Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is
wrong.

Here's why.


In my limited understanding, mass is matter, right? Energy is not
matter as defined by Einstein; it's energy. Mass, matter, hell call it
a banana for all I care, it's something tangible. It exists. So energy
and mass are the same thing. Nothing can give off energy if it don't
have some tangible mass to it, yes?

Name me something that is purely energy? I can't think of anything. I
know some people who are full of hot air, but that don't count.

FACT: ALL MASS HAS ENERGY. ALL ENERGY HAS MASS. ALL MATTER HAS ENERGY.
ALL ENERGY HAS MATTER.

(Please note, in this instance mass and matter mean the same thing. So
please don't say I am a thicky confusing the two terms, cos I'm not
falling for that cheap tactic


So... based on the obvious fact E=M, we now have the speed of light
element thrown into the equation. Now before you lot call me an idiot,
light is both mass and energy. You can't have light without the sun.
The sun is a big hunk of mass in space, yes? Good.

Right, so we have absolute proof the sun is mass. Now our sun has a
rather long lifespan, yes? Popular wisdom suggests it's been around a
few million years (be they Earth or light years). So it has energy to
keep it burning. The energy is electrons and positrons and neutrons in
each and every atom of the sun, yes? So we can comprehensively
conclude the sun has energy. Just stand in the sun on a hot day and
you've got all that lovely energy hitting your skin.

So... FACT 1: THE SUN HAS MASS AND ENERGY.

FACT 2: THE SUN GIVES OFF RADIATION. AND WE CALL THAT RADIATION -
LIGHT.

Now we have this thing called the speed of light. It is claimed it
travels at 186, 000 miles an hour. So it's fast.

Now Einstein tell us we can work out how much energy is expended from
any given mass/matter when we multiple the size of the mass/matter by
300,000,000 miles per second to the power of two. We get a nice figure
how much energy is produced. Sounds good so far.

But... we have the slight problem that light just happens to be mass
and energy. Now in my mind, we've got a bit of a contradiction here.
If energy is general and not specific to particular types of energy
(as Einstein suggests), why has he made light-energy separate from
general energy? It doesn't make sense.

E must include light. PERIOD. E=C. Sorry Al, light has energy, you
can't dispute that, so C must always equal E. It's an absolute law of
the universe. So with respect, Alfred, your equation is wrong. Whether
or not energy does travel at the rate of E=MC2 is redundant because
the equation doesn't make sense.

If I can get a credible reason why light isn't part of energy and
mass, I will accept I am wrong. But I don't think I am.

The fact light is energy and mass must surely prove E=MC2 is wrong.

I have disproved Einstein's E=MC2. Energy as represented in an
equation must always include light. Einstein forgot. His equation is
plain wrong. What a silly twit.

TT

"Time Traveller" wrote in message
om...
Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is
wrong.

Here's why.
....


Shoulda known that someone who couldn't spell "world" wouldn't have anything
worthwhile to say...

Mark Folsom

Hi Time Traveller , You say ,
" If I can get a credible reason why light isn't
part of energy and mass , I will accept I am wrong " .

With respect to a human's inertial frame of reference ...
Light has both mass-like properties , like inertia ,
as well as energy-like properties , such as waves .

A particle's Rest mass must be very close to zero
in order for it to travel at nearly the speed of light .

And objects which move at nearly the speed of light have
a very significant " Relativistic mass " .
Where Relativistic_Mass = Energy = Rest_Mass * c * c .

Despite the Sci.Physics FAQ error in this regard ,
relativistic mass is Not just energy ,
_ Both _ sides of the famous E = M * c * c equation
are needed .

To illustrate this ,
consider the famous double slit experiment ...

Throw enough atoms ( or photons ) , one at a time ,
though adjacent slits to a detector ,
and the points will eventually map out
an interference pattern , i.e. each atom was wave-like .
The waves added and canceled , going through both slits .
Yet each atom was also mass-like ,
each one was individually detected in an exact location .
( And with a certain inertia )

Your desire to time travel ,

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle ,
sets a limit on what we can simultaneously know
about that atom's position and canonical momentum .
i.e. Our information must always be incomplete .

Godel's incompleteness theorem also tells us :
Information must always be incomplete ,
so it's impossible to avoid assumptions .

I call this " Notional randomness " , because
outside of the notional events that exist in our minds ,
natural time is assumed to be spatial ,
i.e. a timescape , e.g. Einsteinian space-time .

