Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed

Spaceman schrieb:
jonathan cyriax brast wrote:
Spaceman schrieb:
jonathan cyriax brast wrote:
Spaceman schrieb:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Where's the motion in E = mc^2, space***? The particle ISN'T
MOVING!
The parts inside the particles are moving Eric.
ERROR: Doppler Effect would terminate specific quantisation of
emitted Light.
Total bull*** talk.
Doppler effect would not do anything of the sort.
Well, he would change the frequencies of the emitted photons, what is
what I said.

Oh
You mean like what color it looks like.
That would correspond to the motion reflecting
the light at different frequencies.
Yet another silly thing that works with classical thoughts
and simple doppler instead of stupid ass doppler that needs
time dilations and length contractions instead.
:)


Thats what I mean...
Stupid classical Doppler would change the color of the light to a mix of
all colors, gold wouldn't appear golden any more, bur everything would
be the same color of white.



Not at all: W, E, T, Q and V are not the same for a reason.
LOL
You truly have been brainwashed beyond help huh?
they are all parts of the dang parts.
Sheesh.
W is energy transformation
E is energy itself
T is kinetic energy
Q is thermic energy
V is potential energy

All finite numbers of any, means finite mass still.
I am still wishing for this supposed infinite
mass from non infinite motion to be proven.
It still shows up as total bull*** and no matter
what is done. you need infinite motion to make infinite mass
still.

That's your delusion.
You need just infinite mass OR infinite velocity for infinite energy.
And it is just an increasing mass.

That is why gas can expodes and coal burns and nukes
make realy big booms
gas cans explode because of thermic energy
coal burns because of chemical energy
nukes explode because of nuclear energy
first is kinetic energy form mechanical processes
second is electromagnetic energy form electrodynamical processes
third is chromodynamic energy from quantumchromodynamical processes
three absolute different cases
All simply explained by mass in motion if you actually ever
learned classical physics.
Actually I learned classical physics better than the relativistic
approach. But as you will see in everyday physics there is no need
for exact relativistic equations.

That would make sense because classical physics
still uses logic.
Everything can be explained by classical physics.
No time dilation, no length contraction needed.
The first step is learning how the clock malfunctons
with changes in g-forces.

Why would somebody try hard to invent complicated things like modern
physics when old classical physics are enough.
And when every clock malfunctions with changes in g-forces, how can
something like satellites in space work with computers on it when they
need clocks to function.

Are all of the particles 1/(sqrt(2))*c fast?
Then why don't the collapse when they get cold?
Why should they collapse?
The smaller stuff inside it freezes too and everyone knows
when you freeze things they pretty much always expand and
don't collapse.
No, ONLY Water expands when it's frozen.
EVERYTHING else becomes more dense.

Aha!
You did learn classical physics!
WOW I am impressed.
I am sorry I had to test you with that one.
I now will never say you never learned clasisical physics
again.
I am sorry.

No, problem. Just for fun: How is your education going?

And why don't the just dissipate?
Because you stopped the motion and they froze instead.
Braun motion like temperature is right.
But where is the energy when it stopped moving?
E=mc^2 is only when it doesn't move.

No,
E=mc^2 actually changes with temperature.
When the motion is slowed, you will not get the maximum
energy from it such as energy that causes friction.
(tis a simply reason super conductivity occurs with cold,
and not heat.)

And where in E=mc^2 is temperature?
E is the energy but m is only mass and c^2 is constant
(c is everywhere 299792458m/s).


The full equation is E = mc^2 + ( 1/sqrt(1-v/c )*(1/2)mv^2 .

No again that is using a unitless 1
well 1 is c/c which of course is 1
The full equation would be more like E = mc^2 + KE.
E=m0c^2 + KE
(KE is called T by the way and I will use it like that from now on)
m0 is the mass when the movement is zero.
But if T > 0 there has to be movement.
And when something moves the mass changes.
And how the mass changes is adjusted by y=sqrt(c/c-v/c) .
As you see the 1 is just to make it easier to read for you.
An y has to be unitless for l=y*l0 and t*y=t0 and m*y=m0 .
It's universal for relativistic transformations.
(bit of course that needs adjustments just as yours would with
cold or heat being a surrounding problem.


If v = 0 than v^2 = 0 and only E=mc^2 is left.
If v -> c than (1-v/c) -> 0 and 1/sqrt(1-v/c) -> infinity.

There is your unitless 1 again causing the problem that does
not occur in reality.
(the photon would be an infinite mass if that was true)

No the photon could have any mass.
It's anything divided by zero is infinite.
Except for infinity:
For
a=any positive number (up to infinity) but not zero
i= infintiy

You can make some easy equations:

a/0=i
a*0=0
a/i=0
a*i=i

i/i=a
0/0=a
i/0=i
0/i=0

And Photons can have any mass if they move at c.

In that case the Energy itself increases too.

Again,
I would love to know how you can allow an infinite
from a bunch of finites without seeing that that 1 unitless thing
is bull***?
^ S.A. ^

I would love to know what keeps you from doing it.


No, Spaceman, don't worry.
I like to discuss things with you,
<irony_sarcasm_detection="True">
because it will improve my skill in dealing with people who are not
blessed with the knowledge of the monolithic church of science we
physic students humbly obey till death against our highly intelligent,
brilliant minds.

You got the church part correct even with the <isd = true>
:)

Well everyone should believe something...


The pure awesome logic we have to resist every day
can't possible touch our faith and fundamentalistic believe in false
experiments, and we wonder every day why science itself in nature
works like in our prophecies even if we know, deep down in our
hearts, that we follow a false god, not even believing in such an
universal force except for our Grand Unifying Theory.
</irony_sarcasm_detection>



Keep up the good work in not believing what you are told.
But I can't possible give up my idols for your theories.
I generally look up to people more intelligent than me.
And I try not to look down on equals.

Well,
I hate to tell you,
I love to hear you,
I killed your clock god even if you don't know it yet..
I don't believe in god, but in clock's, an a lot of bull***.
I do not wish you to look up to me.
I don't do that for I'm discussing only with equals.
In fact I do not think anyone that seems to be able to
think like you can should look up to anyone.
THX, but there are several people smarter than me.
( I do put you as more advanced than most rubber ruler morons)
But if you wish to follow the lemmings it is your choice of course.
Lemmings don't really jump from cliff; It's a disney invention.
But if you actually think about all sorts of things instead of just
what is written in your "bible" then you may see the actual light.
Well, I can assure you I truly believe I am right and classical
mechanics are not enough.
I do think you should look up how a clock works
and find out more about your "mystical" unitless 1
that you also have been worshipping.
I think I know a lot more, than I can write here.
But it's difficult to explain nice interesting problems to someone who
don't share a common ground with you.
Maybe then you could be a peer instead of on the lower
wrung of science that is still dealing with multiple standards
instead of single standards like the sciences that have made
everything actually work in reality and not only on math paper.

Someday you might get it.
It is very simple also so you should be able to get it someday
if you actually do use your own brain.
Three simple words
The clock malfunctioned.
Of course it, does, but the answer isn't any longer to the "if" but the
"why"
Scientific time is still absolute and still proving it each
and every day.
On a common normal scale yes.
And two high precision clocks showing different times is definitely a
thing to think about.
And science itself claims to be false all the time, for scientists know
how hard it is to describe nature. But they try to get a little ahead of
the common knowledge all the time.
The tree words should not be: "The clock malfunctioned" but "Why did
it?" or "What is wrong" or WTF.

P.S.: (Just for fun)
I believe the Universe is a selfassembeling hyperbolic cellular automate
and every system in it is equal.
.

Loading