PhysBang wrote:I'm traveling quite a bit this month. Hopefully I'll have time in a few weeks (and remember) to go through the proof and James' statements.
Still looking forward to it.
Moderator: Flannel Jesus
PhysBang wrote:I'm traveling quite a bit this month. Hopefully I'll have time in a few weeks (and remember) to go through the proof and James' statements.
PhysBang wrote:I'm traveling quite a bit this month. Hopefully I'll have time in a few weeks (and remember) to go through the proof and James' statements.
E = mc2, equation in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body.
© MinutePhysics (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
In physical theories prior to that of special relativity, mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities. Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value. In special relativity, however, the energy of a body at rest is determined to be mc2. Thus, each body of rest mass m possesses mc2 of “rest energy,” which potentially is available for conversion to other forms of energy. The mass-energy relation, moreover, implies that, if energy is released from the body as a result of such a conversion, then the rest mass of the body will decrease. Such a conversion of rest energy to other forms of energy occurs in ordinary chemical reactions, but much larger conversions occur in nuclear reactions. This is particularly true in the case of nuclear fusion reactions that transform hydrogen to helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy. Stars like the Sun shine from the energy released from the rest mass.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:E = mc2, equation in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:© MinutePhysics (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
In physical theories prior to that of special relativity, mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value.
James S Saint wrote:Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value.
Also false. Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have. It is not arbitrary.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:James S Saint wrote:Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value.
Also false. Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have. It is not arbitrary.
Please re read. They were saying the opposite, they were stating a prior false belief.
James wrote:
Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have
surreptitious57 wrote:James wrote:
Energy is the measure of how much affect something can have
Energy is defined as the ability to perform work
surreptitious57 wrote:and when a system can no longer perform any more it will
have reached a state of maximum entropy. So there is an inverse relationship between energy and entropy
James S Saint wrote:First E=mc² had nothing to do with relativity.
wiki wrote:Mass–energy equivalence arose originally from special relativity as a paradox described by Henri Poincaré.[1] Einstein proposed it in 1905, in the paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?, one of his Annus Mirabilis (Miraculous Year) papers.[2] Einstein was the first to propose that the equivalence of mass and energy is a general principle and a consequence of the symmetries of space and time.
Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?
The results of the previous investigation lead to a very interesting conclusion, which is here to be deduced.A. Einstein
Bern
(Received 1905)
I based that investigation on the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space, together with the Maxwellian expression for the electromagnetic energy of space, and in addition the principle that:
The laws by which the states of physical systems alter are independent
of the alternative, to which of two systems of coordinates, in uniform motion
of parallel translation relatively to each other, these alterations of state are
referred (principle of relativity).
With these principles as my basis I deduced inter alia the following result:
Let a system of plane waves of light, referred to the system of coordinates (x, y, z), possess the energy l; let the direction of the ray (the wave-normal) make an angle φ with the axis of x of the system. If we introduce a new system of co-ordinates (ξ, η, ζ) moving in uniform parallel translation with respect to the system (x, y, z), and having its origin of coordinates in motion along the axis of x with the velocity v, then this quantity of light-measured in the system (ξ, η, ζ) — possesses the energy
$$l^* = l·\frac{(1-v/Vcosφ)}{\sqrt{1−(v/V)^2}},$$
where c denotes the velocity of light. We shall make use of this result in what follows.
Let there be a stationary body in the system (x, y, z), and let its energy referred to the system (x, y, z) — be E0. Let the energy of the body relative to the system (ξ, η, ζ), moving as above with the velocity v, be H0. Let this body send out, in a direction making an angle φ with the axis of x, plane waves of light, of energy L/2 measured relatively to (x, y, z), and simultaneously an equal quantity of light in the opposite direction. Meanwhile the body remains at rest with respect to the system (x, y, z). The principle of energy must apply to this process, and in fact (by the principle of relativity) with respect to both systems of co-ordinates. If we call the energy of the body after the emission of light E1 or H1 respectively, measured relatively to the system (x, y, z) or (ξ, η, ζ) respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain...
Fixed Cross wrote:the relation between c and gravitation, a relation which can be seen as the backbone of the physical universe.
Fixed Cross wrote:VO .. all perspectives bend reality to themselves.
Fixed Cross wrote:..continuous fabric of space time.
James S Saint wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:the relation between c and gravitation, a relation which can be seen as the backbone of the physical universe.
.. between light and inertia or momentum.Fixed Cross wrote:VO .. all perspectives bend reality to themselves.
"perspectives bend reality"?? Solipsism?
Don't you have to have reality before there can be a perspective of it (not to mention the bending of it)?
Fixed Cross wrote:..continuous fabric of space time.
There is a "substance of spacetime", if you want to call it that. There is no "fabric" of spacetime.
You will have to do some seriously deep explaining in order to relate E=mc² to VO.
Frankly just relating energy, E, to VO could be quite an accomplishment.
Fixed Cross wrote:James S Saint wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:the relation between c and gravitation, a relation which can be seen as the backbone of the physical universe.
.. between light and inertia or momentum.Fixed Cross wrote:VO .. all perspectives bend reality to themselves.
"perspectives bend reality"?? Solipsism?
Im sure you are aware of time space curvature.
Fixed Cross wrote:Don't you have to have reality before there can be a perspective of it (not to mention the bending of it)?
No, they exist at the same time.
Both are logically required for each other.
Fixed Cross wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:..continuous fabric of space time.
There is a "substance of spacetime", if you want to call it that. There is no "fabric" of spacetime.
Semantics.
Fixed Cross wrote:You will have to do some seriously deep explaining in order to relate E=mc² to VO.
Frankly just relating energy, E, to VO could be quite an accomplishment.
As it would seem for RM.
Fixed Cross wrote:But in fact with VO it is rather easy, since it is inferred from the laws of energy.
Fixed Cross wrote:I appreciate your math, and I still understand AO -
VO is however not expressible in the sense of such pressurized systems.
It is an emergent system, so entirely fractalized.
Do you have the math of fractals at your command? I don't, so that would be useful.
James S Saint wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:I appreciate your math, and I still understand AO -
VO is however not expressible in the sense of such pressurized systems.
It is an emergent system, so entirely fractalized.
Do you have the math of fractals at your command? I don't, so that would be useful.
Are you sure that you want to get into complex numbers (half imaginary)? And I am pretty certain that the VO ontology would not be able to remain rational down on an infinitesimal scale using fractals. Fractals, although built of similar relations, require an originating assembly of dissimilar ontological constructs. That means that you have to separate out your "self-value" to be 3 separate entities; subject, valuing, and object. You never named any subject or object other than "self" (representing both).
Fixed Cross wrote:Could you answer my question?
I could answer yours afterwards if you manage.
"Yellow" is not that i can tell a logic. But good try.
James S Saint wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Could you answer my question?
I could answer yours afterwards if you manage.
"Yellow" is not that i can tell a logic. But good try.
I was going to answer your question concerning fractals, but you can't get it through your head that a single proposed substance does not form an ontology and certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with fractals. You are just spewing egocentric stupidity these days, embarrassing yourself.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: Serendipper