Temporal Divergence Meter

Einstein said:
To me the equation E=MC^2 appears to be fiction as well. It doesn't work in experimental analysis. I've never seen anyone verify or prove it. Just looks like propaganda to me.
Click to expand...

How about pair production:

Pair production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or


"the loss of mass to an atom and a neutron, as a result of the capture of the neutron and the production of a gamma ray, has been used to test mass–energy equivalence to high precision, as the energy of the gamma ray may be compared with the mass defect after capture. In 2005, these were found to agree to 0.0004%, the most precise test of the equivalence of mass and energy to date."

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did hours of homework in Undergrad Modern Physics "Proving it"
 
Robot

If you don't question what you learn, then all you've proved is a verification of the fiction. As I recall E=1/2(MV^2). That is the way it was taught to me. So let's setup an equality.

1/2(MV^2)=MC^2

Energy is energy, right? Let's simplify;

V^2=2C^2 or V=sqrt2C

Looks like a velocity greater than C. I'll probably catch hell from the others for telling you that. Because you're not supposed to notice the inconsistencies. After all it is a well held belief that Mass can never exceed the velocity of light. So you decide. What do you want to believe?

The problem I see is that the basics that we are taught leads to inconsistencies. So somewhere in the basics something is incorrect. I'm calling FOUL PLAY on MASS. It appears to be a man made concept that does not play a role in the grand scheme of things.

Here is something I've thought about;

You have a Kilogram of nitroglycerin. On the earth, that Kilogram weighs one Newton. But on the sun, it weighs in over 27 Newtons. Does that Kilogram on the sun make a bigger explosion when it blows up?
 
Einstein said:
Looks like a velocity greater than C. ?
Click to expand...

Here is a good thread that goes into detail about the C^2:

Why c2 (speed of light squared)?

Some good tidbits from the thread:

" The framing of the question implies that he thinks C^2 is a speed. It isn't. It is just a piece of a chopped-up equation that is meaningless on its own. Just look at the units."

" But the "c2" in E= mc2 is NOT the speed of anything- as pointed out before it doesn't even have the correct units for a speed. "

" it is not necessarily true that "c2 is larger than c"- that depends upon the units used. In papers about relativity, it is quite common to choose units so that c= 1. And then we have c2= c. In fact, in such units, E= mc2= m."

"The speed of light squared quantity is just a unit conversion. If you work in natural units then you won't even see it explicitly. "


From some other related posts:

"Yes, the squared speed of light in vacuum is always equal to c^2."
 
Robot said:
A newton is not a unit of weight and, 1 N is the force of Earth's gravity on a mass of about 102 g = (1⁄9.81 kg).
Click to expand...

A Newton....
92e0e90276dcb3aa24758fb1b22fe05f.png


It was taught to me that a Newton is a unit of force. Force = Weight

Weren't you also taught that Force = Weight?
 
Robot said:
I would say yes. It has more kinetic/heat energy. It also has more mass on the sun.

A hot cup of coffee has more mass than a cold cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you could alter the temperature. But basically what we are taught in school is that a kilogram is a kilogram where ever it is. Even on the sun it is still a kilogram. But its gravitational weight is 27 times greater.

I don't know the answer. But that gravitational weight might figure into the amount of energy released. Whether it will impede or enhance the blast is something of interest to me.
 
Einstein said:
To me the equation E=MC^2 appears to be fiction as well. It doesn't work in experimental analysis. I've never seen anyone verify or prove it.
Click to expand...


There have "only" been thousands of experiments that proved it. But two of the most famous took place on August 6 and again on August 9, 1945.

Good luck coming up with your BS conspiracy theories to try to explain why thermodynamics is "all wrong."

RMT
 
Something that comes to mind, and I believe it applies somewhat to the discussion taking place in this thread at the moment...is when a group of Astronomer's mapped out the location of selected galaxies. They calculated where the galaxies would be located after a certain amount of time had elapsed and looked for them again.

To their astonishment, the selected galaxies were not where the calculations equated(?) they should be, and eventually it was determined that the movement of those galaxies was faster than the Astronomer's had originally calculated. I'm not proclaiming that mathematics doesn't have extremely important merits, however, sometimes there are unexpected surprises.
 
KerrTexas said:
Something that comes to mind, and I believe it applies somewhat to the discussion taking place in this thread at the moment...is when a group of Astronomer's mapped out the location of selected galaxies. They calculated where the galaxies would be located after a certain amount of time had elapsed and looked for them again.

To their astonishment, the selected galaxies were not where the calculations equated(?) they should be, and eventually it was determined that the movement of those galaxies was faster than the Astronomer's had originally calculated. I'm not proclaiming that mathematics doesn't have extremely important merits, however, sometimes there are unexpected surprises.
Click to expand...

Now the accepted nonsense is dark matter and dark energy. That seems to be par for the course. Plenty of existing facts lying around that could be used instead.

