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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
You have evidence of a big load of rubbish, that’s all you really have, and of course big evidence of collective brain damage
Click to expand...
I have evidence of insults as a reply rather than rational discourse, Bjarne :p.
This is what happens in the rational world of science, Bjarne:
Reality Check said:
If we match the WMAP data to cosmological models then we see that the density of the universe is made of 71.4% dark energy, 24% dark matter and 4.6% ordinary matter.
We have enormous evidence for the existence of matter :eek:!
We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of dark matter.
We have strong evidence for the existence of dark energy.
Click to expand...
 
Bjarne said:
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.
Click to expand...


By raising the lake up on the mountain the lake gains gravitational potential energy.

By "relativist energy" do you mean the kinetic energy?
 
fuelair said:
Not just math, he has no actual/correct understanding of the concepts involved; Unless it is a factor of his flawed understanding of /use of English he seems to believe that to raise the water, an amount of water (a mass of water) must disappear into the void as energy.
Click to expand...

Not quiet I think that he is claiming that by injecting energy into the water to raise it, that energy is converted into additional water.

I guess the question is if I take a cubic foot of Chalk and a cubic foot of lead and carry them upstairs requiring different amounts of energy input would they still be the same size. What if I put them both in the same box?
 
Waterman said:
Not quiet I think that he is claiming that by injecting energy into the water to raise it, that energy is converted into additional water.

I guess the question is if I take a cubic foot of Chalk and a cubic foot of lead and carry them upstairs requiring different amounts of energy input would they still be the same size. What if I put them both in the same box?
Click to expand...

Each one gains potential energy associated with their mass. You cannot measure it. You use it by dropping the objects.
 
joelr315 said:
By raising the lake up on the mountain the lake gains gravitational potential energy.

By "relativist energy" do you mean the kinetic energy?
Click to expand...

No, But when we know more about the process whereby kinematic relativistic energy is convert and mass created, I think it would not be so strange to accept that a similar process takes place in a field of gravity. At least at a theoretical level this could be a trace follow in order better to understand how gravity works.
 
MikeG said:
Mass is created by movement in your theory. Have I got that right?
Click to expand...

Relativistic mass is caused by converting kinetic energy to Mass.
The point is that the tension of space determinate how much space a particle can absorb, - this both depend on the energy of the particle, included converted kinematic energy and it depend on the tension of space. – For example is critical tension of space is reached the particle can absorb zero amount of space. You will have a supernova etc..
If the tension / gravity is weak the particle can absorb a larger amount of space, and therefore the mass of a particle is a variant in all circumstances
 
Bjarne said:
Relativistic mass is caused by converting kinetic energy to Mass........
Click to expand...

That must be a simple relationship, then. How about assigning some values to it and we'll start some maths?
 
Reality Check said:
What a load of ignorant rubbish, Bjarne.
If we match the WMAP data to cosmological models then we see that the density of the universe is made of 71.4% dark energy, 24% dark matter and 4.6% ordinary matter.
We have enormous evidence for the existence of matter :eek:!
We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of dark matter.
We have strong evidence for the existence of dark energy.
Click to expand...
A slightly related discovery about normal matter. We have measured the universe to be close to flat and we know the density of mass and energy needed to produce a flat universe. In the real world that means a density made up of 71.4% dark energy, 24% dark matter and 4.6% ordinary matter. The problem is that we have not found half of that ordinary matter :jaw-dropp!
We are making progress though: Astronomers Solve One Mystery of Fast Radio Bursts and Find Half the Missing Matter in the Universe
Of course in Bjarne's world we were missing 98% of the universe :dl:!
 
Bjarne said:
Relativistic mass is caused by converting kinetic energy to Mass.
Click to expand...
Wrong, Bjarne. A particle always has its kinetic energy and its relativistic mass. These both depend on the particle velocity.
The LHC particles do not stop in their tracks because their kinetic energy has vanished and become relativistic mass :jaw-dropp!

The point is that endlessly repeating gibberish still means nothing.
The point is that repeating ignorance just shows that you are ignorant, Bjarne, e.g. supernova happen when stars run out of fuel to fuse.
 
Bjarne said:
Relativistic mass is caused by converting kinetic energy to Mass.
The point is...
Click to expand...

Let me understand what you are trying to say. Part of the issue with detecting this effect is that fact that measuring equipment is also affected by this same mass increase effect as things are raised through the elastic media. However if you used a measuring device that was somehow unaffected by elevation change you could detect the difference?

If I have a 1 kg brick that I measure using a balance beam on the ground. Then I magically Isolate the balance beam from the relativistic effect and carry to the top of a tall building that when I weigh the now more massive brick that I should be able to show that it now weighs 1.25 kg.

Is that correct?
 
Bjarne said:
Relativistic mass is caused by converting kinetic energy to Mass.
Click to expand...

No.

Relativistic mass is a useless concept, and is not at all equivalent to invariant mass. Modern relativity texts don't even use relativistic mass, because it serves no purpose and can cause confusion, as it has done for you. It was only ever introduced in order to make certain mechanics equations look superficially like their Newtonian counterparts. But this is pointless: hiding the difference doesn't aid in understanding, and it doesn't work for all mechanics equations anyways (for example, F=ma no longer works, and a doesn't even have to be parallel to F).

If you want to understand relativity, you're better off simply ignoring relativistic mass altogether. It's entirely unnecessary.
 
Contradictory Nonsense

Let’s now first at all limit the discussion to a piece of matter.

I see 3 problems here

1.
No one have any idea, or clue, or even abstract idea, what energy really is
  • made of ?
  • the nature of energy?
2.
The exact same problems repeat itself when it comes to what is
  • mass realy is it made
  • the nature of mass.
3.
And finally why is energy and mass equivalent to each other

And now well knowing that mass and energy is equivalent, we can read above that many are confused, because of even these factors are equivalent it shall not be taken literally (? (!)

Thus a contradiction..

It is 178 % certain that my grandmother will be 192% sure, that any answers to these questions that comes from the scientific community must sounds like illogical sufficient contradictory nonsense.

So in reality we have only more bland and empty bla. bla. bla. (no one really understands, and many are honest enough to admit confuse them ) and therefore in really what we have is again nothing but evidence of a big load of rubbish nobody really have understood.

And off course, it all happens because no one really have any clue of how exactly to define what energy mass really is, - otherwise than explanations that also are nothing but empty bland expressions and explanations, and only suitable for a culculator to ""understand"".

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
Alberft Einsten
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom