C Squared

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by GD</i>
<br />
I never said energy was not conserved. I am saying matter, which is a form of organized energy is not conserved in that form and reacts to the potential or the entropy of space it is situated in.

Science textbooks are divided if entropy increases or decreases over extremely long time.

Therefore the entropy theory is as good as any other theory.

I am not trying to push these ideas, I am simply trying to show you both sides of the medal.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sure, but in the previous post you seemed to disagree with various definitions of "conservation laws" you found in certain textbooks. You wanted to clear things up a bit, so I handed you my view on the mattter. The constancy of energy I was talking about was just an example on how you can define a conserved quantity.

You could try to find such a time dependent function C(t) for the problems you are studying. If you can show that dC/dt=0 then you 'll have the "conservation law" you wanted, wouldn't you agree?

[]

Hello Jan,

dP/dt = F, F is not equal to zero. If matter accelerates, then conservation of momentum is false.

Acceleration of matter defines a direction, therefore there is a source and a sink of energy.

The source is energy, the sink is zero potential.

There are several topics being kicked around again. About c^2: it seems there is a time line for all the terms that Omni has posted and it is important to note in Newton's time energy was unknown and up until ~1820 force only was used. Energy and an understanding of speed of light came into the mix about 1820 or a little later. Entrophy came in about 1850 as a practical way of engineering. There are only fuzzy notes in the history of science about these timelines and the concepts have been recycled so much they are only useful as math constants in models.

The thing is that Newton's inverse square law totally predicts the mathematical wholly trinity.

F=Gm^2/d^2 [Force], Fd/v=Gm^2/dv [momentum], Fd=Gm^2/d [Energy]

1704 Newton authored his book "Optiks" where he's quoted as saying, "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another..."

That's basically a 3 century old school take on mc^2 by the godfather of physics, still my man to this day, Sir Isaac Newton.

There are others who say the energy/mass equivalence can be massaged out of Newton's laws. I don't get how anyone derives c^2 from that. Is there something I'm missing in these laws that leads to c^2?

Closest I get's v^2=Gm^2/md cause I can't pet c^2 outta the classics due to the fact c hasn't been measured yet, on the up and up at least. Soon as it's measured we've 6.672x10^-11xc^2=Gm^2/md which's 5.996x10^6m^2/s^2. So yeah you can stroke E/m=Gm^2/md from the inverse square law but only after c is known.

It's this lunatic c^2 entity that's been spittin Skoal in the eye of c for more than a century now and they just brush it off as a conversion constant when all you have to do is say c^2/d=F/m to get a ridiculous acceleration on Earth alone.

Although even if all their measurements are wrong v^2 still exists and it's blatantly saying v_linearxv_nonlinear or v_straightxv_spin that'll telejump a spirisoulaura anywhere it wants to go instantly. It's just that no one understands the hidden geometry behind the mechanism of inversion except for those demons on Bewitched, Charmed, and Buffy, or those kooky cats on Star Trek I guess.

I'm absolutely sure that this geomety's waiting right there in the as of yet undefined quantumechanical stats I've asked about cause v_wavexv_cone is v^2_teleportation.