a moronic Loser!:

A loser worse than the moderators of this crappy forum!

2~duh~Loo! Loser!:p

At least this site is able to show me what a moron is...

We were happy to oblige. :)

But, I'm sure others have told you that already.

At least this site is able to show me what a moron is...
Sciforums - reflecting the reality....

Sciforums - reflecting the reality....

Niiiiiiice...

Pseudoscience!??? What The!???
Yes it's a sub-forum and the usual dumping ground for the inane.

Obviously the moderators of Sciforum are so stupid they know squat!:cool:
To Err is human, this statement reflects that although the moderators can get it wrong from time to time, so can any other forums poster. (Even the robot's can Err since they are written by humans)

At least this site is able to show me what a moron is... :p
Apparently Moron is a no longer used term for a person with a 50 to 69 IQ, The terms 'Extremely Low IQ" or "Mild Mental Retardation" is supposedly used instead. [source: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm]

Thanks for that all of you!..
I'm sure people feel more obliged by your commentary to respond in regards to your graciousness.

Please feel free to further post any comments
Have done in regards to your rude attacks. Quite simply the below quoted from your initial post does nothing to either prove what your initial post was about or aid in any further investigation within it's subject.

Writing such retorts purely because your post is placed within a pseudoscience section, merely proves that the thread probably belongs here if not the cesspool.

However you should realize that the pseudoscience forum is a forum that is suppose to give you the chance of redemption before its dumped into the cesspool.

This will just require a little homework from yourself to find the required supporting evidence for your argument, as just 'Your own personal theory' isn't strong enough an argument.

But only if your real intent is to acknowledge that you are a moronic Loser!:

A loser worse than the moderators of this crappy forum!

2~duh~Loo! Loser!:p

I left the above quote so you might identify what unprofessionalism is.

He's gone Stryder. I imagine he's some keen young lad burning with curiousity and energy, who really wants to do physics. But he gets sneers instead of sincerity, abuse instead of guidance, and will doubtless find his metier in the social "sciences". Meanwhile physics departments close down, and this forum is a dead zone. It's rather sad.

By the way, you lay it on a bit thick. And redemption? LOL. We'll talk about redemption at a later date. I shall have fun recounting my experiences then.

...". Meanwhile physics departments close down, ....

Dude, physics class isn't where you do creative writing exercises and make stuff up. If these kids have a real interest in physics, they just have to study, that's all. They shouldn't start by trying to re-interpret well understood and supported hypotheses, until they have a good grounding.

The problem is, too many kids are taught their opinion matters. Well, when it comes to physics, it doesn't. Gravity does not care what your opinion of it is as you plunge towards the ground!

Pseudoscience!??? What The!??? ...

Hey LaidBack, its a tradition here ie. if most members dont like what u say then the thread is labeled as PseudoScience without proving why its so.

I was going to ask a question to u but i dont like PseudoScience, so forget it.

Dude, physics class isn't where you do creative writing exercises and make stuff up. If these kids have a real interest in physics, they just have to study, that's all...

They have in interest in how the world works, a natural curiosity, a desire to work it out. They come here demonstrating all this, but instead of friendly correction and encouragement, they get it knocked on the head. This forum is a dead zone as far as physics is concerned, and the sneering stifling "debunking" is why. Interested in physics sonny? Well get on the internet and have the piss taken out of you, you daft little crackpot. We'll soon knock that interest out of you. And the result? Physics departments are closing down. So maybe you guys are proud of yourselves, but you should be ashamed.

Actually the problem is the moderators, they dont care about the personal insults made, Over that they have given vast unfetted power to loonies.

How this is destroying SciForums is posted here http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65996

I think your point is demonstrated by this thread, Singularity. Laidback receives "crackpot" abuse and sneers, then stands up for himself until he realises he's been dumped into pseudoscience by a moderator who clearly endorses all this. Then he leaves in disgust. Then a moderator steps in - on the side of the abusers. I'm sorry Stryder, but this forum is in a sorry state.

I imagine he's some keen young lad
He put "retired" under "occupation" in his profile.
LOL. We'll talk about redemption at a later date. I shall have fun recounting my experiences then.
Here, I've found you a kindred spirit as well as a goal to work toward: http://net-prophet.net/nobul/nobul.htm.

I imagine he's some keen young lad burning with curiousity and energy, who really wants to do physics. But he gets sneers instead of sincerity, abuse instead of guidance, and will doubtless find his metier in the social "sciences". Meanwhile physics departments close down, and this forum is a dead zone. It's rather sad.

How touching. I just pointed out an inconsistency in his first line, one that a high school student could habe seen.

Should I explain why hes wrong?

They have in interest in how the world works, a natural curiosity, a desire to work it out.

If this is so, then one should actually learn physics first, instead of going around pretending they know how to explain things. It took humans 600 years to understand the natural world to the level we currently understand it. If you want to bypass all of that knowledge, your ideas will be 600 years old.

Post deleted. Life's too short.

They have in interest in how the world works, a natural curiosity, a desire to work it out. They come here demonstrating all this, but instead of friendly correction and encouragement, they get it knocked on the head.

Well, I know I'm old and my schooling predates the Internet, but the information required is in books, not on a discussion forum. I spent time in lecture theatres and laboratories learning my Physics, not dreaming up pet theories.

This forum is a dead zone as far as physics is concerned, and the sneering stifling "debunking" is why. Interested in physics sonny? Well get on the internet and have the piss taken out of you, you daft little crackpot. We'll soon knock that interest out of you. And the result? Physics departments are closing down. So maybe you guys are proud of yourselves, but you should be ashamed.

