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 Jim</i>
<br />If most of the basics of transforming energy and mass exist why is so much effort being wasted on fission and fusion processes? The direct transformation process is so much better it seems only fools would be tinkering with other energy processes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It's there, and we know it's there. We simply haven't reached the level of technology to extract it yet. I doubt we will until we fully understand and isolate the force responsible for gravity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Lotto Cheatah</i>
<br />
It's there, and we know it's there. We simply haven't reached the level of technology to extract it yet. I doubt we will until we fully understand and isolate the force responsible for gravity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Here is the base theory behind the technology:
Assume we detect light [a photon] from a star in another galaxy. How we perceive that light depends upon our relative motion to that star. If we are moving towards each other at relativistic speeds, the light will be blue-shifted. If apart, then it will be red-shifted.

Albert showed us that there is really no limit to the amount of relative shift. Visible light may be blue shifted into the UV, XRay, gamma or beyond. When evergy is blue-shifted to the square of the speed of light it becomes mass (m=e/c^2).

There is a direct relationship between mass, energy, gravity and acceleration and/or velocity. If energy can be blue-shifted into Mass, then Mass can be red-shifted back into the EM spectrum. This is accomplished by focusing an intense gravitational field on it. The gravitational field is provided by the catalytic membranes (as previously described).

I think mass is transformed into energy in a lot of ways that are misunderstood. Anytime a match is lit there is a transformation of some mass into energy but we think of that as a dumb ol chemical reaction. But, make a fission bomb and geewiz we have mass transforming into energy. The reverse is more subtile and so less noticed than explosives but plants transform energy into mass. This is also done in particle accelerators. The main problem is how the information is understood by the densest stuff on Earth-the space between the ears of humans.

Lotto Cheatah, you are talking like you are from future, maybe you can tell me the winnig numbers in lottery [] Sorry, just jocking []

Hello Jim,

I wish you a happy new year!

I would like to add these few words to explain the reason why Einstein's equation needs clarification:

It has been shown that an atomic clock ticks slower in the presence of a strong gravitational field than in a weak one. (or ticks slower under acceleration).

Gravity tends towards the center of a system (Planet, solar system, galaxy). This is the area where the atom experiences the highest entropy. (it is also the lowest potential energy of the system).
The atomic clock would not keep time in such a place since the atom is disorderly, disorganized. It is more energy than matter.

However precise the atomic clock is, it will always tick slower with passing time.
The path our solar system takes through our galaxy should confirm this.
Therefore, the atomic clock slows down under acceleration and stops as it reaches c^2.

This is why c^2 varies. It varies towards higher entropy: E=m where space and time for matter reaches zero.

Hi GD, Happy New Year. You seem to be chatting about real events and I am questioning to mathematical value of C^2. It gets approximatly the ratio of mass and energy but everyone uses it as if it gives an exact ratio. This leads to the invention of concepts like neutrinos and other bad stuff. If the real ratio of mass to energy could be measured(and I don't know how that can be done) or some slack was applied when the ratio is used(say ~5% or so) a different concept of particles would develop-or maybe not. Where is your view of gravity based? Did you learn the stuff you posted or is original thinking?