# Thread: Mass, Energy and Relativity.

1. ## Mass, Energy and Relativity.

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?

2. which so happens to be found to occupy a maximum area equal to C^2..
Wrong. Check the units.

Crackpot += 1.

3. 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!

4. Originally Posted by LaidBack
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 $E = m c^2$.

5. 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..

6. Originally Posted by LaidBack

We can now imagine...
Agreed, you will get along with Farsight.

7. Yep, Farsight all over again

But what the hell:
Originally Posted by LaidBack
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.

8. Originally Posted by przyk
Yep, Farsight all over again

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..

9. Boy the pseudoscience forum is becoming a busy place

10. Originally Posted by LaidBack
So hows that sound?
Like gibberish.

11. ## Obviously - Sciforum is over run and run by Losers!

Pseudoscience!??? What The!???

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

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

Thanks for that all of you!..

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!

12. Originally Posted by LaidBack

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.

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

14. Originally Posted by Oli
Sciforums - reflecting the reality....
Niiiiiiice...

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

Originally Posted by LaidBack
Obviously the moderators of Sciforum are so stupid they know squat!
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)

Originally Posted by LaidBack
At least this site is able to show me what a moron is...
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/...fications.htm]

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

Originally Posted by LaidBack
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.

Originally Posted by LaidBack
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!
I left the above quote so you might identify what unprofessionalism is.

16. 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.

17. Originally Posted by Farsight
...". 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!

18. Originally Posted by LaidBack
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.

19. Originally Posted by phlogistician
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.

20. 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

Page 1 of 4 1234 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•