Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed

Spaceman schrieb:
jonathan cyriax brast wrote:
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.

No it would not.
It shows all the same "stuff" with the same speeds as the same colors.
And when you change the speeds of the "stuff" like when you
change a state or such you can even get different colors.


It can't have the same speed in every direction for it would dissipate.


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.

No again.
That is your fantasy using your supposed unitless one and
that silly division by 0 proof.


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.

Modern physics that advances the best uses old physics that are
correct and enhances them to be even more accurate when better
equipment and tools become available.
That is how it has worked fine for 1000's of years til the rubber ruler
cults showed up.

Well I has worked for 100 of years, before that the local church
dictated the world view, and science as community didn't exist.

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?

Great.
I will have my MCP hopefully within a couple weeks
Just have to schedule the test.
Gambatte! (Good Luck!)
Probably going to take some other certs that are not MS
also soon enough.
Well, get some Linux experience too, can't possible harm and is free of
charge.
Thanks for askin.
:)


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).

C is not actually constant.
I though I showed you that already?
c is only constant to "at rest" things.
That is why E=mc^2 only works "at rest" and you need
KE and more once you get moving things involved.
c is a speed, speeds can not be constant.
(I forgot to warn you about the brainwashing part of relativity
that makes you ignore the relative motion parts when needed
to support the rubber ruler theory.)
my bad..
sorry about forgetting to tell you that.
You can't ignore relative motion speeds and neither can
light.
Or is light able to violate relative motion even though it
is moving at a speed and all speed should be relative?

Yes, thats the whole fun. Relative motion doesn't add normally.

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.

No,
mass is a constant.
Why do you keep changing that fact to support
the other silly untrue facts?


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.

I told you,
transforms are silly self limiting math tricks
Why do you fall for such?
Don't you know those things would make you smash
into planets that were not there yet according to that
math even though they would be there?

Lets try a simple thoguht about such.
Two spaceships are heading towards a collision point
(we will be nice and keep the spaceships sub c speeds)
Lets say both ships (A and B) are heading towards
collision point (I)
A third observer (D) verifies the ships are moving at 0.75c
towards that point (I) and heading directly towards each other
and will crash at (I)
So A is doing 0.75c and B is doing 0.75c,
according to the third observer (D) those ships will crash
in 3/4 second.
What time do do the ships think they will crash at
with one observing the other
(use you silly transform and you will crash before you thought
you would since you would have slower speeds according
to each other.)
It's all about your point of view. You are outside, not moving.
I'm inside moving. We will appear not like 1,5c to each other, but my
time is also slower (think about how clocks work).
Try doing such different ways and even use (I) as an observer
if you wish.


(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.

Division my zero is not proof
You should not even be using anything that comes up
as division my 0 since that means you have a big problem
with that math that is coming up with anything being
devided by 0.
It states: IF you try to accelerate up to c THAN you'll get problems.
IF you stay below c everything is OK, a little strange but still reachable.

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

Division by 0 is the joke you seem to not get?
If you are coming up with anything that is going
to devide by 0 you have done something wrong to
get to that math to begin with.

Thats why you have to look where it applies.
It applies for speeds v<c . c can't possible be reached.

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.

I would never do such because there is no physical reason
for deviding lightspeed by lightspeed and there is no reason
for removing the units that lightspeed had by simply deviding
it by itself.

Do you also devide 80 apples by 80 apples
and you will be left with a unitless 1 "non apple"?

It's like at start I had 100 of 100 apples thats 100% = 100/100 =1

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...

Logic is my choice.
For some reason you would rather follow math
that states basic math is wrong.
Logic is math in the purest form.
All math derives form logic.
Your "logic" is a mix of common cases without the exceptions and ockhams
razor.
That is not very logical really.
Thats relativity theory for you.
Your side looks over here not that logical too.
Since your basic math that proves basic math wrong
Where?
must also be wrong via your own proof.
:)

Well you didn't prove it wrong, but you just couldn't get the reason.
Having no access to the reason you thought it would be unreasonable.

The tree words should not be: "The clock malfunctioned" but "Why did
it?" or "What is wrong" or WTF.

It is bound by Newton laws of motion and force.
Newtons law of Motion and Force are propagated via electromagnetic and
gravitational force.
It malfunctioned because of the acceleration or change in
external forces that caused the slowdown of speeding up
of action/reaction.
But it also does this without external forces and just velocity.
F=mdx/dt^2 v=dx/dt velocity can be without force, and clocks still
malfunction.
two spaceships with clocks fly though space and passing each other.
everyone sees the other clock going slower. but there is NO FORCE AT ALL
for the spaceships are not accelerating. How comes?

Does water boil faster on the mountain top?
That is because of a lower air pressure it needs less temperature.
Funny clocks run faster up there too.
An atomic clocks behavior is not dependent on airpressure or temperature
actions and reactions change rate with surrounding forces
There are less forces in space but the effects are bigger.
"including" gravity.
The clock malfunctioned because of surrunding forces.
Acceleration, freedom of motion... etc..
It has always been a problem with clocks,
that is why I had told you to learn the history of time
to understand more about clocks.

They just use clocks to describe regular units of change.
It could be a brain functioning or tree growing too.

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

That is fine.
But you will need absolute time and absolute space to finally prove it.
Or you will just run into more paradox laden sillyness.
:)
But I can't have absolute space when it's hyperbolic.
.