PureGenius Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Mass at c2 equals energy content as in a definition of the energy within an object at the velocity of light squared. An atom is mass e=mc2 this conversion represents a infinite ie an almost infinite amount of energy, within each atom. I have furthered this theory with the following. I will say this I think I may have figured out a way to incorporate higher speeds into relativity . I will state some new postulates. No object can attain infinite velocity. No object can attain infinite mass. Light equals mass at below the speed of light The Mass of any object is equal to zero at the speed of light Mass equals electromagnetic field strength at the speed of light. M c = e=mc2. Xs5 = New e.m field The calculation is this. M= e at c or m=0mass at c = e= Light equals mass at 0 velocity Moving at 1c electromagnetic fields strengthen by 5 times Mass is reduced by 100 percent at the speed of light Time dilation is equal to electromagnetic field strength increase ie 5 times base time Time period at c Xs5= expanded timeframe Exceeding the speed of light, converts mass to energy slowing down below c energy returns to mass so when objects slow below c one reverses all postulates. I am Shawn j. Thanks for reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrappedLight Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) Mass at c2 equals energy content as in a definition of the energy within an object at the velocity of light squared. An atom is mass e=mc2 this conversion represents a infinite ie an almost infinite amount of energy, within each atom. Light equals mass at below the speed of light There really isn't an infinite amount of energy in an atom. There are [math]10^{80}[/math] atoms in the observable universe and none of it equates or sums to infinity. And light is not mass at subluminal speeds, All you can do is alter the medium in which light moves, but the light particles always moves at the speed of light. Edited October 5, 2013 by TrappedLight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureGenius Posted October 5, 2013 Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 There really isn't an infinite amount of energy in an atom. There are [math]10^{80}[/math] atoms in the observable universe and none of it equates or sums to infinity. And light is not mass at subluminal speeds, All you can do is alter the medium in which light moves, but the light particles always moves at the speed of light. One atom equates to 34.5 billion atoms worth of energy, also the study clearly indicates the velocity of the photons was below the speed of light , although the exact velocity escaped my attention. The velocity of photons is variable dependent on the medium in which they travel . In a vacuum the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, in other mediums this velocity is not maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) One atom equates to 34.5 billion atoms worth of energy Try reading what you just wrote and see if it still makes sense. Now let's just narrow down the type of atom you are talking about to just a plain old, ordinary isotope of Hydrogen. Do you really think the energy contained in the mass of this Hydrogen atom equates to 34.5 billion Hydrogen atoms worth of energy? Edited October 5, 2013 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureGenius Posted October 5, 2013 Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 Try reading what you just wrote and see if it still makes sense. Now let's just narrow down the type of atom you are talking about to just a plain old, ordinary isotope of Hydrogen. Do you really think the energy contained in the mass of this Hydrogen atom equates to 34.5 billion Hydrogen atoms worth of energy? The energy conversion formula was created by einstien not me , according to my interpretation yes einstien was right , this ratio of energy to mass is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) The energy conversion formula was created by einstien not me , according to my interpretation yes einstien was right , this ratio of energy to mass is accurate. Clearly you are misinterpreting the result. The energy of one Hydrogen atom is equal to the energy of one Hydrogen atom, and not 34.5 billion Hydrogen atoms. If you are comparing the value for the mass in kilograms (kg) to the value for the energy in joules (J), then you are comparing apples to oranges. The result of the comparison does not make sense unless you apply the conversion [math]c^2[/math] to the mass, which would make both sides of the equation equal to each other. Edited October 5, 2013 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureGenius Posted October 5, 2013 Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 1 atom c2= 34.5 billion energy. 34.5 billion e= Mc2=1 or are you saying, I'm using the conversion formula incorrectly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) One atom equates to 34.5 billion atoms worth of energy... I'm referring to what you wrote earlier, which is wrong. The energy in 1 atom of Hydrogen is equal to the energy in 1 atom of hydrogen, and not 34.5 billion Hydrogen atoms worth of energy. What you wrote doesn't make sense. Edited October 5, 2013 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureGenius Posted October 5, 2013 Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 I'm referring to what you wrote earlier, which is wrong. The energy in 1 atom of Hydrogen is equal to the energy in 1 atom of hydrogen, and not 34.5 billion Hydrogen atoms worth of energy. What you wrote doesn't make sense. I'm sorry I meant 1 atom converted using e=mc2 to its energy potential, I'm not sure if I was clear enough in my explanation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) Can we please stop pandering to this guy who can't even do a simple dimensional analysis on his conversions yet is preaching new ( senseless ) postulates for physics ? Edited October 5, 2013 by MigL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Can we please stop pandering to this guy who can't even do a simple dimensional analysis on his conversions yet is preaching new ( senseless ) postulates for physics ? The moderators apparently no longer care about content. This kind of baseless, made up nonsense is all that these posts contain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureGenius Posted October 5, 2013 Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 The moderators apparently no longer care about content. This kind of baseless, made up nonsense is all that these posts contain. This is a completely baseless comment, from a guy who spends all of his time insulting other members . Acj it's ok if my knowledge of physics is greater than your own and my ideas are beyond your reach insulting me won't prove your point. It only proves your lack knowledge and your jealousy of my popularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts