E=MC^2 is the inverse of reality and the exact inverse of True and Pure physics!

[evolvingape]

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

[evolvingape]

@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 ?

    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

[vineet_kiran]

@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   â€˜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.

[fritznien]

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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