E=mc^2

[thx1138]

My brain is in a loop. Please help me out.

If c is speed of light in vacuum then shouldn't the mass-energy equivalence be Energy in vacuum equals mass in vacuum times speed of light in vacuum? It isn't in a vacuum if it has mass in the same vacuum, is it? Or am I just going senile?

[wayne.ct]

It all depends on your point of reference

If you don't have a point of reference you will be forever confused and nobody will be able to help you. Think about an ice skater that forgets which way is up and which way is down. How long will it take before that ice skater takes a hard fall? So, let me help you.

If everything around you is the same temperature you won't know one object is slightly cooler or warmer because it is not possible. I just told you that everything around you is the SAME temperature.

Now, out in space, we have been told there is nothing there! It is a vacuum!

Don't believe it! There are particles of light (called photons) speeding by in every direction from all the billions of stars. That is to say from every direction in which there is a photonic emitter, commonly called a star. So, what is true? What is correct? Space is full of photons and energy, etc.

Now, back to your question. If you add up all the energy passing by some point in space you can convert that to mass using the convenient formula provided by the Einstein believing masses and presto change, there is your mass, all the way out there in space!

So, do you believe in nonsense? Or maybe you are a moron? A lot of what you think you know is worthless garbage and notions or ideas that don't make sense. Get real, take your head out of the garbage pit which is current day science and think for yourself. I think that is what you are trying to do, so congratulations. Join the thinkers and doers here on this website and make a better future for all of us.

[ckurtz]

Tesla and many other scientists of his time believed light was a wave phenomena propagating through the surrounding medium of the luminous aether; the equivalent of sound waves through air. Waves are alterations of compression and de-compression of the particles making up a mass, in which the particles themselves are basically stationary, merely moving forward until they encounter other particles and then rebounding back once the energy that moved them is passed on. Football fans have been doing Wave stuff for years, where people lean from one side to another as they stand up and then sit down, those to the far side pick up on it and from a distance it looks like a wave moving all around the entire stadium, yet no individual actually left their seat.

Tesla also believed in particles, such as the cosmic rays he discovered in the 1890s which today's scientists, I believe, call neutrinos. He maintained that the speed of such particles was totally independent of the so called speed of light for the very reason that waves are restricted to a certain percentage of the mean speed of the particles making up the mass the wave propagates through; i.e. the speed of sound in air is around 350 meters per second but the mean speed of air molecules at those conditions is somewhere around 500 m/s. The difference is due to the fact that most collision are at oblique angles, not head on, so the transfer of energy from one molecule to another must take a longer and therefore slower route. Particle on the other hand, such as protons from the sun are generally initially propelled by electrical static forces which in some stars can be of such magnitudes to give them super luminal velocities. For instance the sun is a giant cathode which Tesla claimed had a charge relative to earth of somewhere around 216 billion volts positive; our sun is not overly energetic and if you combine that with what the proponents of a Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmos indicate, Tesla's claims are very logical and reasonable.

As wayne.ct indicates, to believe in what establishment science purports is the truth is to believe in absolutely nothing.

[Allcanadian]

@thx1138

If c is speed of light in vacuum then shouldn't the mass-energy equivalence be Energy in vacuum equals mass in vacuum times speed of light in vacuum? It isn't in a vacuum if it has mass in the same vacuum, is it? Or am I just going senile?

I think you may be confusing the issue and it's important to remember the context. E=mc^2 is just a handy way of saying a change in Energy is equivalent to a change in Mc^2 or vise versa. We add some energy to separate a few particles and wala the damn mass changes.

In retrospect the whole E=mc^2 problem is kind of comical and it had little to do with Energy or Mass but rather Inertia ie. inertial mass, you see they still don't know what it is and it's kind of a problem. They also do not know what the three primary fields are fundamentally so of course nothing makes any sense and they have had to improvise a bit. For the most part all the changing clocks and bending space and wormhole stuff is just a failure to fully grasp modern field theory. Unfortunately that spooky action at a distance thing is still spooky for most everyone.

@wayne.ct

So, do you believe in nonsense? Or maybe you are a moron? A lot of what you think you know is worthless garbage and notions or ideas that don't make sense.

