The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017

[Daylightstar]

E=Mc²..makes no sense if you cannot point to M, because M must be physical, otherwise the essence of the equation E=Mc² is no existing nonsense.
Just one of several hints that all point to that something went wrong. But a lot more, will step by step show that the theory of relativity must be simplified, and will in the process be very logical and no longer conflict with common sense.

Do you know why the c is there, Bjarne? And isn't there something missing in there?

 

[Daylightstar]

Bjarne, weren't you going to supply some variables and constants? Do you know what those words mean .....?

Or are you still having dreamzzzzz?

 

[abaddon]

E=Mc²..makes no sense if you cannot point to M, because M must be physical, otherwise the essence of the equation E=Mc² is no existing nonsense.

Why MUST there be an M to point at?

Just one of several hints that all point to that something went wrong. But a lot more, will step by step show that the theory of relativity must be simplified, and will in the process be very logical and no longer conflict with common sense.

What has gone wrong is that you have entirely misinterpreted what E=Mc² actually is. It is an equation which describes. It describes the equivalence between energy and mass.

For example, If I had 1 kilogramme of rock and converted it to energy with 100% efficiency I would get 9.0 × 10¹⁹ Joules of energy. The energy does not magically appear just because the equation tells me How much energy I would get and the rock does not vanish in a puff of logic unless I take the steps to use some process to actually do the physical conversion.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have no idea how this can be your answer to the question of energy spent walking upstairs, but nevermind...

E=Mc²..makes no sense if you cannot point to M, because M must be physical, otherwise the essence of the equation E=Mc² is no existing nonsense.

M stands for mass. Everything is physical, but I assume you mean that mass must refer to matter. Not so; energy has a mass in itself (as the formula says). So a sufficient amount of energy creates a gravity field.

Hans

 

[tsig]

E=Mc²..makes no sense if you cannot point to M, because M must be physical, otherwise the essence of the equation E=Mc² is no existing nonsense. Just one of several hints that all point to that something went wrong. But a lot more, will step by step show that the theory of relativity must be simplified, and will in the process be very logical and no longer conflict with common sense.

So that's why atomic bombs don't work.

 

[Bjarne]

I have no idea how this can be your answer to the question of energy spent walking upstairs, but nevermind...



M stands for mass. Everything is physical, but I assume you mean that mass must refer to matter. Not so; energy has a mass in itself (as the formula says). So a sufficient amount of energy creates a gravity field.

Hans

Mass and Energy are always equivalent

Now let’s say you have an empty mountain lake.
You now decide to fill up the lake with water that comes from a 1000 meter lower position.
This means you must use energy to fill it up .

Using energy to that purpose will also mean lose of mass too (in the energy sourse you use)
Even a battery has larger mass when fully charged compared to when it it’s flat. .

So it requires Energy / Mass to move the water a higher position.

Since energy / mass cannot just vanish, it must be “somewhere” so soon you are finish.
And the only logical place it not can be, - is converted to is what you call position energy.

And therefore pretty simply - the energy/mass you have used is now again converted to energy / mass in the filled lake.

Pretty simple the water in the lake have now larger mass /energy compared to before.

There are no naïve hocus pocus smart stupid way of denying this..

There is no way to justify that the lake not has larger mass/energy now.

It is so logical obvious, the only option in the real world.

You cannot hide Mass/ Energy in a not understood expression either.
The Mass and Energy is physical there, in the mountain lake..

The position energy is the exact same as relativistic energy, and it is always real and physical.

Now let say you can find a technic only to convert the relativist energy to a different kind of energy, - let say to electricity, heat etc. and you will do this on board at a Boing 747, - the aircraft will now be weightless, - simply because you have prevented the aircraft from losing positional energy, and therefore also from falling down to Earth.

Therefore here is a hint to understand what gravity is about.

 

[MikeG]

Mass and Energy are always equivalent .....

So anywhere you find M in any equation, you can always replace it with E. OK, I see now. So, F= EA. P=EV. This is going to puzzle a few engineers who made the old equation work quite well for centuries, but ho hum. Bjarne hath spoken. Re-write the books.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mass and Energy are always equivalent

No, not always.

Now let’s say you have an empty mountain lake.
You now decide to fill up the lake with water that comes from a 1000 meter lower position.
This means you must use energy to fill it up .

Rather elementary.

Using energy to that purpose will also mean lose of mass too (in the energy sourse you use)
Even a battery has larger mass when fully charged compared to when it it’s flat. .

Energy has a mass, so if you move energy, you also move that mass. However, in a normal context, the mass of energy we move is very small.

So it requires Energy / Mass to move the water a higher position.

Since energy / mass cannot just vanish, it must be “somewhere” so soon you are finish.
And the only logical place it not can be, - is converted to is what you call position energy.

Elementary.

And therefore pretty simply - the energy/mass you have used is now again converted to energy / mass in the filled lake.

Pretty simple the water in the lake have now larger mass /energy compared to before.

Not quite. As someone already explained, the mass of the positional/potential energy is not in the water, but in the entire gravity system.

There are no naïve hocus pocus smart stupid way of denying this..

There is no way to justify that the lake not has larger mass/energy now.

It is so logical obvious, the only option in the real world.

It may seem obvious, but it is not true.

You cannot hide Mass/ Energy in a not understood expression either.
The Mass and Energy is physical there, in the mountain lake..

In the system...

The position energy is the exact same as relativistic energy, and it is always real and physical.

What exactly do you mean by "relativistic energy"?

Now let say you can find a technic only to convert the relativist energy to a different kind of energy, - let say to electricity, heat etc. and you will do this on board at a Boing 747, - the aircraft will now be weightless, - simply because you have prevented the aircraft from losing positional energy, and therefore also from falling down to Earth.

No. That is nonsense.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

Bjarne, weren't you going to supply some variables and constants? Do you know what those words mean .....?

Or are you still having dreamzzzzz?

..... for doing maths on your 'elastic ether', do you have them or not, Bjarne?

 

[Daylightstar]

Oh and Bjarne, do you know why the "c" is in there or not?

 

[Bjarne]

No, not always.
Not quite. As someone already explained, the mass of the positional/potential energy is not in the water, but in the entire gravity system.
Hans

" in the entire gravity system" - is onlyan empty expression , and mean the mass seems to have vanish, which is totally nonsense, - to cover up how little we really understand

 

[MikeG]

.....to cover up how little we really understand

The royal "we". And you're not doping a great job of covering it up.

 

[MRC_Hans]

" in the entire gravity system" - is onlyan empty expression , and mean the mass seems to have vanish, which is totally nonsense, - to cover up how little we really understand

The gravity system, in this case, is between Earth and the lake.

No mass vanishing.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

" in the entire gravity system" - is onlyan empty expression , and mean the mass seems to have vanish, which is totally nonsense, - to cover up how little we really understand

"The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017" ishonlyd emptyde expression.

 

[fuelair]

" in the entire gravity system" - is onlyan empty expression , and mean the mass seems to have vanish, which is totally nonsense, - to cover up how little we really understand

No, just no, again....................

Nothing is covered up except the part of your mind that should be accepting informational input.

 

[Wolrab]

"The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017"
Am I wrong or does that statement imply the TOR has been working just fine since the beginning of time and space and is only now going to fall apart? Why did it work so well for so long?
Probably an English is not his primary language thing.

 

[Bjarne]

The gravity system, in this case, is between Earth and the lake.

No mass vanishing.

Hans

It is mathematical nonsense and you know it ..
Try to calculate the energy of the universe- your get a result based on 75% dark matter we THINK must be there - 10% position energi we know do not exist and 15% energy based on matter that we can be sure is there .. - What a load of rubbish

 

[abaddon]

It is mathematical nonsense and you know it ..

Now you claim to be psychic and somehow know what is in others minds. Interesting reveal.

Try to calculate the energy of the universe- your get a result based on 75% dark matter we THINK must be there - 10% position energi we know do not exist and 15% energy based on matter that we can be sure is there .. - What a load of rubbish

Pure God of the gaps argument. Take any undetermined topic. Insert woo.

 

[MikeG]

Yeah, I think Bjarne is closing in on the "declare victory" phase after having his attack shattered by facts. Until you've got some maths, Bjarne, you've got nothing.

 

[Daylightstar]

It is mathematical nonsense and you know it ..
Try to calculate the energy of the universe- your get a result based on 75% dark matter we THINK must be there - 10% position energi we know do not exist and 15% energy based on matter that we can be sure is there .. - What a load of rubbish

So you don't know why the "c" is in there?