Oh, blame the Internet and it's denizens for Physics departments closing! Not the root cause at all, sorry. Physics isn't popular because it's hard. There are wrong answers. Education these days is too much about choice and opinion, and not enough about cold hard facts. Science lessons are drowned amongst 'Leisure and Tourism' classes and such at school these days. 'Science' is also a combined class afaik, no distinct lessons in Physics, Biology or Chemistry for the first couple of years of secondary education. This is why Physics Degrees aren't popular; we are not preparing our children for them adequately.

No, the information is on the Internet too. Or should be. And when people show an interest and look for it, they should be met with encouragement and guidance instead of sneers and abuse. The Internet is an inspiration, an encyclopaedia at your fingertips, a gold mine of information and ideas. I don't blame the Internet for Physics Departments closing. I blame, I will blame, people. People who are lost in abstraction and parallel worlds and time travel, who don't understand basic concepts and who can't explain them, who won't relate to people who can't talk highbrow. Physics isn't popular because it's hard, it's because people make it hard, because of intellectual arrogance. And don't want it to be easy. Do you know my first userid at Physics Forums was? Popular. Banned Forever, Reason: Crackpot.

They have in interest in how the world works, a natural curiosity, a desire to work it out. They come here demonstrating all this, but instead of friendly correction and encouragement, they get it knocked on the head. This forum is a dead zone as far as physics is concerned, and the sneering stifling "debunking" is why. Interested in physics sonny? Well get on the internet and have the piss taken out of you, you daft little crackpot. We'll soon knock that interest out of you. And the result? Physics departments are closing down. So maybe you guys are proud of yourselves, but you should be ashamed.

Pretending to be interested in physics and pretending to understand physics is just that; pretending.

Demanding that pretend physics should supersede actual physics does not demonstrate a 'desire to work it out' especially when correction and encouragement are flatly ignored.

And when people show an interest and look for it, they should be met with encouragement and guidance instead of sneers and abuse.

You've shown no interest in physics, but instead have come here emphatically stating that all physics is wrong and your version of pretend physics; ie. gibberish, is correct. Sneers and abuse is therefore forthcoming.

People who are lost in abstraction and parallel worlds and time travel, who don't understand basic concepts and who can't explain them, who won't relate to people who can't talk highbrow.

That describes you.

Physics isn't popular because it's hard, it's because people make it hard, because of intellectual arrogance. And don't want it to be easy. Do you know my first userid at Physics Forums was? Popular. Banned Forever, Reason: Crackpot.

You were a crackpot there and you are a crackpot here. You most likely won't get banned here just for that, though. So, don't worry, be happy.

No, the information is on the Internet too.

There is information of varying quality on the Internet. The problem is people believing what they read, and not thinking critically. That is the value of Sciforums at least, we are critical, but you think that a bad thing!

when people show an interest and look for it, they should be met with encouragement and guidance instead of sneers and abuse.

There are plenty of good conversations amogst real physicists, but you seem to be championing the woowoos. Why?

The Internet is an inspiration, an encyclopaedia at your fingertips, a gold mine of information and ideas.

Yeah, looky what I found;

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/relative.gif



I don't blame the Internet for Physics Departments closing. I blame, I will blame, people. People who are lost in abstraction and parallel worlds and time travel,

Too much of that is on the WWW, and without people like us debunking it, it could lure people in.


who don't understand basic concepts and who can't explain them, who won't relate to people who can't talk highbrow.

Basic concepts are taught in the classroom, and it's obvious the kids we have talking rubbish on here were probably off smoking spliff and bunking off class. It's not up to us to replace the education they ignored, nor humour their delsuional ramblings.

Physics isn't popular because it's hard, it's because people make it hard, because of intellectual arrogance. And don't want it to be easy.

Physics just is. It's hard, because the Universe is complex. Kids don't like it because there are wrong answers, it's not about opinion, or how you feel about something, but cold hard facts. Kids would rather gossip about celebrities or dream about being a footballers wife, than learn something Academic.

There is information of varying quality on the Internet. The problem is people believing what they read, and not thinking critically. That is the value of Sciforums at least, we are critical, but you think that a bad thing!

Yep, you're critical. But you're not thinking at all.

There are plenty of good conversations amongst real physicists, but you seem to be championing the woowoos. Why? Yes, there are. But I'm not championing the "woowoos". I'm pushing for encouragement and correction, for sincerity and engagement instead of "debunking" that involves only sneering abuse and discouragement. I mean, look at Q. That's all he contributes. Tragic.

Basic concepts are taught in the classroom, and it's obvious the kids we have talking rubbish on here were probably off smoking spliff and bunking off class. It's not up to us to replace the education they ignored, nor humour their delsuional ramblings. No, basic concepts are not taught in the classroom. What do you think my essays are all about?

TIME EXPLAINED
ENERGY EXPLAINED
MASS EXPLAINED
GRAVITY EXPLAINED

You don't understand the basic concepts. I do. But in your strange illogical world I'm a woowoo for saying I understand mass because nobody understand mass QED. It's kafkaesque. You think you're thinking critically? Try thinking critically about Mass Explained. Oh, but you don't have to, do you, because it's crackpot? You just couldn't make it up.

Physics just is. It's hard, because the Universe is complex. Kids don't like it because there are wrong answers, it's not about opinion, or how you feel about something, but cold hard facts. Kids would rather gossip about celebrities or dream about being a footballers wife, than learn something Academic. If it's hard, why? What's the problem in trying to make it easy? Loss of funding? And by cold hard facts are we talking about String Theory? The Higgs Boson? Many Worlds? Time Travel? Black Hole singularities? Geddoutofit. Some kids are interested in finding out about the world, and you make it too academic, to dry, to dull, and too difficult for them.

I plan to change that.

So, what did you say about MASS EXPLAINED?

I agree, I vote for Cesspool.

LOL, thinking critically I see. But not thinking at all. And oh boy, threads started by phlogistician:

http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=1376521

You're no physicist. FFS, goodbye.

You're no physicist. FFS, goodbye.
You planning on taking over from Anne Robinson when she retires?

Actually the problem is the moderators, they dont care about the personal insults made, Over that they have given vast unfetted power to loonies.

How this is destroying SciForums is posted here http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65996

Moderators care about the state of sciforums, the problem however is how people react when moderators try to deal with the trouble makers. Too many people cry that their freedoms and their rights are violated, suggesting the moderator team are some sort of illuminati group.

If the moderators don't interact at all they show how anarchists manipulate the people within these forums to talk smack about each other.

There is a lot of people that cry wolf and then some that cry it after stirring the wolves up. If they get bitten or mauled then it's their own fault, it's just some forums users that seem to have 'Selective hearing' who ignore how those individuals act and see the moderators as to blame.

Moderators care about the state of sciforums, the problem however is how people react when moderators try to deal with the trouble makers. Too many people cry that their freedoms and their rights are violated, suggesting the moderator team are some sort of illuminati group.

If the moderators don't interact at all they show how anarchists manipulate the people within these forums to talk smack about each other.

There is a lot of people that cry wolf and then some that cry it after stirring the wolves up. If they get bitten or mauled then it's their own fault, it's just some forums users that seem to have 'Selective hearing' who ignore how those individuals act and see the moderators as to blame.

I wont be surprised if i am again and again insulted in this thread http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1387441#post1387441

I think what has happened since introduction of infractions is worst than days with only moderators, ie. good guys have left the building.

Yes, there are. But I'm not championing the "woowoos". I'm pushing for encouragement and correction,

Look bub, when the proposed ideas are so far off, it takes too much red ink to correct, in fact, it's uncorectable too often.

No, basic concepts are not taught in the classroom. What do you think my essays are all about?

TIME EXPLAINED
ENERGY EXPLAINED
MASS EXPLAINED
GRAVITY EXPLAINED


Basic concepts are taught in the classroom. Kids have to learn to walk before they can run. Sorry if that means a long hard slog before they can get to play with particle accelerators, but that's just the way it is. Your essays are about your ego, obviously.

You don't understand the basic concepts. I do.

You claim you do, but for some reason, aren't a published authority on the matter. You choose to post your essays on a web forum, instead of peer reviewed journals. Someon, wise up, nobody is going to take you seriously, and you certainly aren't going to trigger a paradigm shift from Sciforums.

But in your strange illogical world I'm a woowoo for saying I understand mass because nobody understand mass QED.

You only think you understand mass. We all understand the equations and ramafications, but nobody actually understands the cause. It's a black box, and you haven't peeked inside.

You just couldn't make it up. I think that's exactly what you are doing.

If it's hard, why? What's the problem in trying to make it easy?

It is just hard. Let me explain; to mathematically describe the shape of the curve described by a chain hanging under gravity between two supports, you need a binomial expansion utilising a complex number. It just is complicated. Nobody decided it had to be this way so they could sell physics courses, it just is that way.

Some kids are interested in finding out about the world, and you make it too academic, to dry, to dull, and too difficult for them.

I already told you, nobody made the subject anything. The subject, is the subject. It is an academic subject, it's just you think you you are so above it. It's not too difficult for kids, or at least wasn't. Science just isn't fashionable, and it is harder than soft skills, so kids avoid it, end of story.

I plan to change that.

From Sciforums?

Wrong. Check the units.

Implied Crackpot is now showing me that I am really the know it all Crackpot!
And therefore next time I will not judge so hastily

The speed of Light equals around 300,000 Km/sec..

Regardless of what quanta "c" equals

If we use the quanta "c" in our calculus to define an area that consists with mass we still can calculate {via E=MC^2} the Potential Kinetic Energy to it, it does not matter what "c" equals.. As long as for each area of mass the same we use the same quanta.. Seriously! Are you paying attention here?

Anyway "Justin Case" before we proceed further , perhaps if one spends some time at the following Links one may refresh what is involved and why the units do stack up!

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed-1.html
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/02/23/why-does-emc2/
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01709.htm

Having reinforced ones memory... lets play around with E=MC^2

Now once again I will repeat my interpretation of what the formula Implies to me, in that if we have an area that consists with mass and an area was defined with a given yard stick, which may measure out an area equal to one metre by one metre by one meter and on calculus the Energy check-summed to be equal to one, of course we know "c" is much greater and the energies checksum therefore should reflect this, but lets hope the quanta I used is basic enough for all those crackpot and or crank busters that are really slow and or extremely challenged in calculus that they can comprehend what I attempted to imply..

NOW - If we squeezed another area "one meter by one meter by one meter of mass" into another area of one meter by one meter by one meter of mass so that the two occupy the area equal to one meter by meter by one meter, Err~ for the really slow ~ yeah you should know by now which one of ewe has bleeped like a sheep!

Just think of the forces and or velocities that infer the forces utilised by an air compressor squeezing a gas into a liquid state and or even to solid state of mass within it strong enough to perhaps even rapture the Container.
Yeah obviously we are stuffing a lot more mass into a larger area but by golly you should get the general idea by now!

If we go back to where I have postulated where a mass can occupy a given area and we then stuffed two of these areas (the same) together so that two are now occupying where one normally would we would have in the implied area the energy of two areas now occupying an area equal to a single mass! But by squeezing the two together we have also Increased their Potential Kinetic Energy and if not for the containment forces would simply return to spread out at the velocity at "c" less the speed of any opposing velocities..

So where does my implied quanta and or units not stack up?