Those are some pretty harsh words, I see it a bit differently and when I read Einsteins original work in his own words it had a profound impact on me. I don't think we should ever confuse a man's work with the often misguided popular opinion of it. Personally I have a great respect for those who have laid the foundation we stand upon and while it may not be completely accurate today they did one hell of a job back then.

AC

[thx1138]

@thx1138
I think you may be confusing the issue and it's important to remember the context. E=mc^2 is just a handy way of saying a change in Energy is equivalent to a change in Mc^2 or vise versa. We add some energy to separate a few particles and wala the damn mass changes.

I understand the concept but it seems to be self contradictory to me. Context is the issue - the vacuum. If you put the mass in the same context as the speed of light it is no longer a vacuum and so destroys the whole logic of the concept. And since there is no "vacuum" anywhere in the universe it's difficult to see how this applies to anything. All of which backs up Einstein's "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." statement. The "handy way" being a shortcut that is untrue (by it's own terms) and upon which most of today's science is based.

In retrospect the whole E=mc^2 problem is kind of comical and it had little to do with Energy or Mass but rather Inertia ie. inertial mass, you see they still don't know what it is and it's kind of a problem. They also do not know what the three primary fields are fundamentally so of course nothing makes any sense and they have had to improvise a bit. For the most part all the changing clocks and bending space and wormhole stuff is just a failure to fully grasp modern field theory. Unfortunately that spooky action at a distance thing is still spooky for most everyone.

That explains it pretty well for me. BTW, the spooky action at a distance doesn't bother me at all. It's pretty understandable when you realise that there is no such thing as a vacuum in reality and that everything is connected to everything - it's all one piece.

Do you have any good links for modern field theory?

@wayne.ct
So, do you believe in nonsense? Or maybe you are a moron?

That's what I'm trying to decide.

A lot of what you think you know is worthless garbage and notions or ideas that don't make sense.

Fortunately for me I don't think I know much of anything except that I don't no much. What I'm finding out is that no one else knows very much either although that doesn't prevent them from building fantastic mountains of gibberish based on more gibberish the preceeded their gibberish.

Those are some pretty harsh words..."

Sticks and stones...

I don't think we should ever confuse a man's work with the often misguided popular opinion of it.

Ain't that the truth. I've spent 3 years studying Dr. Tesla's work and 99% of what is out there is so, so, so - I don't even know what to call it other than BS.

Personally I have a great respect for those who have laid the foundation we stand upon and while it may not be completely accurate today they did one hell of a job back then.

In fact, I think the key to understanding their work is to first understand their times and what was known back then. The research I've done tends to indicate that the best educated professors of the time had less scientific knowledge than a high school student of today (if they paid attention at all).

Well, I'm a bit relieved that I'm probably not going senile - yet. Moron? Maybe - that's still to be decided. Thanks all for getting my head out of that particular loop. Or was it a noose?

[Ruphus]

space is not a perfect vacuum

It is known that space is not a perfect vacuum yet you will not hear any professional scientist talk of aether, they call if dark energy now. The knowledge and understanding of those great 19th and 20th century scientist were amazing considering what they had to work with yet here we are still trying to understand them with all kinds of technology. It is sad we are lacking.

On a side note take a look at this I found it very interesting:

Fine-structure Constant, Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Relativity Factor
and the Golden Ratio that Divides the Bohr Radius

[Allcanadian]

@thx1138

I understand the concept but it seems to be self contradictory to me. Context is the issue - the vacuum. If you put the mass in the same context as the speed of light it is no longer a vacuum and so destroys the whole logic of the concept. And since there is no "vacuum" anywhere in the universe it's difficult to see how this applies to anything.

I like to think of it this way, if we had a volume of air and removed everything we know of relating to matter such as all the atoms then what remains?. Well we should be left with everything which existed between the atoms. We may call it a vacuum or empty space but the fact remains as Einstein stated with his equation E=mc^2 that energy is not matter, Energy is the stuff which holds matter together and therefore in may remain.

