Comments on: ER, You asked: What are you trying to tell us?

By: johannes

johannes — Sun, 25 May 2014 23:27:28 +0000

Thanks guys, I’m still learning things, so, I can’t be over the hill yet.

By: DanS

DanS — Sat, 24 May 2014 16:11:33 +0000

Not that I am one — anymore…

By: ER

ER — Sat, 24 May 2014 13:00:33 +0000

A jack-booted statist oppressor of free men.

By: johannes

johannes — Sat, 24 May 2014 05:44:31 +0000

In California now; by the way, what is a gummint man?

By: ER

ER — Fri, 23 May 2014 04:06:00 +0000

I was concerned you might have been stopped by the Cliven Bundy Militia’s roadblocks and snipers on the roads in the Las Vegas/Grand Canyon area. Those boys don’t cotton to furriners in those parts. They might have mistaken you fer a gummint man.

By: johannes

johannes — Fri, 23 May 2014 02:58:45 +0000

I’m giving you a formula to use that indicates how the volume of space is related to the quantity of mass and how that volume of space is related to the potential for energy within the sub atomic or fundamental level of all matter,

By: DanS

DanS — Thu, 22 May 2014 20:22:20 +0000

Basic physics. (n/t)

By: ER

ER — Wed, 21 May 2014 20:42:44 +0000

If a ton of feathers were compressed until it was exactly the same volume as a ton of lead, or, if a ton of lead were converted to a solid foam so it occupied the same volume as a ton of feathers, the effect of either dropped on someone would be exactly the same.

By: johannes

johannes — Wed, 21 May 2014 18:33:46 +0000

Yes, the numbers/symbols can be substituted to give the same outcome as Einstein’s formula, but you miss my point in doing so. Perhaps if I create a thought experiment that will illustrate the “point” that I’m trying to convay.
Lets say that Newton has an apple and he throws it agains a wall and says that the harder he trows it the more energy it will contain as it is flying, Einstein comes along and says, that you are right but looking at the situation a little bit deeper, it turns out that the apple contains energy even when it is not flying anywhere, then I come along and say, you both are right but if we look at the situation even closer, then we will see that energy is always kinetic in nature and if something is moving in the stationary apple, then it requires that there must be space where that something is moving, and since Einstein is right in saying that no matter how small of a piece of the apple we take, say an electron, and stop it from moving in relation to anything in the universe, it still will have kinetic energy with in its structure. Now the movement must happen in space, so we can not separate space from the formula of intrinsic energy of mass, the assumption is that space in its fundamental state is empty volume, if that is so, then there is something in that space that moves and fills that volume, today that space filling “stuff” has been given the name Higgs field. The assumption then is that this Higgs field condences or compresses to form the various, internally moving, mass particles that we are familiar with, such as protons, neturons, electrons, etc., and since this Higgs field can move, perhaps it also forms the photons that also move. Suppose that this speculation is true, then all that is needed in the universe is the basic incredients of volume, Higgs field, and motion, all particles and energies could be build from these three essential incredients, by giving them different densities of the Higgs field and internal frequencies.
The formula E=(u/k)c explains the relationship of the volume, Higgs field, and motion, within mass.
E=mc^2 is correct and so is E=(U/k^2)c, but if you do some calculations with these two formula arrangements, then you will notice that the two formulas actually will give different answers, depending on the quantities of mass involved.
To illustrate; first use number one in both formulas as the quantity of mass.
Using E=mc^2: M=1, and c^2=9*10^16, then E=9*10^16.
Using E=(U/k^2)c: k^2=1, and U=300,000,000, then E=9*10^16.
In this case the answers are the same for both calculations.
Then use a larger number for the mass quantity.
Using E=mc^2: M=1500, and c^2=9*10^16, then E=1500*9*10^16 = 1.35*10^18.
Using E=(U/k^2)c: k^2=2,250,000, and U=300,000,000/2,250,000, and E=133.3333*300,000,000 = 40,000,000,000.
The larger mass number gives a smaller (potential) energy number.
Then use a smaller number for the mass quantity.
Using E=mc^2: M=0.5, and c^2=9*10^16, then E=4.5*10^15.
Using E=(U/k^2)c: k^2=0.25 and U=300,000,000/0.25, then E=1,200,000,000*300,000,000=3.6*10^16.
The smaller mass number gives a larger (potential) energy number.
In other words, Einsteins formula is correct, it gives an indication of the amount of kinetic energy that is possible for any quantity of mass, but if the mass quantity varies, then the potential energy content also varies and that quantity is not displayed at all with Einstein’s formula. The formula E=(U/k^2)c indicates the potential (for) energy in the volume where the mass quantity resides. The less mass there is in a given volume, then there is more potential for the generation of kinetic energy within that volume, and that is one of the things that the formula E=(U/k^2)c indicates.
The above numbers are not precise, they simply indicate the difference in the outcome of using the different formulas.

By: ER

ER — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 04:16:43 +0000

You say U = ck^2 and k = m

so U = cm^2

so substituting k and U into your equation
(substitutions in [brackets])

E = (U/k)c
E = ([cm^2]/[m])c
and simplifying
E = ([c^2 m^2]/[m])
dividing and rearranging terms
E = c^2 m
or
E = mc^2.

Which is the Einstein equation. You’ve done nothing, we’re right back where we started.

This formula explains nothing and proves nothing. You’ve defined some spurious variables in terms of others so that when substituted and multiplied out they yield the same equation anyway, no matter what value you arbitrarily assign to c. In other words, you’ve rigged u and k to get the answer you want. And all this talk of the densities of space, Higgs fields, accelerating photons, and the two infinities are just gibberish.

And density, by the way, is just mass divided by volume. A ton of lead weighs exactly the same as a ton of feathers. “Something that forms the density within that space” is meaningless. Those words do not refer to anything in the real world