I insist you carefully try ones calculus again but this time by using 300,000 Km/s for "c" to give our implied distances for the areas definition and you will see the energy will double if we have two of em squashed to occupy where one would normally occupy~ Hell! why not go ballistic! and try as many masses as one likes! And you will see it will always stack up!

OK? Can we move on to some more advanced Physics or do we still have to clarify more of basics?

Eh? I can see that you and Farsight will get along.

And:

It implies that a particle of mass m has rest energy E = m c^2.


If Farsight has a passion for Physics and he is Civil yes indeed...

But why exclude yourself, if you can point out others shaky constructs and or problems in a civil manner then we should get a long just fine..

As for the sheep that bleep from fear of some bullies input are just as useless as the ignorant bully !

Look~ We are all prone to anomalies, Including me! But what I don't have time for are moronic know-it all's that come out with an immediate crank and or crackpot remark!

Hey LaidBack, its a tradition here ie. if most members don't like what u say then the thread is labeled as Pseudoscience without proving why its so.

I was going to ask a question to u but i don't like PseudoScience, so forget it.


Don't let know it alls dictate..

Strider has advised me he will attempt to move this thread away from pseudoscience section..
so as soon as he does this then I will be keen to address your question.. and let me assure you it wont be answered with the same attitude as other sheep and or bullies here..

The speed of Light equals around 300,000 Km/sec..

Good. I agree. But how is this at all equal to area. The first line, from the original post:

"M" represents the quanta of Mass which so happens to be found to occupy a maximum area equal to C^2..

You say "Area = c^2" effectively. Yes or no?

and let me assure you it wont be answered with the same attitude as other sheep and or bullies here..

So go tell your mommy...

If this is so, then one should actually learn physics first, instead of going around pretending they know how to explain things. It took humans 600 years to understand the natural world to the level we currently understand it. If you want to bypass all of that knowledge, your ideas will be 600 years old.
Agreed! and let me point out..

You have NOT pointed out anything! All you have done is fed your ego with an unfounded smugness..

Have you applied your self to the provided links via my previous posts and come up with why "I" and "The supplied links" data that is backed up by your per your claim of 600 years or more are wrong?

Another thought is perhaps I haven't been clear enough? and I do apologise for that... and if this is the case then perhaps questions would have served better?

If we are to depend on your rebuffs are consisting with some credibility then you should be able to point out where I and over 600 years or more have gone wrong!???

Seriously! If my calculus and or reasoning is flawed then by all means point it out in full, but please with out the childish snide remarks~ and or via a simplistic utterance of "you are wrong!" with out the reason why I am wrong!

So lets now get your point of view across as to why you have a problem with my reasoning and why I am wrong...
This should be easy if you imply its high school physics! ~ RIGHT!???

Perhaps you could clarify what mass is and how the implied energy pertaining to mass is transferred from area to area and or how the Electromagnetic spectrum increases and decreases the Potential kinetic energy of an area (Via Mass Kinetically Jiggling) and or how your postulated Particles interact via the exchange of Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy which implies compression and decompresses via the implied forces resulting from inferred velocities.

Or perhaps your model dont conform to the electronics Industries models, even so, I certainly still would like to hear about it?

So u mean light is a point particle since it has no mass and hence it should not get reflected, instead it should pass through all matter even better than neutrinos :D

Have you applied your self to the provided links via my previous posts and come up with why "I" and "The supplied links" data that is backed up by your per your claim of 600 years or more are wrong?

I haven't even looked at your links. I haven't claimed that physics is wrong. All I've done is point out that

\frac{m^2}{s^2} \neq m^2.

Another thought is perhaps I haven't been clear enough? and I do apologise for that... and if this is the case then perhaps questions would have served better?

This may be the case. I was only pointing out that the above relation isn't true, so your initial statment about the amount of mass fitting in one area c^2 is wrong. I don't really feel the need to read anything else of your posts untill you clarify this.

And I am quite sure that the links you posted don't support this interpretation. Mark Trodden wrote the blog post at CosmicVariance.com. I have met him. We shared Lamb Saag after he gave a colloquium here at OSU. And I can assure you that he didn't say that c^2 can be thought of as a unit of area.

Seriously! If my calculus and or reasoning is flawed then by all means point it out in full, but please with out the childish snide remarks~ and or via a simplistic utterance of "you are wrong!" with out the reason why I am wrong!

I thought I was pretty explicit about showing you where you were wrong. c^2 is not a unit of area.

Perhaps you could clarify what mass is

Mass is the coupling of matter to the higgs field, in the quantum sense, or the curvature of space-time, in the GR sense.

and how the implied energy pertaining to mass is transferred from area to area and or how the Electromagnetic spectrum increases and decreases the Potential kinetic energy of an area (Via Mass Kinetically Jiggling) and or how your postulated Particles interact via the exchange of Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy which implies compression and decompresses via the implied forces resulting from inferred velocities.

As for the rest of this (run-on) scentence, about half of it I cannot comprehend. Perhaps state your objections more coherently?

So u mean light is a point particle since it has no mass and hence it should not get reflected, instead it should pass through all matter even better than neutrinos

No... Light interracts with matter, neutrinos don't.

Good. I agree. But how is this at all equal to area. The first line, from the original post:



You say "Area = c^2" effectively. Yes or no?
Please read any supplied links supplied by my previous post..
Yes, the C^2 even though it is not C^3 can still be calculated and implied as the sum of an area, of course to imply a 3 dimensional area we have to divide the SUM of C^2 into three dimensions so that each dimension can represent a variable for "length" "width" and height, now if we measure out another area and the area is the same as the other and then we compressed them to represent as an area where normally we would have one then for the area that consists with twice the quanta compressed into it then we should have double the energy..

OK~ Here's the calculus

Ex1=Mx1 x "C^2" ** But note ** If we define that "c" equals=1 we would have the following calculus..