As such it is perfectly acceptable to have a "vacuum" as we define it which contains a great deal of energy, ie. Vacuum:a space entirely devoid of matter. Matter: Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole. Matter is not Energy or vice versa, energy is a property of matter. I think this is the single biggest mistake I see when people confuse a property or measure of something with something in itself.

My nemesis is the Ampere, and when people say "amps are flowing" I just want to pull out my hair. No, an Amp is not something and there is no conceivable way it could ever flow. It is a measure of something which is the motion of charges which relates solely to the fields present around a particle, amps do not flow anymore than blue, or rough or heavy can flow. It is no wonder nothing makes sense for most people however once we get past our own misconceptions our mind has created the universe is actually a very simple place.

AC

[Ruphus]

We may call it a vacuum or empty space but the fact remains as Einstein stated with his equation E=mc^2 that energy is not matter

Correct me if I'm wrong AC, but E=mc^2 is basically saying that energy is equivalent to the square area of a space-time vacuum c by c and one mass unit.

[indio007]

Negative Refraction, Wave-particle Dualism and “Minkowski-Abraham controversy”
By Victor G. Veselago

nanoHUB.org - Resources: Negative Refraction, Wave-particle Dualism and “Minkowski-Abraham controversy�

Abstract
Professor Veselago was the first to identify that the relationships between energy and linear momentum are significantly different for electromagnetic radiation and material particles. The process of transfer of radiation from the emitter to the receiver will be discussed. It is shown that the mass transferred by radiation is not always associated with portable energy by Einstein's relation E = mc2. A more general relation has the form E = mVphVgr and includes the dependence on the phase and group velocities of the radiation. This relation implies that in case of a negative refractive index, when the phase and group velocities are in opposite directions, the mass is transferred from the receiver to the source, but not vice versa, as usual. It is also shown that the Abraham-Minkowski controversy may be resolved on the basis of the wave-corpuscular duality.


Vph = phase velocity
Vgr = group velocity

In case no one noticed E= M * C * C.
He argues E=mc2 is a special case.

[thx1138]

m = zero

As such it is perfectly acceptable to have a "vacuum" as we define it which contains a great deal of energy, ie. Vacuum:a space entirely devoid of matter.

Make m zero and what is E? So how does a vacuum that contains no mass contain energy? And if m is non-zero then it isn't a vacuum.

[Aaron]

mass energy aether vacuum inertia

Make m zero and what is E? So how does a vacuum that contains no mass contain energy? And if m is non-zero then it isn't a vacuum.

"Empty" space should be called a plenum instead of a vacuum because space itself is made of the aether which is infinitely abundant. When there is no aether, there is no space and that would be a true vacuum in the purest sense of the word.

I don't agree that space is full of "energy" but potential energy, it is full of source potential.

It is only when there are potential differences existing inside of that volumetric space that the aether can be polarized and move from one potential to another.

There is only energy when there is a resistance encountered by that source potential from point a to point b. When there is resistance and that organized source potential is dissipated back into a state of equilibrium or symmetry, that event of resistance or dissipation is what energy is.

Source potential is the thing and energy used properly regardless of the phony dictionary definition is a word to describe what the potential does when there is resistance. When there is resistance, work is being done and that is energy.

Dictionary says energy is the capacity to do work, which is a contradiction. Capacity is defined as an ability to or a potential to and capacity to do work is therefore potential to do work, which means the dictionary says energy is potential energy. That is simply ridiculous besides being completely incorrect. Energy is work or Energy is the dissipation of organized/polarized source potential.

There is no energy in mass. When an object accelerates, the inertia is the electrostatic repulsion of the aether against the mass of the object. The energy is not a property of the mass, it it is imparted externally from the aether.

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." - Nikola Tesla

The faster the acceleration, the more aetheric resistance it encounters per unit of time. That means the relative density of the aether in relation to the object increases as the acceleration goes up. As the relative density of the aether goes up, there is more electrostatic repulsion against it to resist its movement.

Einstein has everything inside out, upside down and backwards and he knew this well but kept up his charade because he had an obligation to the the powers that be, in my opinion.

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

And writing off Dayton Miller's findings as being due to temperature swings is about as disingenuous as he could get.

I was also inspired by Einstein's work at a time when I thought it was as good as a scientific "law" and it does wonders for the imagination, but as I came to more accurate realizations, I became disappointed in how he denied what he knew to be true.

And as he predicted as his house of cards falls down, inertia and gravitational equivalences have maintained.

[Allcanadian]

@thx1138

Make m zero and what is E? So how does a vacuum that contains no mass contain energy? And if m is non-zero then it isn't a vacuum.

I believe this is where field theory becomes into play and clarifies the difference between mass as a measure of Energy and Energy in itself. You see there can be any amount of energy in the form of a changing field in a perfect vacuum however if no matter is present to measure it then it becomes a mute point.

For instance if we take a box in front of us and remove all matter from it creating a perfect vacuum what is left in the box?. We know the Earth has a magnetic field which is in the box, we know a vertical electric field gradient of 100v/m exists across the box, we know EM waves covering a massive spectrum must be in the box so how exactly can it be empty?. We also know there are billions of particles moving through this supposedly perfect vacuum. At which point it may become clear, I would hope, that zero is a purely mathmatical construct which bares no relation to reality. The mind creates artificial boundaries and conditions to rationalize things so they make sense which is then justified with patterns in numbers we call mathmatics but there is no ultimate proof anything is the whole truth.

As well here is the true nature of the problem relating to your question,Make m zero and what is E?. Well what is Mass and what is Energy fundamentally...well it's ... it's kind of like... well we don't actually know do we?. So how can we solve a problem using variables which have never actually been defined? you can't which is a bit of a problem in itself.
Why you may as well have said... Make that unicorn zero and what is a leprechaun? So how does a fairy that contains no unicorns contain leprechauns?.

AC

[tachyon]

from the point of reference inside the particle the speed of vacuum is -c and energy is zero since vacuum holds no mass, if you say vacuum has energy then is has mass equal to -m which doesnt make sense

[ckurtz]

There is no energy in mass. When an object accelerates, the inertia is the electrostatic repulsion of the aether against the mass of the object. The energy is not a property of the mass, it it is imparted externally from the aether.

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." - Nikola Tesla

Tesla does not say there is _no_ energy in matter, he said what there is was received from the environment: "According to an adopted theory, every ponderable atom is differentiated from a tenuous fluid, filling all space merely by spinning motion, as a whirl of water in a calm lake. By being set in movement this fluid, the ether, becomes gross matter. Its movement arrested, the primary substance reverts to its normal state."

In that sense then matter inherently contains energy because it is made up of energetic swirls. Perhaps when matter dissipates it can gives up some of that energy to other ponderable bodies, somewhat like a tornado when its tail becomes kinked and the kink seemingly explodes leading to the dissipation of the entire tornado as the highly ordered flow breaks down into chaos. To push the 'Out of Thin Air' concept a little further multiple tornadoes also tend to be pushed toward and twist around each other due to the pressure of the surrounding air, but are prevented from merging due to the opposing spin directions of the facing sidewalls.

[indio007]

Make m zero and what is E? So how does a vacuum that contains no mass contain energy? And if m is non-zero then it isn't a vacuum.

General Relativity has a many mathematical inconsistencies.

It models a universe that contains no mass.

The problem your having isn't you. It's Einstein.

Here's a video which has about 7 logical and mathematical proofs GR is fundamentally flawed and a meaningless hodge podge of mathematical symbols.

(Full Length) Stephen J. Crothers on Non-existence of Black Holes,The Failure of General Relativity. - YouTube

More to your point about non-zero m. Photons allegedly have no mass but have energy. M=0 Therefore E=0*c2=0 or E/c2=0=M

The fudge factor (principle of equivalence of mass/inertia) they use is by postulating E is actually linked to momentum (i.e. massless inertia if you buy that one)

The problem is that is set to zero too! in the energy momentum tensor.

Anyhow the point is. Ignore the Einstein , you will be better off for it.
Nothing on earth is engineered using relativity. It is used solely for meaningless speculation. NASA doesn't use relativity. GPS doesn't. Nothing does.

You might want to search out a book called Einstien plus two.