It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Einstein claims that a body at rest possesses a quantity of energy equivalent to its mass, and that kinetic energy of motion likewise corresponds to an equivalent amount of mass.
A body in motion therefore acquires an additional mass, which “varies with changes in its energy” and “becomes infinite when q (the velocity) approaches 1, the velocity of light. According to the theory of relativity,” Einstein says, “there is no essential distinction between mass and energy. Energy has mass and mass represents energy....”
"The Reciprocal System of Theory (formulated by Duey B. Larson) is in direct conflict with this interpretation of the equation.
From the Fundamental Postulates of this system we find that energy is a one-dimensional displacement of space-time, whereas mass is a three-dimensional displacement (rotational). Under appropriate conditions the dimensions of the displacement can be altered, hence mass is convertible to energy and vice versa.
The displacement can exist either ...
The space-time progression, for instance, tends to cause objects to acquire unit velocity, and hence we say that it exerts unit force. But it is obvious that a tendency to impart unit velocity to an object which is already at a high velocity is not equivalent to a tendency to impart unit velocity to a body at rest.
Many of Einstein’s conclusions have been accepted without adequate critical scrutiny, and this mass-energy relation (E=MC Squared) definitely falls in this category.
If this relationship is examined from the standpoint of logic, it is apparent that Einstein’s contentions are internally inconsistent and must eventually fall of their own weight, irrespective of what any other theory may say. Mass cannot be something that is associated with energy (and therefore increases as the energy increases) and at the same time something that is convertible to energy (and therefore decreases as the energy increases)....
Yet, oddly enough, while a host of scientific authorities of the highest rank are thus proclaiming that the postulated increase of mass with velocity has been proved by experiments with high-velocity electrons or protons and verified by the successful use of the theory in the design and construction of the particle accelerators, almost every elementary physics textbook admits, explicitly or tacitly, that this hypothesis of an increase in mass is only an arbitrary selection from among several possible explanations of the observed facts....
The truth is that the experiments with high velocity particles and the experience with the particle accelerators merely show that if a specific force is applied to a specific mass, the acceleration decreases at high velocities, following a pattern which indicates that it will reach zero at the velocity of light. If we are to maintain the relation a = F/m, it then necessarily follows that either the mass increases or the force decreases, or both.
The limit placed on mankind's thinking by einstein's dysfunctional theories and quantum mechanics, has helped keep mankind in it's cage of mental confinement, while the energy barons run free and wild, with riches beyond the dreams of the common grunt who is being gutted by them financially, without even knowing of the beautiful alternative world we could have with a technological system which copies nature and produces abundance for all.
Originally posted by Lethys
Energy becoming mass is not an example of energy decreasing, the energy is simply changing form. It isn’t contradictory.
I have never seen a textbook state it like that. Most simply choose to define mass as an objects rest mass, and don’t include variable mass in their equations. You get the same results either way. Relativistic mass has generally fallen into disuse. Don’t forget that E=mc^2 is derived from the equation E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 when p, the momentum, equals 0.
Actually in relativity, even when using variable mass in the equations, force does not equal mass*acceleration. The actual equation is F=ma/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)+m(v*a)v/(1-(v/c)^2)^(3/2), where F, a, and v are vectors and m is the rest mass. An exception would be when using four-vectors, but in that case the rest mass is used.
What does that have to do with any of this? How exactly does relativity and quantum mechanics keep us away from free energy?
This article has really done very little in the way of proving Einstein wrong by logic. Much of it seems to be about him claiming that force approaches zero at high velocity and that relativity is “retarded” and an “abominable idea.”
If “mass and energy, are only different expressions for the same thing", as Einstein declares, then we cannot have a conversion of one to the other; we cannot convert anything into itself.
But such a conversion clearly does take place. An atomic explosion, for example, is not a mere alteration in terminology or a conceptual reorientation; it is an actual physical event, and hence Einstein’s viewpoint cannot be correct.
If “mass and energy, are only different expressions for the same thing", as Einstein declares, then we cannot have a conversion of one to the other; we cannot convert anything into itself.
The equation has nothing to do with reality, yes it looks nice in paper and in theory, but it isnt a picture of what happens in reality.
If you can't answer that question yourself, I must take it that you do not understand Einsteins impact on todays science and socalled laws.
Even Einstein said he didnt even understand his own theory after quantum mechanics took over, but i will find proof of quantum mechanics flaws aswell in another post soon.
and it doesnt say relativity is retarded, it states that Einsteins view on relativity is flawfull.
because a mass becoming infinite, solely because it is accelerated to the speed of light, wreaks of stupidity, intuitively speaking it makes one sick to think of such a retarded idea)....
… herefore we can easily see that einstein's abominable idea that mass becomes infinite as it approaches the speed of light is just as stupid as the idea that the infinite Universe was once smaller than an Atom, before the imaginary big wank (bang) placed all of the galaxies, stars, planets and moons in their present orbits.
Originally posted by Noscitare
I've got to say, I find this thread (and many others like it which can be found here on ATS) to be an example of a truly pernicious effect of the Internet: that just about anyone in the world can put up a website which espouses some of the most bizarre and downright crackpot "scientific" theories and then the gullible, unsophisticated and impressionable masses read these tracts and for some unknown reason find them to be more accurate descriptions of the universe than those theories which have experimental evidence to back them up.
Originally posted by Lethys
reply to post by AncientVoid
Actually, any example of when we thought something was “logically impossible” when it actually wasn’t, it was more an example of our own flawed or incomplete logic then of logic itself being flawed. After all, we are imperfect creatures. Logic is the best way learn about the universe, and I would like to see just what exactly you suggest as an alternative.
einstein.stanford.edu
The mathematical structures of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great theoretical achievements of 20th century physics, seem utterly incompatible. Some physicists, worried by this and by our continued inability to unite the four forces of nature -- gravitation, electromagnetism , and the strong and weak nuclear forces -- suspect that general relativity needs amendment.
The source i linked to in the OP, has an Intermediate Explanation section without policy, conspiracy and the likes, if you find that conspiracy is undermining the truth it states.
I would like to see some links to where theese supposed experiments that prove Einstein right is located?....
If I took a sledge hammer and smashed a TV all to pieces, have I revealed the actual "parts" which a manufacturer assembles to make a TV, or have I shown merely how a TV disintegrates?
They couldnt figure it out so they simply decided the answer must be that some type of mysterious attracting force must appear for some unexplained reason between protons when they are very close, counteracting their mutual repulsion.
Neither black holes, the big bang, gravitational waves, dark energy nor dark matter have ever been observed.
he mathematical structures of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great theoretical achievements of 20th century physics, seem utterly incompatible. Some physicists, worried by this and by our continued inability to unite the four forces of nature -- gravitation, electromagnetism , and the strong and weak nuclear forces -- suspect that general relativity needs amendment.
Originally posted by Noscitare
then the gullible, unsophisticated and impressionable masses read these tracts and for some unknown reason find them to be more accurate descriptions of the universe than those theories which have experimental evidence to back them up.
And most of the time you can tell from the posters' writings that they really just don't have a solid grasp of basic, rudimentary highschool physics and therefore probably shouldn't be delving into this fringe stuff without the proper background.