Ex1=Mx1 x "c=1x1" therefore we can imply an uncompressed state where the energy is equal to 1

now if we have Mx2 x 1 x1 the energy would equal 2!

now lets use another variable for "c"

Ex4 = Mx1 X 2 x 2 and if we stuff another M x 2 x 2 into an area of "c^2" we would have...
Ex8 = Mx2 x 2 x 2 and there we have proof of double the energy! fit three into an area that normally would equal one and we have triple the energy!, so on and so on!

Just like an air compressor where what is happening is the internal area or the contents of the container is made more solid.. and if we correlate this with compression and increases in Potential Energy, we may further elaborate on the velocities that infer the exchanges of Potential Kinetic energy via the inference to the electromagnetic spectrum..
Of course this is best expressed via the inference to charge..
and if we break down charge to the respective velocities..

Lets say we have particle and we compressed it, this implies its potential to return to its normal state has increased, keep in mind that all mass even gas is with a certain compression to it, open an aircraft's door whilst flying and you will experience this difference in Potential Kinetic Energy first hand!

Any way when an area is compressed its potential is increased, and if the area is surrounded by a lower potential other than from the velocity that is increasing its potential then all the surrounding area will receive an inbound velocity until all velocities oppose each other equally..

Therefore for a postulated particle.. The following conditions must apply..

The area must have inbound meeting velocities and hence the area is compressed.
The area must have outbound velocities meeting inbound velocities and opposing them for implied compression to be possible..

If a velocity from a new origin is experienced by these meeting velocities it will increase the areas potential kinetic Energy..

This also increases the areas density and or outwardly force towards areas that are with less opposing outwardly force and or opposing velocities, to which would be seen as a compressing force to else, to which increases else's potential, so on and so on..

Err~ before i get ahead of myself here any questions?

or am I making the constructs clear enough?

So u mean light is a point particle since it has no mass and hence it should not get reflected, instead it should pass through all matter even better than neutrinos :D

Light is best referred to as an Electromagnetic wave and or the Electromagnetic spectrum, where the increases and decreases of charge representing an area via appropriate velocities that infer the momentum of Potential Kinetic Energy to it and its surrounding areas and really particle theory should not be referred to at all, after all particles are just area's of space-time via whatever meeting velocities..

In fact when we deal with REAL physics referring to Particles only ends up over complicating what is really quite simple in reality..

It should be obvious by most that Physics is to explain and predict change and change is best described via momentum and or to the velocities that imply force.

I haven't even looked at your links. I haven't claimed that physics is wrong. All I've done is point out that

\frac{m^2}{s^2} \neq m^2.



This may be the case. I was only pointing out that the above relation isn't true, so your initial statment about the amount of mass fitting in one area c^2 is wrong. I don't really feel the need to read anything else of your posts untill you clarify this.

And I am quite sure that the links you posted don't support this interpretation. Mark Trodden wrote the blog post at CosmicVariance.com. I have met him. We shared Lamb Saag after he gave a colloquium here at OSU. And I can assure you that he didn't say that c^2 can be thought of as a unit of area.

Its Obvious I havent made myself clear...

but since my last posts perhaps I have?

Please read any supplied links supplied by my previous post..

No. Either you can explain your idea to me or you can't. I know the physics.

Ex1=Mx1 x "c=1x1" therefore we can imply an uncompressed state where the energy is equal to 1

Well, the energy is equal to E, not 1. Maybe 1E is what you meant.

now if we have Mx2 x 1 x1 the energy would equal 2!

Not sure why you're surprised at this... twice the mass implies twice the energy... It's a linear relationship. And the total energy is = 2E, but ok.

now lets use another variable for "c"

What "other variable"? Why are you changing c? You've already set it to one, and if you change it you must redo your previous calculations.

Ex4 = Mx1 X 2 x 2 and if we stuff another M x 2 x 2 into an area of "c^2" we would have...

It looks like you have set c = 2. But if you do that, the you SHOULD get energy as four times as great, because there is a factor of 1/4 which you're not accounting for.

Ex8 = Mx2 x 2 x 2 and there we have proof of double the energy! fit three into an area that normally would equal one and we have triple the energy!, so on and so on!

This is what really looses me... I don't have any clue where your factors of two come from, and you are inventing units. you can't simply stick numerical factors wherever you want. I have absolutely no idea about what you're doing. If you have set c = 2 (which I suspect you have), you have changed the units of energy, which is not allowed.

Lets say we have particle and we compressed it, this implies its potential to return to its normal state has increased,

I am not sure that this is correct. IF we take particles as pointlike, then in what sense can one "compress" them?

Light is best referred to as an Electromagnetic wave and or the Electromagnetic spectrum, where the increases and decreases of charge representing an area via appropriate velocities that infer the momentum of Potential Kinetic Energy to it and its surrounding areas and really particle theory should not be referred to at all, after all particles are just area's of space-time via whatever meeting velocities....

Ok, thanks.

Now can u tell me here or in other thread , why is light electromagnetic. I mean whats the Electro and Magnetic about it ?

I have been asking this for more than 1 year here and nobody know it; but they are always ready to make that statement.

No. Either you can explain your idea to me or you can't. I know the physics.



This is what really looses me... I don't have any clue where your factors of two come from, and you are inventing units. you can't simply stick numerical factors wherever you want. I have absolutely no idea about what you're doing. If you have set c = 2 (which I suspect you have), you have changed the units of energy, which is not allowed.
Yeah sorry about that!

What I was trying to imply was the yard stick or our reference measurements can be changed and or different and even if we change our references we can still imply what is going on...

Put aside briefly that E= Energy, M=Mass, and C=The speed of light in a NEAR Vacuum.. Lets apply some quanta to M and C.

Now If we further imply that C^2 represents an area and aslo imply "c" is a constant and hence does not change so that should the variable M change and or increase then the variable E would reflect this change and or increase with an increase to it so that the equation remains in check,

Messing around with the numbers, it should imply that if there is double the mass in an area we should expect double the energy..

We would also expect double the density.. much like the closer we go to Earths relative compression point the more compressed and or less of an area of ocupance each Postulated Particle has to it..

Err~ before I proceed? Do you advocate that mass can be referred to as Potential Kinetic Energy, or just as Energy?

I am not sure that this is correct. IF we take particles as point-like, then in what sense can one "compress" them?

I should clarify that I did not state a postulated particle as a point-like Err~ what ever.. That was stated by someone else here and perhaps was referring to another model, as my model does not refer to it..

Perhaps I should point out that I treat the whole Universe as a closed system where everything that is possible is part and parcel of conformity to all else that is part of the universe...

If there is change anywhere in the Universe which I reason we must be referring to velocities then all else must conform and change via momentum and or velocity so that conformity is complied to at all times by way that all quanta's must add up to the check-sum to the Universe..

The model in its simplest form treats the whole universe as a quanta and everything part thereof is a portion and or division of this quanta..

The model can be further defined to areas with time references to it via implied changes in quanta..

The various states of Mass in my model is possible via considering the opposing forces via the implied areas inbound velocities meeting with outbound velocities that previously were inbound velocities for at least one frame of reference of time to the area which now presents the area with the inference to a density and or potential (A space-Time area) to the rest of the universe which is basically modelled in part to what relativity infers in its theory related to Potential Kinetic Energy and or Mass..

Ok, thanks.

Now can u tell me here or in other thread , why is light electromagnetic. I mean whats the Electro and Magnetic about it ?

I have been asking this for more than 1 year here and nobody know it; but they are always ready to make that statement.

Blame that on the kooks that would rather bully those who have balls to express their reasoning!

To me "Electromagnetic" implies that magnetic forces are utilised via electromotive forces and further more with electromagnetic waves and or the electromagnetic spectrum, the magnetic field utilised is made to alternate in potential and or magnetic strength..
keep in mind all of mass consists via charge from appropriate velocities an electromotive force (Magnetic field), and via electromagnetic waves is how mass presents with temperature and color etc..

I don't know if Physics has caught up with the Electronics Industry or not but all mass consists of much the same magnetic field and or force's that the common magnet is with..

Any way an electromagnetic wave is the increasing and decreasing of a magnetic fields potential and or force, and the best model for an analogy I can give here is to stuff a heap of balloons in a tube nice and hard up against each other to represent as each balloon as if they are Protons in our circuit and then to exert an increase in potential to one end of the tube of balloons, this is to infer it is being negatively charged by a proton with a higher potential, one can also envision our exertion via as if inbound velocities are experienced and that these will end up exerting through to the other end of the circuit and from there in an outwardly fashion, in this case if we maintain our force {velocity} and or exertion to the balloons circuit on one end we could imply we have an ongoing direct force and or the model could be implying the behaviour of (DC) and or Direct Current.

Obviously this is not a wave which rises and then falls in potential, so to imitate this rising and falling of charge we need to push one end of the balloon circuit with an increasing negative exertion and backward to a decreasing exertion and then back to an increasing exertion.. and this should show us how the increase in potential is passed on from proton to proton.. (balloon to balloon) to where the other end of the circuit the balloon would expand and deflate momentarily later although to us would seem in sync..

Throughout our universe even the NEAR vacuum there is mass with a density to it, and as it so happens near vacuum is where mass is spread out to occupy a vast area - Go to our upper atmosphere and compare a proton of the same kind to one at sea level and you should get the idea how vast an area it can occupy..

If we consider each balloon is a proton and any force exerted upon it as a negative charge and or a higher potential you should get the idea how exertion and or the introduced velocities ends up on the other side of the circuit consisting of balloons.. and or if we filled up a room with balloons and then inflated and deflated one in the middle of them it should be noted that every balloon will experience the wave and or rising and falling of Potential Kinetic Energy which also should infer as to how an electromagnetic wave is propagated,
Another model we could do is, compress a lot more balloons into the circuit to show how and why Light (electromagnetic waves takes a longer time to be transferred in solids than in a NEAR vacuum just as it is in reality...

Err~was this what you wanted to know and was I clear enough?

or have I lost the plot?:D and gave you an answer that you were not after?

:shrug:

If Farsight has a passion for Physics and he is Civil yes indeed...
Farsight doesn't have a passion for physics. He's a layman who thinks the stuff he's seen in layman texts and on the Discovery channel are cool. Instead of admitting that real physics doesn't interest or is simply too difficult for him, he takes the easy and self-gratifying way out: dismissing the bits he doesn't want to deal with as not what *really* counts. He would see the scope of physics perverted to suit him personally, just so he can continue to claim physics interests him.

But make up your own mind. His "theory" is here for all to see. Also see his criticisms of physics in this thread. Notice that they're all appeals to emotion, typically supported by nothing more than some idle speculation stemming from his delusions that he passes off as fact, like here.
But why exclude yourself, if you can point out others shaky constructs and or problems in a civil manner then we should get a long just fine..
I can point out faulty logic where I see it, but there's nothing interesting I can say about handwaving. Here's a very short story a friend of my family's once told me, about a man's escape from jail:

A man in his cell started knocking his head against the wall until it was sore. He took this saw* and sawed his bed in half. Two halves make a whole, so he climbed out of this hole and started shouting outside until his voice was hoarse. He then mounted the horse and rode away.

