- Thank you received: 0
C Squared
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
21 years 10 months ago #2794
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I don't have a clue what you mean by "doing something" and I am not much good at fishing either.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
???
Interesting. When you said earlier that F = m * a was not confining like E = m * c^2, I guess I just assumed that you meant for the purposes of doing something (like a calculation perhaps). My appologies.
When I asked for an example I was expecting to see an example of how to use F = m * a that demonstrated this freedom from confinement.
If you are not going to "do something" with this better equation, then ...
As you can see, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is there some other way you can express your ideas?
Regards,
LB
I don't have a clue what you mean by "doing something" and I am not much good at fishing either.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
???
Interesting. When you said earlier that F = m * a was not confining like E = m * c^2, I guess I just assumed that you meant for the purposes of doing something (like a calculation perhaps). My appologies.
When I asked for an example I was expecting to see an example of how to use F = m * a that demonstrated this freedom from confinement.
If you are not going to "do something" with this better equation, then ...
As you can see, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is there some other way you can express your ideas?
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 10 months ago #3428
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The two equasions are both about energy and force which I admit are not exactly equal concepts. F=ma can apply at all levels because acceleration is not a constant and the limit to acceleration can be factored into F=ma so that even E=mc2 is included. To me that makes F=ma more useful. Maybe you are on a different frequency it seems simple to see this. E=mc2 restricts F=ma liberates.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 10 months ago #2863
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The use of the two equations will give different results because one is focused a on velocity constant that may never be attainable in a real event such as a bond in molecules or elements. This problem is resolved by inventing patches. The other equation can be applied to the same real event since now very small time changes and distance can be measured without a need for additional patch work. If this is so which way is best? For example; maybe a nuclear battery can be developed but not by applying both equations. A nuclear battery is a new concept and would be a very good energy storage device.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 1 month ago #6402
by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
I would like to share my thoughts about Einstein's equation:
Let me go back in time, at the end of the 17th century, and present
to you different definitions of energy, different opinions of what made up our universe:
- Isaac Newton's views of colliding objects could be summarized with
the following equation: E=mv where the energy of colliding objects
canceled out and vanished only to be replenished by a divine force.
- Gottfried Leibniz's views were different, he suggested no energy was lost in a collision. (kinetic energy is converted into heat and other energy dissipating forces.)He proposed that the equation should actually look like this: E=mv^2.
I believe Einstein's thoughts were somewhat influenced by Leibniz's views, amongst others, when he formulated his famous equation E=mc^2.
Newton's and Leibniz's equations were based on events occuring in a very short lapse of time: a collision. The final velocity was used to solve these problems. This is where I believe we do not get the full picture.
The problem should not be restricted to a collision but over a longer period of time where the velocities involved are the result of accelerations.
In fact all motions in our universe are accelerated ones (negatively or positively). What we see as constant velocities are actually forever minute changes in velocity.These accelerations are done at the expense of energy.
Some accelerations are only noticeable over billions of years as the seemingly constant speed of the Earth's rotation about its axis in 24 hrs.this periodic motion was probably achieved in 23 hrs. a few billion years ago and will probably do so in 25 hrs. in another billion years.
As Newton's and Leibniz's collision example, Einstein's equation E=mc^2 relates to a static universe, a frozen moment in time,the precise moment when matter converts into energy.
How should the equation read for all motions in the universe?
I propose that E=mc^2 to be the maximum limit (excited state)and E=m to be the minimum limit (depleted state).
Velocities vary continuously with time. - Matter tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells matter how to accelerate. (at what rate to lose energy.)
A variable has to be introduced in the equation to produce all the accelerations possible, all the energy states possible:
E=m Lt c^2 where Lt ranges between 1/c^2 to 1
Basically the equation may be written as E=ma where all possible accelerations of 'a' will limit all energy in the universe between E=m and E=mc^2
So then:
- What is energy?
It is the result of depleted (min.) energy and excited (max.) energy state of matter.
- What is matter?
It is the state of energy between the above mentioned limits.
In other words, matter is a form of energy.
- What is Gravity?
It is matter losing energy! It is accelerated matter, it is entropy in the making!
Let me go back in time, at the end of the 17th century, and present
to you different definitions of energy, different opinions of what made up our universe:
- Isaac Newton's views of colliding objects could be summarized with
the following equation: E=mv where the energy of colliding objects
canceled out and vanished only to be replenished by a divine force.
- Gottfried Leibniz's views were different, he suggested no energy was lost in a collision. (kinetic energy is converted into heat and other energy dissipating forces.)He proposed that the equation should actually look like this: E=mv^2.
I believe Einstein's thoughts were somewhat influenced by Leibniz's views, amongst others, when he formulated his famous equation E=mc^2.
Newton's and Leibniz's equations were based on events occuring in a very short lapse of time: a collision. The final velocity was used to solve these problems. This is where I believe we do not get the full picture.
The problem should not be restricted to a collision but over a longer period of time where the velocities involved are the result of accelerations.
In fact all motions in our universe are accelerated ones (negatively or positively). What we see as constant velocities are actually forever minute changes in velocity.These accelerations are done at the expense of energy.
Some accelerations are only noticeable over billions of years as the seemingly constant speed of the Earth's rotation about its axis in 24 hrs.this periodic motion was probably achieved in 23 hrs. a few billion years ago and will probably do so in 25 hrs. in another billion years.
As Newton's and Leibniz's collision example, Einstein's equation E=mc^2 relates to a static universe, a frozen moment in time,the precise moment when matter converts into energy.
How should the equation read for all motions in the universe?
I propose that E=mc^2 to be the maximum limit (excited state)and E=m to be the minimum limit (depleted state).
Velocities vary continuously with time. - Matter tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells matter how to accelerate. (at what rate to lose energy.)
A variable has to be introduced in the equation to produce all the accelerations possible, all the energy states possible:
E=m Lt c^2 where Lt ranges between 1/c^2 to 1
Basically the equation may be written as E=ma where all possible accelerations of 'a' will limit all energy in the universe between E=m and E=mc^2
So then:
- What is energy?
It is the result of depleted (min.) energy and excited (max.) energy state of matter.
- What is matter?
It is the state of energy between the above mentioned limits.
In other words, matter is a form of energy.
- What is Gravity?
It is matter losing energy! It is accelerated matter, it is entropy in the making!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 1 month ago #6405
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
You could say matter and energy are equal and end it there rather than going into a lot of fuzzy logic. What is the constant that links matter and energy-is it square velocity or acceleration?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 1 month ago #6408
by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
I say acceleration, and c^2 is the maximum limit for the rate of change of velocity with time! At this point matter has converted into energy.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.388 seconds