Re: E = mc^2
- From: "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Dec 2005 23:03:37 -0800
Henry, the formula was known and circulated before AE revised it and
shortened it to fit his Relativity theory. It was shown as:
E=mc^2+(energy of motion), which includes the energy associated with
that of motion. In Reality, everything is in motion within the
universe, and motion requires energy, so any calculation of a mass must
also include the motion factor.
However, AE's Relativity is just that - a theory of how things relate
to each other, and not how they relate to the universe. In that case,
it is not always a theory of Reality but special cases of relatedness
within the general case of the Reality of the universe.
For example, to explain his theory of the mass and energy relationship
alone, and not how it relates to the universe, he used the Reality
theory of E=mc^2+(energy of motion) but it was necessary that he remove
it from Reality to be able to explain what he meant. So he lopped off
the motion factor from the old formula and thus isolated mass and
energy from Reality.
Nothing wrong with that so long as everyone knows it is a special case
of the general case of Reality. Of course, everyone but me (and anyone
I have converted to my belief) believes it is reality itself and not a
special case of it. For if a case be special, that defines it as an
induction, and inductions are not that close to reality. An induction
is where you take a general case, which is considered reality, and
induce a special case of it which may no longer be reality by virtue of
your taking it from the general case to the special. Let me explain
that.
We know, believe, and agree that everything in the universe is in
motion. Any calculations of the energy in a given mass that do not
include the motion factor is not reality because it ignores the reality
that every object in the universe is in motion. That does not mean the
calculation is wrong, unless it purports to be reality. Not only that,
but the motion factor may be so small as to not greatly affect the
outcome. We don't know unless we try it. Some people thought that the
A-bomb would cause a chain reaction that would destroy the planet, and
they could have been right about that if the energy from the motion
factor had been a lot more than the scientists gambled it was.
It was a gamble because we cannot know the motion factor completely
simply because we cannot measure the motion factor of a given mass.
That is because we don't know the state of motion of it wrt the
universe. We cannot know that because there is no stationary point in
the universe from where we may measure an object's speed. Lucky for
us, the scientist's gamble paid off and the planet survived.
So, AE's short formula works when we wish to calculate the energy in a
given mass, but unless we include the motion factor in the formula, it
is still a special case just short of being precise wrt reality.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: E = mc^2
- From: PD
- Re: E = mc^2
- References:
- E = mc^2
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- Re: E = mc^2
- From: Henry Haapalainen
- E = mc^2
- Prev by Date: Re: E = mc^2
- Next by Date: Re: E = mc^2
- Previous by thread: Re: E = mc^2
- Next by thread: Re: E = mc^2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
