E=MC^2 is the inverse of reality and the exact inverse of True and Pure physics!
http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/showthread.php?t=8058
GB
A = Gravitational Acceleration
Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
A x Z = Velocity of Light (Velocity of Gravity)
In scientific circles, a calculation that has not been known is that the product of;
Wavelength * Frequency = Speed of Gravity
AZ^2 * 1/Z = AZ
is parallel to
Gravitational Acceleration x Orbit Time = Speed of Gravity
A * Z = AZ
The results are exactly equal, however the units are not.
In the true energy equation, Wavelength is comparable to Gravitational Acceleration (A) and Frequency is comparable to Orbit Time (Z). When Frequency (1/Z) is changed into Orbit Time (Z) the Wavelength is not also just flipped to the inverse, rather the AZ^2 of Wavelength is then changed into Acceleration (A). Wavelength is represented by Orbit Diameter (AZ^2)
Earth's Gravity (9.80175174 m/s^2) x earth's Orbit Time (30,585,600 seconds, exact lunar year) = the Velocity of Gravity and Light (299,792,458 m/s). <-------------- Is this just a coincidence? I don't think so.
The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Wavelength = Orbit Diameter = Acceleration of Gravity x (Orbit Time)^2
The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Frequency = 1/Orbit Time
Gravock
@gravityblock
That's is a fantastic observation.
I have got one more doubt in relativistic equation :
E = F * S ( Energy = Force X distance)
E = (m * a) * (v * t) ie., force = mass * acceleration, distance = constant velocty * time
E = (m * v/t) * (v * t) substituting acceleration = velocity / time
E = mv * v cancelling 't' in numerator and denominator
E = mv(square)
Substituting v = c for velocity of light,
E = mc (square) = Einstein's equation
Does it mean that for all particles moving with constant velocity ( ie., same initial and final velocites), mass is converted into energy ?
::) ;D Kindly don't laugh
Regards
Vineet.K.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on October 26, 2011, 02:35:49 AM
@gravityblock
That's is a fantastic observation.
I have got one more doubt in relativistic equation :
E = F * S ( Energy = Force X distance)
E = (m * a) * (v * t) ie., force = mass * acceleration, distance = constant velocty * time
E = (m * v/t) * (v * t) substituting acceleration = velocity / time
E = mv * v cancelling 't' in numerator and denominator
E = mv(square)
Substituting v = c for velocity of light,
E = mc (square) = Einstein's equation
Does it mean that for all particles moving with constant velocity ( ie., same initial and final velocites), mass is converted into energy ?
::) ;D Kindly don't laugh
Regards
Vineet.K.
Thanks for taking a serious hard look at this thread. Here's a reference link you may find interesting, which i think is related to what you wrote above, http://www.members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/PLANCK.htm
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Gravock
q = Photonic-Mass
A = Gravitational Acceleration
Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
Acceleration x Time is the complete foundational reality (root core) of Velocity. And in the equation;
2 m/s^2 * 5 seconds = 10 m/s
Acceleration * Time = Velocity
the value for Acceleration is not a Constant. It is simply the root of the foundational equation for Velocity. But because Mr. Planck did not fully understand the True Energy equation, E = q(AZ)^2, he was led to believe that he had found a Constant. Planck's Constant is not a Constant. It is simply the physics reality known as Action, which is (Energy x Time or a Joule-Second).
An object cannot obtain a Velocity without first Accelerating. Acceleration^2 x Time^2 is the complete foundational reality of Velocity^2. Light does not reach the velocity of 299,792,458 m/s instantaneously. Light only appears to have an instantaneous velocity because it's true velocity is zero relative to the expansion acceleration of the universe. Three U.S.-born scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics Tuesday for discovering that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace (<------Hidden Link) (http://"http://news.yahoo.com/3-win-nobel-showing-universe-speeding-192640314.html;_ylt=ArOJtAavQy1i9yE_I0GTiIQPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTNzczBnOGY1BG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBTY2llbmNlU0YEcGtnAzgzNGVjYWU3LTNiNDUtM2Y3ZS05YWFhLWRlZmFmYjAxN2IwYQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDdG9wX3N0b3J5BHZlcgMzNTAzMzE3MC1lZWMzLTExZTAtYmI1Zi0xYWI2YzI1ZmJjOGY-;_ylg=X3oDMTFsMmxkdGs2BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANzY2llbmNlBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3").
Gravock
Hello,
I have not had time to study this subject in the depth I would like, however, one point springs to mind...
Centrifugal and Centripetal forces are natural in nature. The Universe is spinning and therefore both forces must be in effect to achieve balance.
I observe that black holes within the Universe exhibit an attractive force relative to the event horizon... I observe that the Universe is expanding and therefore exhibits a repulsive force relative to the event horizon in a vacuum.
To understand that a centripetal spin can exist at the centre of a centrifugal spin necessitates the understanding that opposites can coexist and that it is essential for a differentiator to be present.
Stephen Hawking first proposed the event horizon which I built upon to propose the plane of zero incidence. This differentiator = 0
I have designed an engine that works on fluid dynamics principles that utilises both centripetal and centrifugal forces simultaneously via an event horizon differentiator.
You can also add a 90 degree function to this if you desire but requires clever porting to achieve...
I have had a basic look at the AZ proposals and find no errors at root, however more analysis is required before I commit. But it looks good and I am invigorated by it, thumbs up for stimulation and effort! ;)
RM :)
Quote from: vineet_kiran on October 26, 2011, 02:35:49 AM
@gravityblock
E = (m * a) * (v * t) ie., force = mass * acceleration, distance = constant velocity * time
E = (m * v/t) * (v * t) substituting acceleration = velocity / time
E = mv * v cancelling 't' in numerator and denominator
E = mv(square)
Substituting v = c for velocity of light,
E = mc (square) = Einstein's equation
Does it mean that for all particles moving with constant velocity ( ie., same initial and final velocities), mass is converted into energy ?
::) ;D Kindly don't laugh
Regards
Vineet.K.
Hi Vineet,
Nice line of thinking, smiling with you not laughing :)
Could you explain please why t is assumed to be a constant when cancelling in numerator and denominator ?
To assume t a constant assumes vt a constant and that cannot be so if acceleration is a range variable over time in the root equation.
delta acceleration as an angular deflection from reference point between two reference points over delta time has not been accounted for in the conclusion, neither has the z axis 3D time variable beyond 1/2 cycle.
RM :)
@RM
Actually the sequence of working itself is wrong because for a mass moving with constant velocity acceleration will be zero. Hence we cannot consider Force = Mass X acceleration. If we substitute a = 0, then we will get F = 0 hence E=0, which is not correct. A mass moving with constant velocity actually moves with its initially stored energy and moves with same velocity and energy in the absence of opposing forces like friction as stated by Newton’ s first law of motion.
Consider another case, a person standing in front of a wall and trying push the wall. The wall does not move but the person will be spending his internal energy against the wall. If we substitute distance moved S = 0, then we will get E = 0, which is again not correct.Here the energy spent by the person can be expressed only in terms of force and time since no other parameters are involved. If the person exerts a force ‘F’ for time period ‘t’ then energy spent by the person E = Ft. But F*t is equivalent to m*v (momentum) and momentum is not energy.
How do you define the energy spent by the person pushing a wall which does not move?
To make things more complicated consider a person trying to break a wall with lever arms of different lever lengths. When he uses a lever of short length he has to spend more energy to break the wall in a given time. When he uses a lever of longer length , he can break the wall with little energy input in the same given time since no movement is involved and force gets magnified when he uses longer lever arm. It means that a ‘stationary energy’ can be magnified. When stationary energy can be magnified, why not ‘moving energy’?
Does it mean that force and energy are one and the same and inter convertible?
CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG
Regards,
Vineet.K.
energy is force times distance.don't confuse effort with work.
pushing on a wall you expend effort but accomplish nothing.
a weight leaning against the wall could produce the same force and result as you pushing.
you use energy to hold your arm up, a post will hold up a weight with no energy expended.
in physics work is the result not the effort.
i hope this makes it more clear.
fritznien
Can I put in my tuppence worth?
If E = Mc^2 - and C = the velocity of light - and photon's mass is zero then WHAT is the photon's energy? Because C x the mass of the photon, which is 'zero', will give the product as zero. Then. In terms of this equation a photon has no energy to travel at any velocity at all.
Either a photon has mass or this equation is meaningless. Or it means that energy is something outside the photon that moves the photon. In which case does this also mean that energy is a field that moves matter and particles and that they do not, of themselves, have this potential energy?
I have no idea if this well publicised equation is correct. What I do know is that it is entirely meaningless as it's applied to light itself.
R
@ fritznien
A weight leaning on wall gets its force from gravity whereas person pushing the wall uses his own internal energy which is not influenced by gravity. Weight = m*g which is equivalent to m*a hence is considered as force. A person pushing a wall using his internal (bio) energy is same as a bulldozer pushing a wall consuming energy from the engine. Can a bulldozer push the wall without consuming energy from the engine?
Energy consumed by engine can be calculated on thermodynamic lines but how do you define same energy in terms of force acting on the wall?
Vineet.K.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on November 09, 2011, 04:35:34 AM
@ fritznien
A weight leaning on wall gets its force from gravity whereas person pushing the wall uses his own internal energy which is not influenced by gravity. Weight = m*g which is equivalent to m*a hence is considered as force. A person pushing a wall using his internal (bio) energy is same as a bulldozer pushing a wall consuming energy from the engine. Can a bulldozer push the wall without consuming energy from the engine?
Energy consumed by engine can be calculated on thermodynamic lines but how do you define same energy in terms of force acting on the wall?
Vineet.K.
force is only part of it, a spring under tension makes a force a weight sitting on a table makes a force.
but energy is only transferred when that force acts thru a distance, causes a movement.
you can use up fuel to generate a force but it dose work only if the object moves.
the engine runs and generates heat but the useful output is zero, unless the wall moves zero work is done on the wall.
fritznien
Quote from: fritznien on November 09, 2011, 09:09:44 PM
the engine runs and generates heat but the useful output is zero, unless the wall moves zero work is done on the wall.
fritznien
Useful mechanical output can be zero but the energy produced by the engine has to dissipated through the wall by means of force acting on the wall. As per conservation law energy cannot be destroyed.
A spreadsheet is attached to this post. I'll give a quick summary of the spreadsheet below. This is a work in progress.
Summary:
Cell B2 is highlighted in green. Cell B2 is the only place required for data entry on your part. The value 274 will yield sum interesting results ( speed of light divided by 1094000 = 274). I recommend values within the range of 1 to 274. Try different values starting at 1, then 2, then 3, etc in order to compare the different values.
Cells B6 - B13 are constants.
Please note, the mass of a photon is not a constant. The mass of the photon is calculated by taking Planck's constant / (frequency * wavelength^2) or m = E / c^2. I do realize a photon having mass goes against most in the scientific community. To confuse things even further, the mass of a photon changes according to it's frequency. Gravock's Constant is the frequency / photonic-mass. This results in a value of 1.36x10^50 seconds per kilogram.
All Cells highlighted in Red uses Gravock's Constant.
The attached file is a zip file. It contains two spreadsheets. One is for OpenOffice and the other is for Excel.
Thanks,
Gravock
Quote from: vineet_kiran on November 10, 2011, 09:28:42 PM
Useful mechanical output can be zero but the energy produced by the engine has to dissipated through the wall by means of force acting on the wall. As per conservation law energy cannot be destroyed.
what energy would this be?the wall dose not move.what are the units?
the engine produces a lot of heat that ends up in the environment, all the energy released by the fuel ends up as heat.
and just what is differant from a spring or weight applying a force to the wall? a spring can apply a force
indefinitely with no heat produced.
fritznien
According to my spreadsheet, a photon with a frequency of 1.2356E+20 has a mass which is equal to the mass of an electron.
1.2356E+20 hertz is the Compton's Frequency of an electron.
1093845.63 hertz * 112958352000000 = 1.2356E+020 hertz
Enter 112958352000000 in Cell B2 as the multiple of Znidarsic's transitional velocity and compare the value in Cell B18 with Cell B9. The mass of the photon and the mass of an electron both have the value of 9.1094E-31 kilograms as the result.
Gravock
112958352267678 * 1093845.63 hertz = 1.2356E+020 hertz, 9.1094E-031 kilograms (Compton's frequency of an electron, Electron's mass)
207408822163704000 * 1093845.63 hertz = 2.2687E+023 hertz, 1.6726E-027 kilograms (Proton's mass)
207691351346781000 * 1093845.63 hertz = 2.2718E+023 hertz, 1.6749E-027 (Neutron's mass)
Why are the electron, proton, and the neutron's mass all falling on exact multiples of Znidarsic's number? It appears to indicate the frequency and wavelength of a photon is a factor in it's mass.
Gravock