Mass, Energy and Relativity.
- Thread starter LaidBack
- Start date
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 
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.
I thought I was pretty explicit about showing you where you were wrong. c^2 is not a unit of area.
Mass is the coupling of matter to the higgs field, in the quantum sense, or the curvature of space-time, in the GR sense.
As for the rest of this (run-on) scentence, about half of it I cannot comprehend. Perhaps state your objections more coherently?
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
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.
No. Either you can explain your idea to me or you can't. I know the physics.
Well, the energy is equal to E, not 1. Maybe 1E is what you meant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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..
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?
and gave you an answer that you were not after?:shrug:
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 [THREAD=64240]here[/THREAD] 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 [POST=1384500]here[/POST].
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[sup]*[/sup] 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?
2) What predictions does it make?
For more on what is considered a "good" theory in science, see Occam's 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
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
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..
Last edited:
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?
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:
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..
Take your Pick - Forum for Current Losers or a World Leading Forum
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..
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..Ben the man said:
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..
Last edited: