Overunity.com Archives

Pay careful attention to the words in bold, or you will more than likely not catch the contradiction.

In Special Relativity Theory, mass converts to energy as an object approaches the speed of light.  If this were true, then instead of having infinite mass as the theory proposes, a spaceship should be massless at the speed of light.   However, if the spaceship were massless at the speed of light, then it would have no energy because the mass would be zero.

I do not see how physicists could have ignored this simple contradiction for 100 years.  No doubt, the die-hard relativists will come out swinging with arguments that there is relativistic mass, which is different from rest mass, or some other such nonsense.

I'm not sure i understand what you're asking

are you suggesting that the theory states all mass converts to energy while approaching the speed of light, whereupon there is an infinite amount of mass supplying the transference from mass to energy?

are you asking where the energy went from the mass of the spaceship?

i believe the mass they are referring to is the mass of whatever propellant/force/driving mechanism of the spaceship, suggesting that the speed of light could only be acheived with a mechanism that has no mass or has yeilds of over 100% return


however if it were possible to get to the speed of light in a spaceship, i don't think i understand your logic as to why all mass gets converted into pure energy, but if it does then there shouldnt be any mass because it was converted into energy to begin with



those are my thoughts

maybe i should re look at those bolded words

very interesting thoughts though

theory is fun to "theororize" about




until next time

Quote from: gravityblock on March 26, 2009, 02:40:02 AM
In Special Relativity Theory, mass converts to energy as an object approaches the speed of light.

Are you sure of that interpretation? I was under the impression that the mass of an object supposedly increases as it approaches light speed.

Isn't that why most physicists suggest that it is impossible for ordinary matter to reach photon (light) speed ?

The energy required to accelerate mass to light speed increases exponentially as the mass approaches light speed.
The faster the mass goes, the larger the mass becomes, the more energy required to continue to accelerate it.

Hmmnnn I'm not sure either way!

No offense intended but, you need to go back and re-read the theory.  Your posit is not what the theory states at all.  so, I disagree with your question here as it is not accurate.

Bill

Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 26, 2009, 05:58:55 AM
No offense intended but, you need to go back and re-read the theory.  Your posit is not what the theory states at all.  so, I disagree with your question here as it is not accurate.

Bill

Then please tell me what the theory states?

The equation E=mc2 states that energy and mass are equivalent.

E is not mathematically equal to me2 , which in tum means that the "equation" so often attributed to Einstein, that is E = me2 , is not a true equality.

If the photon is massless, then it can not have energy according to the equation above, even when traveling at the speed of light (E = 0c2, equals 0 energy).  If the photon has mass, then it can not go the speed of light according to the equation above and Special Relativity.

Please let me know what your interpretations of Special Relativity is regarding Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared.

In fact, the question that I asked, was a statement in the Secrets of the Aether book - third edition...this is not my own interpretations of Relativity.

I did not start this poll to discuss the validity of the question.  Please feel free to discuss it.....but I will not participate.

If I say an apple is red....then someone will say, I thought it was green.....lol

What exactly is your question then?

I see you present a view that E=mc^2 would be incorrect because,
as you put it, when a body of mass approaches the velocity c,
that body would approach zero mass and infinite energy.

That is, as Pirate and other remarked, not what E=mc^2 states.
In fact, E=mc^2 is not even a result of the Relativity theory, it was
a known fact that was taken as one of the fundamentals for compiling
the formulae that describe relativity theory. The fact that E=mc^2
had already been worked out before Einstein started his relativity work.

But to get back to the matter, the example of a body of mass increasing
velocity is one that is extensively used in just about every explanation
of relativity theory. The analysis of this situation is always the same and
mathematically valid, and states that as the body increases speed relative
to the observer, its mass also increases relative to the observer.
In the common mathematical description this can be written in the form of
"as v(elocity) approaches c, m approaches infinity".
What also follows is automatically that for every increase in velocity,
an increasingly large quantity of energy is required.