That's what your (and Farsight's) posts look like to me. It's not like either of you have proposed an idea like continental drift or curved space that I could be open or narrow minded about. There's just nothing there that could be called a theory. About the only substantial thing Farsight said in the two "**** explained" posts of his I read was "time travel is impossible" - and even there he couldn't give a sound argument for it.

When proposing something as a scientific theory, you should be prepared to answer these two questions about it:

1) What observations does it explain?
2) What predictions does it make?

For more on what is considered a "good" theory in science, see Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).

* "saw" sounds a bit like "sore" when you say it aloud.

LaidBack,

How does Electric field or magnetism affect light

Or

How to create a wave in space with electric field or magnetism. Since its a wave we should be able to create it.

Or

How was it found that light is electro and magnetic

LaidBack,

How does Electric field or magnetism affect light

Or

How to create a wave in space with electric field or magnetism. Since its a wave we should be able to create it.

Or

How was it found that light is electro and magnetic

There is no easy and short answer as to how a masses field effects light, and what I believe you want to understand is how does light end up with a change of direction to it..

If we were to map a 3 dimensional grid out to an area of near vacuum with a large mass (planet) amongst it we would have much like the following depiction
http://universeadventure.org/source_files/image/NASA_general_relativity.JPG
only our grid will consist with all planes rather than just a single plane of grid-ding, to which will point out the images flaw with respects to the artists perception on relativity

Anyway If we could imagine each cubic area is with a certain Potential Kinetic energy and if any of these grids receive an increase in potential it will pass it on but we should note if an area presents with a lower potential it will end up receiving a greater magnitude of the rising and falling potential hence light which is basically a rise and fall in potential energy or mass, which implies the wave can be reflected refracted and even change in direction by areas with differing potential..

As for creating electromagnetic waves in a near vacuum it should be pointed out our satellites do this with there transmissions albeit their transmissions are not at the visible spectrum! but never the less via an electromagnetic wave..

Electromagnetic waves that pertains to the visible spectrum is only a small portion of masses interactions.. and as such we can manipulate mass via electron flow to create a radio transmission, remember how I inferred all mass consists of a magnetic field which may present as our Theoretical Positive, Negative and or neutron charges in certain fields of science whilst in other fields of science "particles" consist with the strong and or weak force and a heap of other theories that I should point out still has many issues that need addressing..

During my years of employment The latter theory never was much use, so I wont refer to it.. in fact most of the latter theory mentioned doesn't comply to classical Physics anyway and perhaps is why it has many issues..

As to why electromotive forces are referred to, one has to consider that during the discovery of the magnetic and electromotive forces the forces needed some labels and labeling, and given some time since then, we now understand that all of mass presents with these electromotive forces and in fact everything that happens can be best explained via electromotive forces..

I should point out there is nothing mysteries about the electromotive force as really its just a force that can be expressed in many other ways such as via Potential Kinetic Energy or we could even refer to the forces via the basics where we just calculate the given velocities to a reference point with respects to another reference point, to imply our changes..

I thought I was pretty explicit about showing you where you were wrong. c^2 is not a unit of area.

Once one calculates C^2 it can be a Unit and or a representation of units if one divides them into three or even four dimensions to imply to an area, if we consider that all mass must occupy an area, I have to ask What variables do you imply or define for the area of mass, when one is referring to E=MC^2?

As for the rest of this (run-on) sentence, about half of it I cannot comprehend. Perhaps state your objections more coherently?
Yes indeed - Posting what seems to be gibberish is easily done, as there is no easy way to advise a child as to how an aircraft flies, so much to mention and cover and sometimes simplified statements made are taken for granted that the child is un/aware of ones own Data base...
I apologise for that, and advise you may feel free to question and or challenge such gibberish..:shrug:
Mass is the coupling of matter to the Higgs field, in the quantum sense, or the curvature of space-time, in the GR sense.Good point, and seeing you referred to the Higgs field can you please explain to me this coupling?

I know it may be hard to parrot what Pete laid out with his theory and perhaps that's why I find it a little hard to comprehend myself, maybe your take will help me?

Correct me if I am wrong as I am under the impression that the whole universe is part N parcel of his postulated field where the various densities of the field infers the various states of Mass..

I am mainly interested on which velocities we should consider for the actual force that defines the field for lets say a Proton at the onset of an increase in potential..

The speed of Light equals around 300,000 Km/sec.. ” Good. I agree. But how is this at all equal to area. The first line, from the original post:


"M" represents the quanta of Mass which so happens to be found to occupy a maximum area equal to C^2..

You say "Area = c^2" effectively. Yes or no?
Look - Ben, When and if you ever become capable enough to convert one or more dimensions into whatever dimensions one may need to work with can this thread move on.. That and this thread moved to where it may be treated the same way other respectable Forums would treat it..

Obviously this forum is over run with simpletons, Moderators included!

In fact the stupidity of the moderators is why this WHOLE forum is the joke it is! And because of where this thread has been placed and allowed to stay has been my way of pointing this out to the world in other Forums!

Its a win win situation for me! As long as this thread remains here in a pseudo science, The Cesspool or any other out of character section it is moved to, "SciForums.com" will remain the joke it is!

If Sciforum.com decides to mend its way and rid itself from the Riff~Raff moderators, then the world may gain another good forum and perhaps a leading one at that! To which I may consider posting here again..

I see your time away from this thread really has improved your attitude and stereotyping.

This thread got put here for what ever reason, you have had the chance to sort out the thread and your overall understanding however instead you allow an attitude to pretty much isolate it.

Thanks for the updated link

... can this thread move on..

It had moved on, but now you've resurrected it.

That and this thread moved to where it may be treated the same way other respectable Forums would treat it..

It is already there.

Obviously this forum is over run with simpletons, Moderators included!

That's MISTER Simpleton to you, pal.

And because of where this thread has been placed and allowed to stay has been my way of pointing this out to the world in other Forums!

It is a prestigious honor to be part of a worldly recognized thread, you must be very proud.

As long as this thread remains here in a pseudo science, The Cesspool or any other out of character section it is moved to, ...will remain the joke it is!

Completely agree.

If Sciforum.com decides to mend its way and rid itself from the Riff~Raff moderators, then the world may gain another good forum and perhaps a leading one at that! To which I may consider posting here again..

Unacceptable. No deal.

Well, now that we've settled that little matter, you're probably going to want to be leaving immediately, as you've promised.

Bye.

Its a win win situation for me!

:thumbsup::yay:

so what does "E=MC^2" imply?

To me "E" is the quanta that represents Energy.
"M" represents the quanta of Mass which so happens to be found to occupy a maximum area equal to C^2..

Therefore obviously the more mass we compress into C^2 the more Potential energy we could state we have stored in C^2, we should also note the more solid this area would present the more mass therein, and the question now is where does kinetic energy come into the equation...

"Energy" we may or may not know represents the ability to do work and or better inferred to cause change and when we have a stored amount of energy the energy can be inferred as Potential Energy, a single mass occupying a C^2 area can be said to be with a potential of a single mass and if we introduced another mass to the C^2 area we could imply we now have the potential of two masses and or the energy of two, but how can we utilise this energy? we are already somewhat doing this via the use of common Air compressors..

Lets briefly turn our attention to change or the inference to kinetics and or Kinetic energy where stored and or Potential energy is converted to Kinetic energy energy exerting change and or some sort of momentum (velocities)..

Change can be expressed best via a fraction of a velocity at "c", keep this in mind because when we have two or more velocities at "c" meeting we have an area that is more dense or we could see this as an area experiencing opposing forces (or think of two or more breezes meeting in a set area), better expressed as a Space-Time area via the calculus of implied area experiencing velocities for a given time frame and or rate and it should be noted the central meeting point presents as an area with simply a fraction of implied meeting velocities even though the velocity remain constant relative to all other local velocities and this is the same as with in all space-time areas..

Momentum and or a velocity is the result of change, and momentum can only be possible via force and it should be noted force is the result of velocities and can only ever be repulsive, no ifs and no buts!

OK having established that an area with some density the minimum being near vacuum is an area equal to C^2 and is what a single mass can occupy (as anything greater in area its potential would equal closer to zero) and therefore it should be considered with the least potential and or presence as we refer to it as (space) hence the maximum velocity at "c" being of course with least opposing potential.

We can now imagine to introduce enough mass so that an area of C^2 is with somewhat more density to it, we should note this can be done via introducing velocities from new origins and or via two or more established space-time areas with implied velocities can be compressed together, Importantly the area should be seen with a lot more Potential energy to it by us doing this, this also implies the compressed area must be experiencing an ongoing opposing exertion if it is to exist in an ongoing manner, and that's where the ongoing velocities come into it, as other wise the compressed mass would spread out back to occupy its maximum occupancy again...

And here is where many do not understand that all areas that present as solids must be experiencing an ongoing exertion to it as in (gravity) but note here and now gravity is not a magical pulling force but rather the result from the inbound force/s and or velocities that created the local space-time and or solid area in the first place, and no where more is this confusion apparent than when we have before us a solid mass surrounded by highly kinetic mass that is in a near vacuum state, this may seem at first a contradiction and if one does a search on gravity and relativity images - Not one of the images have depicted the relativity grids correctly because of this misunderstanding..

Every single image I have come across have the compression grids exerting space-time incorrectly and if one was to animate them would have the implied solid area exerted away from implied meeting velocities ending up in the solid area able to become kinetic from the lacking inbound velocities~ allowing it to spread out and resume to occupy its maximum area again..

Any questions?

''To me "E" is the quanta that represents Energy.
"M" represents the quanta of Mass which so happens to be found to occupy a maximum area equal to C^2..''

> Well, first of all, E is for energy of any system: or systems. M is for a mass, or masses. And C is for Celeritas, which in latin, which can also be written as Sceleritas means light, or rays of light.
Mass and Energy, in this equation:
E=Mc2
Can only be convertable through the c^2 factor. Thus:
M=E/c^2 is the converse of matter into energy, instead of energy into matter.

''Therefore obviously the more mass we compress into C^2 the more Potential energy we could state we have stored in C^2, we should also note the more solid this area would present the more mass therein, and the question now is where does kinetic energy come into the equation...''

> Not true. There is NO compressing factor. If you are talking about how much mass we can have, then in the future simply refer it to Plank Limit. C squared is there as a mechansm. Nothing more and nothing less... and no ''compressing matter.'' Do that and you come up with a singularity, and E=Mc2 doesn't apply any more.

''"Energy" we may or may not know represents the ability to do work and or better inferred to cause change and when we have a stored amount of energy the energy can be inferred as Potential Energy, a single mass occupying a C^2 area can be said to be with a potential of a single mass and if we introduced another mass to the C^2 area we could imply we now have the potential of two masses and or the energy of two, but how can we utilise this energy? we are already somewhat doing this via the use of common Air compressors..''

Of course we know energy represents the force of a working body. A ball for instance uses up a lot of energy rolling and bouncing off the edge of a step. We use a lot of energy in one day, with the brain using up 25% of all the energy we have. You're right about the potential energy, being stored, as this is happining all the time as a conservation of energy.

''Momentum and or a velocity is the result of change, and momentum can only be possible via force and it should be noted force is the result of velocities and can only ever be repulsive, no ifs and no buts!''

What a load of rubbish. I can see why this was in the Cesspool. I'll comment no more.