And the topmost axiom ( assumption )
of physics-metaphysics is : _ The future is fixed _ .
( And it's only our incomplete information that
makes it seem otherwise ... making us think ,
' That over there affects this here ' )

"Time Traveller" wrote in message om...
Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is

.... so simple, yet way too difficult for an imbecile like you?
Indeed.

Dirk Vdm

"Mark Folsom" wrote in message ...
"Time Traveller" wrote in message
om...
Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is
wrong.

Here's why.
...


Shoulda known that someone who couldn't spell "world" wouldn't have anything
worthwhile to say...

Mark Folsom


LOL.


Nevertheless Einstein's theory is wrong. For E=MC2 to be a universal
law of physics:

1) C must equal E before E equals M multiplied by C2. Einstein has
failed to state this.

2) C must equal M before E=MC2. Einstein has failed to state this.

Rest mass energy is defined as the structural energy of the particle.
Last time I checked my physics handbook, photons are made up of wave
particles. Particles contain mass = light particles have mass.

Rest mass is a nonsensical concept because it implies a photon must be
still to be at rest mass. Seeing as photons move at the speed of light
and don't stand still (at rest), rest mass has *zero* importance to
Einstein's MC2. Einstein is concerned with the speed of light(2). That
is *moving* photons. Moving photons contain mass. They are not
resting. That is a fact, even if you want to argue over the merits or
non-merits of photon rest mass. Photon rest mass is irrelevant to
E=MC2.

As it stands, Einstein's equation is nonsensical because:

1) Einstein E=MC2 is saying E=MM. The first M being mass and the
second M being non-rest mass of PS. This makes no sense. There must be
a distinction between M and PS. Einstein has made no distinction.

The equation for the rest mass of light at the power of two is:

M=HF/CS

Mass equals the (Planck) constant frequency of the speed of light to
the power of two.

2) Einstein has not incorporated M=HF/C2 into his E=MC equation. The
only logical way to express E=MC2 is [C=(E=M]C2) or if you wanna be
really pedantic [C2=(E=M]C2) Both equations are copyright of me, Time
Traveller, Feb 2004.

Einstein's rule cannot exist on its own as an absolute universal law,
without stating light has mass and energy. He must state M=C2 and
E=MC2 *before* he explains MC2. The equation collapses without it
because it implies energy is dependant on mass and a third element -
non-rest mass of light. There is no third element. The third element
is itself element#1: energy and element#2: mass. And that is his
mistake.

So mock me if you want, Mark, but I am correct.

TT

"Mark Folsom" wrote in message ...
"Time Traveller" wrote in message
om...
Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is
wrong.

Here's why.
...


Shoulda known that someone who couldn't spell "world" wouldn't have anything
worthwhile to say...

Mark Folsom

And one more thing. E=MC2 is dependent on Special Relativity being
correct. It's not and here's the proof:

1)

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity states a light particle has no
rest mass. Now unless someone can prove otherwise, SR has *never* been
proved as fact. That's why Einstein called it a theory. Had Einstein
had absolute proof, he would have named his work: 'The Rule of Special
Relativity' or 'The Law of Special Relativity'. Something that is not
a proven fact cannot be used as a precise model to describe the
movement of atoms.

2)

Einstein's time dilation has never been proved. Airplanes do not slow
down in time. It's a ludicrous suggestion to make. It's up there with
wormholes as daft physics. If planes slow down in time, the planes
would move backwards against the Earth's axis and reappear somewhere
else. Earth is moving on its axis (as calculated at the equator) at
just over 1000 miles per hour or approximately 18 miles per second,
and is moving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour; so even the
smallest time dilation would move the plane from its original
position. Earth and all on it are moving on = plane slows down and
moves back. Even if a plane slowed down for one second it would be
sent back 18 miles in an instant. Has any plane gone backwards and/or
materialized in another spot while flying forward? Nope. Come on
people, get with logic!

3)

Mass dilation has never been proved. If mass expands in size as it
reaches the speed of light, yet mass can never travel at the speed of
light because it would have infinite mass, how do you explain light
mass? Photons have mass (see my explanation below) and are travelling
at C. So Einstein is clearly wrong. Einstein is differentiating mass
from light and that is not possible.


4)

Length correlation is a yet another non-proven tenet of SR. It argues
that a craft in space will see the universe around it contract as it
approaches the speed of light. Length correlation also claims the
universe contracts if seen from inside the craft. This is sci-fi
fantasy because no craft can achieve the speed of light to prove the
existence of LC. It's like me saying if a ship goes fast say, C10, it
might break through the fabric of space time universe and see beyond
it. LC is the stuff of Star Trek warp drives! Create faster than
light speed then prove the theory. Not the other way around.

Conclusion: There is no scientific proof to comprehensively prove SR
operates in the universe. Ergo, E=MC2 should be removed from SR if it
is to remain a viable equation. Plus it goes without saying the
equation makes little sense as it stands and should be modified to:

[C=(E=M]C2)


Time Traveller

"Time Traveller" wrote in message om...
"Mark Folsom" wrote in message ...
"Time Traveller" wrote in message
om...
Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is
wrong.

Here's why.
...


Shoulda known that someone who couldn't spell "world" wouldn't have anything
worthwhile to say...

Mark Folsom

And one more thing. E=MC2 is dependent on Special Relativity being
correct. It's not and here's the proof:

1)

You are stupid

2)

You are dishonest

3)

You are a coward

4)

You are a troll

Conclusion:

You are a stupid dishonest coward troll.

Dirk Vdm

(Time Traveller) wrote in message . com...
Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is
wrong.

Here's why.


In my limited understanding, mass is matter, right? Energy is not
matter as defined by Einstein; it's energy. Mass, matter, hell call it
a banana for all I care, it's something tangible. It exists. So energy
and mass are the same thing. Nothing can give off energy if it don't
have some tangible mass to it, yes?

Name me something that is purely energy? I can't think of anything. I
know some people who are full of hot air, but that don't count.

What about light? Photons have no mass, but have energy.

FACT:
ALL MASS HAS ENERGY.

True.

ALL ENERGY HAS MASS.

False. Just because one thing is true does not guarentee that the
converse is also true. Usually it isn't, in fact.

ALL MATTER HAS ENERGY.

True.

ALL ENERGY HAS MATTER.

False. Matter is a form of energy, but energy can have other forms
too.

(Please note, in this instance mass and matter mean the same thing. So
please don't say I am a thicky confusing the two terms, cos I'm not
falling for that cheap tactic


So... based on the obvious fact E=M,

Hold on. You never claimed above that energy IS matter. You claimed
energy HAS matter. There is a significant difference. 1 Joule of
energy is defined as 1 kgm^2/s^2. So yes, it has a mass term in it,
but it also has a length term, and a time term. You're saying,
effectively, that because my car has wheels, my car is a wheel.

we now have the speed of light
element thrown into the equation. Now before you lot call me an idiot,
light is both mass and energy. You can't have light without the sun.
The sun is a big hunk of mass in space, yes? Good.

The sun is not light, however. The sun is a huge mass of,
predominately hydrogen, with bits of helium, lithium, etc. thrown in
there. The nuclear reactions in the sun produce energy, in the form,
among others, of light. Here's an easier conceptual example: put a
flashlight on a scale and turn it on. If light had mass, then the
flashlight must be losing mass (otherwise mass would be being created
out of nothing). Since the light is escaping into the air, the
flashlight should be steadily losing mass.

Right, so we have absolute proof the sun is mass. Now our sun has a
rather long lifespan, yes? Popular wisdom suggests it's been around a
few million years (be they Earth or light years).

Try billion years. Light years aren't a measure of time, however,
they're a measure of distance.

So it has energy to keep it burning. The energy is electrons and positrons
and neutrons in
each and every atom of the sun, yes? So we can comprehensively
conclude the sun has energy. Just stand in the sun on a hot day and
you've got all that lovely energy hitting your skin.

Ok.

So... FACT 1: THE SUN HAS MASS AND ENERGY.

FACT 2: THE SUN GIVES OFF RADIATION. AND WE CALL THAT RADIATION -
LIGHT.

The sun gives off lots of different types of radiation:
electromagnetic, light, heat, etc.

Now we have this thing called the speed of light. It is claimed it
travels at 186, 000 miles an hour. So it's fast.

Now Einstein tell us we can work out how much energy is expended from
any given mass/matter when we multiple the size of the mass/matter by
300,000,000 miles per second to the power of two. We get a nice figure
how much energy is produced. Sounds good so far.

I think you mean metres/second above.

But... we have the slight problem that light just happens to be mass
and energy.

Light doesn't have mass though. Energy, yes.

Now in my mind, we've got a bit of a contradiction here.
If energy is general and not specific to particular types of energy
(as Einstein suggests), why has he made light-energy separate from
general energy? It doesn't make sense.

He didn't.

E must include light. PERIOD. E=C.

Velocity = energy? How? Why? (Don't forget, these aren't even the
right units)

Sorry Al, light has energy, you can't dispute that, so C must always equal
E. It's an absolute law of
the universe.

Sorry, but energy isn't the same as velocity.

So with respect, Alfred, your equation is wrong. Whether
or not energy does travel at the rate of E=MC2 is redundant because
the equation doesn't make sense.

The equation does not claim that energy "travels" at a rate of E=MC^2.
What it claims is the total energy of a stationary molecule (through
intermolecular forces, etc) is equal to the mass of the molecule,
multiplied by a constant. It's the reason why nuclear bombs work: mass
is used up --it literally vanishes-- and an enormous amount of energy
replaces it.

If I can get a credible reason why light isn't part of energy and
mass, I will accept I am wrong. But I don't think I am.

Well, you can start with some of the logic problems above.

The fact light is energy and mass must surely prove E=MC2 is wrong.

I have disproved Einstein's E=MC2. Energy as represented in an
equation must always include light. Einstein forgot. His equation is
plain wrong. What a silly twit.

TT

There are formulas for determining the energy of light. They're pretty
simple. Check a freshman physics or chemistry text.

A.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Time Traveller" wrote in message om...
"Mark Folsom" wrote in message ...
"Time Traveller" wrote in message
om...
Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is
wrong.

Here's why.
...


Shoulda known that someone who couldn't spell "world" wouldn't have anything
worthwhile to say...

Mark Folsom

And one more thing. E=MC2 is dependent on Special Relativity being
correct. It's not and here's the proof:

1)

You are stupid

2)

You are dishonest

3)

You are a coward

4)

You are a troll

Conclusion:

You are a stupid dishonest coward troll.

Dirk Vdm

So far Dirk, you have contributed nothing to this debate other than to
insult me. So I guess if that is the measure of you, your opinion
ain't worth much.

Cue Dirk's next response calling me a stupid coward or words to that
effect, thus reinforcing the above. Oh look, he just has!

Tell you what, Dirk, I'll put my theory to the test. I will write a
dissertation on [C=(E=M]C2) and see if I can submit it some respected
sources and see what response I get. One thing is for sure, it's bound
to be more articulate and respectful than your replies.

And with that, I feel we should end discontinue our correspondence.
Although I have a passing interest in physics, there is more to my
life than discussing abstract equations with rude people like you.

TT

"Time Traveller" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...
"Time Traveller" wrote in message om...
"Mark Folsom" wrote in message ...
"Time Traveller" wrote in message
om...
Yep, for real. The most famous equation the world has ever known is
wrong.

Here's why.
...


Shoulda known that someone who couldn't spell "world" wouldn't have anything
worthwhile to say...

Mark Folsom

And one more thing. E=MC2 is dependent on Special Relativity being
correct. It's not and here's the proof:

1)

You are stupid

2)

You are dishonest

3)

You are a coward

4)

You are a troll

Conclusion:

You are a stupid dishonest coward troll.

Dirk Vdm

So far Dirk, you have contributed nothing to this debate other than to
insult me. So I guess if that is the measure of you, your opinion
ain't worth much.

Cue Dirk's next response calling me a stupid coward or words to that
effect, thus reinforcing the above. Oh look, he just has!

Tell you what, Dirk, I'll put my theory to the test. I will write a
dissertation on [C=(E=M]C2) and see if I can submit it some respected
sources and see what response I get. One thing is for sure, it's bound
to be more articulate and respectful than your replies.

Make sure you run it through the respected test
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
before you submit it. That will save you a lot of time.


And with that, I feel we should end discontinue our correspondence.
Although I have a passing interest in physics, there is more to my
life than discussing abstract equations with rude people like you.

What on earth makes you think that this is a debate or a discussion?
I am helping you saving time by not having to respond to people
who would be inclined to try to teach you something. This way
you will have more time to concentrate on the Ultimate Question:
Why the hell would I be calling you a coward?

Dirk Vdm