The reason why c cannot be reased by a body of mass is, then,
one of energy: as the velocity of the body nears c, the mass nears infinity,
and the energy needed to increase the velocity of the body of mass
also increases to infinity.
So to reach 1 c we would need to pour an infinite amount of energy
into the propulsion system.
And that is impossible.
And that is why we cannot reach c.
Aside from the question of whether or not matter as we know it
remains in existence when its mass becomes infinite, which is a different
matter but admittedly not any less significant.

I personally am inclined toward the line of thought that relativity theory
is a very nice classical approach to observable effects of accelleration
and decelleration, but is not a complete nor detailed explanatory view of
how space-time itself is structured.
One of the things that I find a bit questionable is the use of a combination
of discrete math and of infinity math. Mathematics with infinities does not
necessarily need to have a clear meaning in a discrete system. And of course
then there is the matter of higher dimensionality, in which space for example
can easily be infinite in 3 dimensions yet have boundaries in 4 dimensions...
... and something that has boundaries is not infinite.
And it just so happens that the Kaluza-Klein geometry used by Einstein as
basic system in which he defined his relativity theories, has several very
interesting variations which could account for the apparent infinities in our
limited dimensional set, as a slice of the multidimensional set that is spacetime.

Anyway, relativity theory is actually a bit of a stupid name and Einstein knew it
(and complained about it a few times too).
Thing is, the concept of physical systems having motions and qualities relative
to eachother was an older one and formulated very clearly by several scientists
including Christiaan Huygens, long before Einstein.
What Einstein managed to show was that there is one thing that, no matter when,
where, or how you look at it, does not have a relative speed, but rather
always has the same absolute velocity. And that thing is light, which always has
the same constant speed c.
So actually Einstein showed that there is an element in our reality that is NOT relative
to other things, that c is absolute. Should be called the Theory of Nonrelativity of Light.
You and I can travel at incredible speeds relative to another and, from our individual
perspectives (time frames) see eachother move at different speeds, and experience
a different rate of time flow. Photons, funny enough, always have speed c relative to
everything else, including fellow photons that must obviously also travel at speed c.
So two photons traveling at speed c do not have a relative velocity difference of zero,
but rather one of c.
Yes, that is counterintuitive to us humans who think that speeds of roughly a million
times slower than c are already very fast. But then again, we're not photons, we do have mass.

regards,
Koen

Sorry Gravityblock, you have it reversed. An object gains mass as it approaches the speed of light. They've been showing evidence of  this in Cyclotrons for decades.

Were this mess gets it wrong its that the speed of light is not always the same. It can vary in the gravitational field to velocity as well as material it can pass through.

First of all, e=mc^2 is an incomplete formula/equation.

It doesn't really address the aether/zero point energy field, and that is why it seems to be in error.
or Does it?

A crude example, an automobile, while travelling, actually loses some of it's mass/weight as it speeds up in the linear direction of travel. So, in a way, that mass is being converted into motion which is really just a form of energy. Applying this to a space ship, the same should occur, and the space ship as it speeds up should lose mass, if not all,  as it approaches the speed of light. Laymen's thinking of course. The ship becomes pure energy.
Mass into energy conversion, since speed/motion is really a dimensional energy form. You are travelling through dimensions, when it comes to the aether field. That is why the e=mc^2 is improper, because it doesn't address dimensions or frequency shifts.

The aether is about frequency, as it is high vibrational field. The peak energy point being at the resonance of the aether field. So, e=mc^2 needs to take into account of the resonance to frequency or dimensions that one goes through to get to vast acceleration/speed limits.

How can a ship approach pure energy form?
It can't be done using a space shuttle and conventional propulsion. It won't work, because the ship will have a  fuel reserve too massive, and which will work against the task at hand. Ion propulsion will take too long. I believe that any ship without a forcefield will become annihilated and become pure energy as it passes into the speed of light realm. Disintegration. It is the law of nature, to return things to energy form at a certain threshold.

So for a ship to make it to light speed travel, it must have an electrical barrier between the ship and the cosmos/aether field, that insulates it from being totally converted into pure energy.

Another example of mass into energy which then allows gravity to lose hold on a structure,
is during vibration. A washing machine which is vibrating a load, will tend to be able to move across the floor easier than without vibration. Vibration is an energy form, much like speed. Both are transferable, working back and forth. Well we know, that any high energy frequencies can travel much faster through mediums than low energy frequencies.
Energy level of the frequency depending on vibration. Higher vibration, higher power.

Speed is in a way a form of vibration, compared to the aether that is. Because as you traverse the aether, you are moving through dimensions. Moving through dimensions, is like moving through frequency, so speed is actually moving through vibrations. It's all related.

Another tidbit, is that ANY mass traversing the cosmos is made of dimensions in form. So a space ship is actually a dimensional object traversing a dimensional universe.
Mass MUST equal dimensions in it's own right.

Energy on the E=mc^2 must also have direct relation to dimensions/frequency. It must have 'hum', not just a scalar measure, but a frequency.

On the contrary, it is easy to turn a ship into pure energy form!

Nasa managed to do it with the Space Shuttle a few times already.
;)

The problem is getting it back into structured material objects.

But you're right that E=mc^2 is an abbreviation of a larger fomula.
The rest of your story, especially the comparison to a vibrating washing machine,
is not something I can agree with easily. It comes eerily close to the new-age
vibrationology that is mostly wishfull thinking about vibrations magically playing
some vague role, but that has no real idea of the actual mechanism behind it.
To say "vibration makes movement easier" is just too superficial a conclusion.

Quote from: lostcauses10x on March 26, 2009, 11:01:03 AM
Were this mess gets it wrong its that the speed of light is not always the same.
It can vary in the gravitational field to velocity as well as material it can pass through.

LOL
Since c arises from the structure of spacetime itself, and gravity is known to be
nothing more than a curvature in that spacetime geometry, the observed speed of
the photon in a gravitational field may, to an observer, seem to effectively increase
or decrease a little. This does not necessarily mean c actually changes. But the
curvature of spacetime causes us to observe a time dilation effect, which could
account for the observed difference.
It's like the "bending" of the path of light by gravitational fields: sure, we as observers
certainly do see the "path" of light being "bent", causing the effect of "gravitational
lensing", which can be empirically measured. Does that mean that the photons are
not moving forward in a straight line? No, it does not. The photons keep moving in a
perfectly straight line, but it is space itself that is curved, and this results in an effective
and observable "bend" in the path of the light. The photons don't "steer toward the right",
they keep a heading straight forward. But due to spacetime being curved, that is not
what we see.
Same thing with the material it passes through, although that also involves photon
interaction with the material. As soon as a photon is absorbed and emitted by any
atom, one may ask the question whether or not we are really talking about the same
photon... Is the emitted photon the same as the absorbed photon? If not, then the
light coming out of a physical material with which it has interacted is not at all the
same light that was passed into it, and then we're not talking about a single photon
that moves through empty space and experiences an increase or decrease in velocity,
but rather about how long it takes for photons to interact with the material before they
have passed entirely through the material. That's nothing to do with their absolute velocity.
In this case we simply have a difference between the absolute and intrinsic speed of light,
and the effectively observable speed of light in a specific reference frame and due to
interaction with matter.

But hey, what the main problem is, I think, is that these are all typically matters that
involve the interplay between and/or overlap of the theories of relativity and quantum physics,
and like I said before those are still not unified yet so they each handle their own
area of physics and cannot be easily combined. And that's what we (yes myself included)
seem to be trying to do here.
Perhaps we should first unify the theories before trying to say anything definitive about the results... ;)

Regards,
Koen

@all:

The question is, Is Mass proportional to Energy?

Maybe take a look at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence)

For those who say it's not a complete formula, then please post the complete formula.

Taken from wikipedia:

While Einstein was not the first to propose a massâ€"energy relationship, and various similar formulas appeared before Einstein's theory, Einstein was the first to propose that the equivalence of mass and energy is a consequence of the symmetries of space and time.

