The Most Famous Equation of All Time is Flawed (E=MC^2)

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

It appears Einstein's equation has been proven correct, but don't debate it with me, debate it with those that conducted the experiment, or to those in the catalog of confirmations that matter and energy are related in a precise way.

In experiments described in the Dec. 22, 2005, issue of Nature, the researchers added to a catalog of confirmations that matter and energy are related in a precise way. Specifically, energy (E) equals mass (m) times the square of the speed of light (c2), a prediction of Einstein's theory of special relativity. By comparing NIST/ILL measurements of energy emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms and MIT measurements of the mass of the same atoms, the scientists found that E differs from mc2 by at most 0.0000004, or four-tenths of 1 part in 1 million. This result is "consistent with equality" and is 55 times more accurate than the previous best direct test of Einstein's formula, according to the paper.

www.nist.gov...

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: rounda

All it took was the simple formula for momentum.

...that can NOT be applied to photons!

Here, you want another explanation?

Divide by zero.

3 / 0 = undefined.

But where did the 3 go?

Simple anomaly you're willing to brush aside because everything else in basic math "just works."



If relativity is real, the speed of light is not constant.

Why?

Because the speed of light, even in a vacuum, will always be determined by the speed of the body it is relative to (measured from).

That means if a body is moving slower, light must be moving faster in order to maintain the constant speed.

And vice versa, light must be moving slower when measured from a faster moving body.

If this is not true, then the measurement used is not accurate.

i.e. the speed of the body cannot be measured accurately.

In which case, the mass of the body cannot be measured accurately either.

UNLESS

There is one body EVERYTHING is relative to.

That is the ONLY way the speed of light can be constant.

Which is exactly the opposite of the theor(ies) of relativity.

OR ELSE

Light is the measurable loss of energy in a system and has no inherent energy of it's own.

Have you guys heard of the Sexual Casimir Effect?
It's where whenever two pretty women get within a micrometer of each other, everything gets sticky in my pants.

That's not just me, right?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

If relativity is real, the speed of light is not constant.

You don't say? The speed of photons depends on the medium the photon travels in as well as the frequency, so indeed it is not a constant. Go figure what the term "speed of light" means and why the term was coined that way. JESUS!!!

That is the ONLY way the speed of light can be constant.

Which is exactly the opposite of the theor(ies) of relativity.

This posts showcases you understood nothing.

originally posted by: TDDAgain

If relativity is real, the speed of light is not constant.

You don't say? The speed of light depends on the medium the photon travels in as well as the frequency, so indeed it is not a constant.

That is the ONLY way the speed of light can be constant.

Which is exactly the opposite of the theor(ies) of relativity.

This posts showcases you understood nothing.

What's the "c" in E=mc^2

pretty sure your theory of relativity is based on that "c" being "constant."

Weird how you would claim it's not "constant" when it must be in order for everything you're arguing to be true.

Bruh, Relativity is measurable. We've sent atomics clocks into space and compared them with synchronized atomic clocks on Earth.

Time indeed moved at different speeds. Besides, how is a giant mass NOT going to cause some kind of perturbation in spacetime?

For example, my ex was a big lady, and that was the longest year of my life.

a reply to: rounda

a reply to: rounda
It is because you know nothing about physics.

www.livescience.com...

originally posted by: TheValeyard
Bruh, Relativity is measurable. We've sent atomics clocks into space and compared them with synchronized atomic clocks on Earth.

Time indeed moved at different speeds. Besides, how is a giant mass NOT going to cause some kind of perturbation in spacetime?

For example, my ex was a big lady, and that was the longest year of my life.

a reply to: rounda

Great example.

Your ex, not the clocks.

There are any number of reasons why a clock would read differently at different elevations, most notably the affect of gravity on the kinetic pieces of the clock.

Like the surface material of the road on you car tires...

I believe in the coming years, as we learn more about all things "quantum," Einstein's (plaigiarized) theories will be put aside, and we will go back to Galilean/Newtonian relativity.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: rounda
It is because you know nothing about physics.

www.livescience.com...

Right.

You don't even understand that Einstein's theories REQUIRE a constant speed of light, INDEPENDENT of the body measured from.

It's why "c" is a "constant."

a reply to: rounda

"There are any number of reasons why a clock would read differently at different elevations, most notably the affect of gravity on the kinetic pieces of the clock."

Ahem. Atomic Clocks. Not Cuckoo Clocks?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: rounda

"There are any number of reasons why a clock would read differently at different elevations, most notably the affect of gravity on the kinetic pieces of the clock."

Ahem. Atomic Clocks. Not Cuckoo Clocks?

So atoms don't move?

Isn't that how we're measuring time with an atomic clock? By measuring the movement of the atoms?

a reply to: TDDAgain

Or atomic clocks, apparently?

a reply to: rounda

Give it up, man?

Deny Ignorance.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: TDDAgain

Or atomic clocks, apparently?

Explain how an atomic clock works then.

Or how atoms are stationary objects, not affected by gravity.

a reply to: rounda

What would be the point?

a reply to: rounda

www.timeanddate.com...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: rounda

What would be the point?

To prove you have no clue what you're talking about.

Here, I'll do it for you.

An atomic clock measures the frequency of atoms in an "excited" state.

What that means is:

We provide a force on an atom, then measure it's movement.

In other words:

An atomic clock measures the movement of an atom.

Which means:

Since the effects of gravity are directly related to the distance between objects

-- in this case Earth and the atomic clock --

THEN

Gravity affects the movement of the atoms in the atomic clock based on the distance the clock is from the Earth.

i.e.:

An atomic clock further away from the Earth's center of gravity would be less affected by the Earth's gravity.

So:

A clock will read slower at lower elevations, and faster at high elevations.

This can be directly attributed to the affects of gravity on the kinetic (moving) pieces of the clock, not the speed of light.





Deny ignorance.

a reply to: rounda

Yeah, you win. I give up. Bye.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You tried Carpy, you tried. You can't educate the ones that refuse to be educated.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Ah. One does one's best.