The simplest I can think of is, is space rotating? The further you move away from a rotational center, the faster the rotating space would be. Is rotating space creating the centrifugal force in matter that is causing the ever increasing expansion of the universe? Galaxies do rotate. Are they dragging local space with them in a rotating pattern? And no one has come up an explanation for why all the stars in a galaxy rotate about the center as if they were a solid group.
 
Einstein said:
Now the accepted nonsense is dark matter and dark energy. That seems to be par for the course. Plenty of existing facts lying around that could be used instead.

The simplest I can think of is, is space rotating? The further you move away from a rotational center, the faster the rotating space would be. Is rotating space creating the centrifugal force in matter that is causing the ever increasing expansion of the universe? Galaxies do rotate. Are they dragging local space with them in a rotating pattern? And no one has come up an explanation for why all the stars in a galaxy rotate about the center as if they were a solid group.
Click to expand...


Excellent points in there, Einstein. In all my contemplation's, never figured that the Universe itself is in a state of rotation.

Is the existence of dark matter ( suppose dark energy kind of goes with it ) really nonsense ?
An analogy that I liked was made by the guy in the new Cosmos show, when he said that you could compare the Universe to our ocean's. The stars and such ( the visible ), are like the white portion seen as crests of the waves. Merely on the surface, with so much more unseen within the depths of the darkness.

Would have to go back into the reports by the Astronomers to see where the galaxies were found. Did they accelerate within a linear manner, or did the Astronomers have to look "around" before finding the selected galaxies?

If I remember it right, nothing was mentioned about the galaxies veering off a linear course, only that they were further away from recorded pointed of origin to where they eventually were re-discovered.
 
Overall the expansion appears to be uniform with no preferred center. But there are anomalous locations that don't fit the norm.

The dark matter was invented to account for all the missing mass. I keep harping about using the observable fact that mass only occurs in the form of weight. And weight is variable. Also weight can be reduced or cancelled out with rotation. And weights direction can be negative due to centrifugal force.

The dark energy was created to account for the expansion of the universe.

One more thing I want to point out. If space were actually curved, the universe would be looping back in upon itself. That doesn't appear to be the case.
 
You brought up something in your post that I've been thinking...there have been theories of a Holographic Universe. Always see graphic of what our Universe "might" actually look like, however, was wondering if it is possible that our Universe also might appear like an old vinyl record, with grooves ( rings of... ???).

With explosions ( like the Big Bang ) , is there only a single blast wave, or does the expansion "field" contain more ?
 
Einstein said:
Overall the expansion appears to be uniform with no preferred center. But there are anomalous locations that don't fit the norm.

The dark matter was invented to account for all the missing mass. I keep harping about using the observable fact that mass only occurs in the form of weight. And weight is variable. Also weight can be reduced or cancelled out with rotation. And weights direction can be negative due to centrifugal force.

The dark energy was created to account for the expansion of the universe.

One more thing I want to point out. If space were actually curved, the universe would be looping back in upon itself. That doesn't appear to be the case.
Click to expand...


Well, I agree with some of what you're pointing out, however, disagree with other points. Difficult for me to discuss my understandings in the context of this forum, however, do believe that dark matter does exist. Exactly what it is, I have some idea, but nothing that could be provided with a solid foundation of proof.
 
The Big Bang is just a theory based on a linear progression of time. But we know time is not flowing at a constant rate. It varies with location. So if time is so variable, why are we assuming a linear progression? Not everything is so crystal clear.

I do accept that there are some things we may never know. Whether or not the Universe had a beginning is probably something in that category.
 
Einstein said:
The Big Bang is just a theory based on a linear progression of time. But we know time is not flowing at a constant rate. It varies with location. So if time is so variable, why are we assuming a linear progression? Not everything is so crystal clear.

I do accept that there are some things we may never know. Whether or not the Universe had a beginning is probably something in that category.
Click to expand...


Discussing anything that has to do with time seems to circle back to one question; what is time ? Is time defined as that which is measured by my watch ? or some other man made device ? is time a cause or an effect ? does it actually exist at all ?

We do experience the passing of moments, and we developed a method of measuring those moments, but, to something eternal, despite the formation of and the depth of formation, maybe time isn't really anything at all, but a matter of mind, and nothing more.
 
KerrTexas said:
Well, I agree with some of what you're pointing out, however, disagree with other points. Difficult for me to discuss my understandings in the context of this forum, however, do believe that dark matter does exist. Exactly what it is, I have some idea, but nothing that could be provided with a solid foundation of proof.
Click to expand...

No I don't accept the dark matter theory. The reason being is that we are over looking some very basic observation. Motion is that observation. By all rights I believe it should be elevated to the status of a basic force. All motion appears to be time oriented. One way. Combine motion with the weak force and the electromagnetic forces come into play. Combine motion with the strong force and the mechanical forces come into play. Combining the weak force and the strong force without the presence of the motion force is also a combination. There appears to be plenty to work with right here without fabricating something that by all rights is just pure fiction.
 
Back
Top