The concept of massâ€"energy equivalence unites the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, allowing rest mass to be converted to forms of active energy (such as kinetic energy, heat, or light). Conversely, active energy in the form of kinetic energy or radiation can be converted to particles which have rest mass. The total amount of mass/energy in a closed system (as seen by a single observer) remains constant because energy cannot be created or destroyed and, in all of its forms, trapped energy exhibits mass. In relativity, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and neither one appears without the other.

Quote from: gravityblock on March 26, 2009, 02:40:02 AM
Pay careful attention to the words in bold, or you will more than likely not catch the contradiction.

In Special Relativity Theory, mass converts to energy as an object approaches the speed of light.  If this were true, then instead of having infinite mass as the theory proposes, a spaceship should be massless at the speed of light.   However, if the spaceship were massless at the speed of light, then it would have no energy because the mass would be zero.

I do not see how physicists could have ignored this simple contradiction for 100 years.  No doubt, the die-hard relativists will come out swinging with arguments that there is relativistic mass, which is different from rest mass, or some other such nonsense.

Mass IS energy. If so, energy IS mass. So then energy is also affected by gravity. I guess then that energy has mass, as stated, but the speed of radiant energy is so high it does not have to be that massive to do a great work.
The energy in one single grape, or 1g mass, contains so much energy it can run 1500 normal housholds for 1 year with power. E=mC². So what are we discussing? Radiation is the very smallest "particle", and the only form of mass that can travel with the speed of light. But also this kind ov energy can travel slower than the speed of light - as low as 17ms. Yes seventeen meters per second. Even stand still under controlled conditions.

Energy as light, if densed enough it will create particles such as protons - a particle we are able to "see" and measure. But if light is the smallest and most elementary particle possible, only light or gravity can be used to determind it. If we can't determind light particles otherwise, doesn't mean it is massless.

So I guess physics doesn't contradicts itself after all.

Vidar

Rat,
Maybe the reason a particle traveling at a high rate of speed appears to gain
mass is because it is pushing and pulling gravity along with it.
When the particle crashes into something its momentum and the momentum
of the gravity it is pushing and pull appear to give the particle a larger mass
than it really has.
For this to be true gravity needs to have mass.

Quote from: brian334 on March 26, 2009, 06:13:39 PM
Rat,
Maybe the reason a particle traveling at a high rate of speed appears to gain
mass is because it is pushing and pulling gravity along with it.
When the particle crashes into something its momentum and the momentum
of the gravity it is pushing and pull appear to give the particle a larger mass
than it really has.
For this to be true gravity needs to have mass.

Well, mass isn't actually a "solid" material, but it only appears to be it - because energy is somehow captured in time. Everything around us is only energy, waves or what you call it. Mass is visible because the light waves is reflected or absorbed by it. So what we call mass, isn't actually mass. It is captured energy - a state that has an unimaginable capacity of energy.

This energy or mass is continously lost as it breaks down. The tiny amount of energy that radiates from every known matter will finally make the mass as we know it dissappear into space.

And that raise a question from where gravity comes from. It must then come from this captured energy. As energy travels between objects as well, objects will interact on eachother. I guess that is what gravity is. the denser an object is the greater the captured energy is, the greater the gravity is - it makes sense to me.

Maybe gravity, the question every scientist can never provide a good answer to, is maybe as simple as this energy change that appears between objects.

Another sleepless night ;D

Vidar

Quote from: Koen1 on March 26, 2009, 11:46:11 AM
On the contrary, it is easy to turn a ship into pure energy form!

Nasa managed to do it with the Space Shuttle a few times already.
;)

The problem is getting it back into structured material objects.

But you're right that E=mc^2 is an abbreviation of a larger fomula.
The rest of your story, especially the comparison to a vibrating washing machine,
is not something I can agree with easily. It comes eerily close to the new-age
vibrationology that is mostly wishfull thinking about vibrations magically playing
some vague role, but that has no real idea of the actual mechanism behind it.
To say "vibration makes movement easier" is just too superficial a conclusion.

vibration plays a major role in advanced physics, in regards to the aether and speed. So anything you have mentioned doesn't seem to address the aether or does it? The space shuttle does not work on the aether, and neither does E=mc^2...and it never will. Short form or abbreviated or not, it doesn't address the quantum field/aether directly. Einstein didn't know about the aether field intimately enough....

Vibration:
It's actually a simple cause behind many things still unknown to the most studied of researchers, in regards to the aether. 
"New Age".....well believe it or not, there is actually 'some' truth there. It's really a matter of letting go of the indoctrinated 'approximations' in progressive science (cold and closed minded science) and seeing it more from a broader and spiritual sense.

Seeing the universe through geometry, will help greatly...in deciding that dimensions/geometry also relate to frequency/vibration. It's not that hard really. You look at your own hand, it's actually made up geometry, which is dimensional. Your hand vibrates at the atomic level etc etc., and the very atoms are made of geometry....

E = mc^2

someone wants another formula that involves the aether? It may be too hard to address that one since there has been very little work done in understanding the aether field.

I could estimate that it would depend on 'field resonation', and that E value would change in regards to the resonation value. Of course, we are taking a much more different POV/approach to understanding matter to energy conversion.
Sort of like black hole physics here, where matter is being converted into pure energy at the singularity.
Actually, that's another interesting thing, since a black hole doesn't allow light to escape, and time shuts down inside a black hole, and yet matter MUST be turned into pure energy at the singularity.....light speed seems to have no meaning here.
At the heart of the black hole, the vibrational rate is so high that the local physics are detuned out, and time being a dimension in space is also collapsed. It tells us light speed is no longer a true condition of matter to energy conversion. Oh, it's probably involved outside of a black hole to a lesser extent, but so is vibration...at least in the black hole. That same vibration within the black hole, can be taken out and used out here in our local physics to perform the same matter to energy conversion.

perhaps E= mc^2 could look more like E = m X (deviation percentage off central aether frequency (resonate freqency))...or something which takes into account of how far we are away from actual aether frequency.

then again all matter/mass is geometrical, and certain geometries in complexity actually vibrate higher if more complex, enabling them to resonate upward more so.

Yeah, I know stuff is seemingly 'out there'...and some of you might think 'new age' as well, but it really isn't. There is actual practical application of this knowledge.....and it works.

i've thought about this and i think what Einstein was thinking is:the electrons are moving at the speed of light and if the atom itself is moving at the speed of light then the electron will lose it's orientation and become free from the attraction of the nucleus thereby unbounding each part from the other...and since unbound matter is no longer mass it becomes energy.

Quote from: gravityblock on March 26, 2009, 02:40:02 AM
Pay careful attention to the words in bold, or you will more than likely not catch the contradiction.

In Special Relativity Theory, mass converts to energy as an object approaches the speed of light.  If this were true, then instead of having infinite mass as the theory proposes, a spaceship should be massless at the speed of light.   However, if the spaceship were massless at the speed of light, then it would have no energy because the mass would be zero.

I do not see how physicists could have ignored this simple contradiction for 100 years.  No doubt, the die-hard relativists will come out swinging with arguments that there is relativistic mass, which is different from rest mass, or some other such nonsense.

it's not actually a contradiction because you are starting with mass and ending with energy...the energy is already contained within the mass,acceleration to c2 only cancels the difference of the constituent parts,thereby making the nucleus(still) equal to the electron(motion)...if you mean massless in the sense that it would become energy then yes,it would be massless...it would expand by scalar decomposition.it is just a way to express the relationship between matter and energy...what you are doing is saying 1+2=3-1-2...in that you are disregarding the mass of the spaceship that you started with and saying that although it was accelerated to the speed of light and disintegrated that there was no energy released.

Taken from "Black Holes and Time Warps" - 'Einstein's Outrageous Legacy' authored by Kip S. Thorne

Page 476 subtitled "Inside Black holes"

"The Laws of quantum machanics object. They forbid the infinities. Very near the singularity, as best we understand it in 1993, the laws of the quantum mechanics merge with Einstein's general relativistic laws and completely change the "rules of the game". THe new rules are called quantum gravity.
Just when does quantum gravity take over, and what does it do? As we understand it in 1993 (and our understanding is rather poor), quantum gravity takes over when the oscillating tidal gravity (space time curvature) becomes so large that it completely deforms all objects in about 10^-43 seconds or less. Quantum gravity then radically changes the character of space-time. It ruptures the unification of space and time into spacetime. It unglues space and time from each other and then destroys time as a concept and destroys the definiteness of space. Time ceases to exist; no longer can we say that "this thing happens before that one," without time, there is no concept of "before" or "After".
Space, the sole remaining remnant of what was once a unified spacetime, becomes a random, probabilistic froth, like soapsuds. "

As far is this is concerned the 10^-43 seconds for 3D space plus time to be altered completely......
This is Planck-Wheeler time.
(Gh/c^5)^1/2
G = 6.67 X 10^-8 dyne-centimeter^2/gram^2 = Newton Gravitational constant.
h =  1.055 X 10^-27 erg-second
c = 2.998 X 10^10

All that is interesting, the real interesting part is 10^-43 seconds. It is time....but it is also frequency:

1/10^-43 = 10^+41 hertz ......where is gamma? 10^19 or so up to 10^24 hertz.



-----------------
Einstein showed that the velocity of light has the same value in all reference frames, whatever their velocity may be relative to other frames. From this point modern physics took off in the direction of Special and General Relatively Theory, and Quantum Mechanics. For many scientists the notion that an actual aether medium existed was simply discarded. Yet the apparent non-existence of an aether raised many problems---the M-M experiment was not the end of the story.

If all the air molecules are pumped out of a chamber, the chamber still contains residual radiation (electromagnetic noise from stars, x-rays, and heat radiation). Even before quantum mechanics, it was shown by classical radiation theory that if the temperature of the container is lowered to absolute zero, there remains a residual amount of thermal energy that can not by any means be removed. This residual energy in an empty container at absolute zero, was named "zero-point energy" (ZPE).

Putoff continues, "When the idea of the hydrogen atom was first put forward...one of the questions at the time was: why doesn't the electron simply radiate its energy away and spiral into the nucleus, in a way similar to the way our satellites have certain losses and spiral into the planet? At the time, the answer was simply, well it is just the magic of quantum theory, it doesn't obey classical rules, and for some reason hydrogen atoms are like little perpetual motion machines. But in fact, from the standpoint of the zero point energy approach...indeed you expect an electron in a hydrogen atom to radiate its energy away, but it picks up energy from the background zero point energy and therefore is sustained by it. What that means in terms of physics is that is shows why atoms can be seen as perpetual motion machines, it is just that they always have an energy input from the background to make up for the losses."

Australian Astronomer Barry Setterfield has, in the past year, picked up on this latest theory of the vacuum to explain the red shift of light from distant galaxies. Arizona astronomer William Tifft's research has recently shown that red-lifted light from the stars is quantized--this turns out to be also related to ZPE. Setterfield's new model also takes into account the evidence that the velocity of light is not a fixed constant. Setterfield concludes that the universe is not expanding at all, (as the Big Bang model has long supposed) but is static (it has a fixed diameter). The original energy input of outside energy on Day Two of creation--when God stretched out the firmament to its maximum expanse--accounts for the red-shift and the subsequent velocity of light decrease.
????????????????????

In 1994 Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) was explored by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff who published the hypothesis that inertia may be the result of interactions between the electromagnetic zero-point field resident in the quantum vacuum and the quarks and electrons constituting ordinary matter (Phys. Rev. A, 49, 678, 1994). This paper suggested that Newton's equation of motion (F=ma), which is widely accepted as a postulate of classical physics, would be derivable from Maxwell's equations when applied to the electromagnetic zero-point field.

http://members.tripod.com/cdsandcds/CDK/implicationsofCDK.htm

Einstein was a crazy asshole and e=mc2 is bullshit.