E=mc^2

[cikljamas]

cikljamas, although you have made some references to mass and energy, for the most part, the FET you're sharing is quite a bit off topic. I can move all these FET for/against posts into their own thread as it is quite a topic on it's own.

thx1138 started this thread so ultimately his/her call, but it's just my suggestion.

Whatever you decide i am fine with it...yes, i am aware of my slightly drifting off the road, or riding on the edge of the road...i mean E=mc^2 is kind of constitution-foundation of the modern science, and what i am trying to elaborate is that whole paradigm based on GR and STR (including Newton's mechanics) as main pillars (of modern science) IS WRONG. So, as i said if i went to far with it i am willing to stop my off topic right here.

My last contribution to my off topic which i am now closing is this video that i just have shut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxmL...ature=youtu.be

Sorry, once again...And thank you very much for your patience and tolerance!!!

[mr.clean]

really? no comment?

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x479q90/18/imag0773o.jpg

LOL maybe im posting this in the wrong thread hehe

Could some highly intelligent person make a calculation based on this (new/old) formula as an example?

[Ernst]

LOL maybe im posting this in the wrong thread hehe

Wrong thread,... because?

Could some highly intelligent person make a calculation based on this (new/old) formula as an example?

[BroMikey]

Very Intelligent

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/80.../imag0773o.jpg

LOL maybe im posting this in the wrong thread hehe

Could some highly intelligent person make a calculation based on this (new/old) formula as an example?

Hey Clean

Nice poster of what Nik said way back when. I guess to some folks it is just something to ignore, however if someone keeps putting it up it will eventual be addressed.

I know they finally put the bag on Nikolia while he was old and lay on his bed and kept his real work out of the media many times his whole life long.

It is just so hard to believe for people who have never faced the jungle we live in.

Thanks Clean, been followin yer work. Good stuff.

Mike

[aljhoa]

Louis de Broglie postulated that
all particles with a specific value of momentum p have a wavelength λ = h/p, where h is Planck's constant.
This hypothesis was at the basis of quantum mechanics.
Nowadays, this wavelength is called the de Broglie wavelength.
Wavelength - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

E=mc² is Incomplete - YouTube


Al

[indio007]

M = E/VphVgr
ph = phase
gr = group
V = Velocity


Negative Refraction, Light Pressure and Attraction, Equation E = mc2 and Wave‐particle Dualism

Victor G. Veselago

[thx1138]

Citation?

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/80.../imag0773o.jpg

LOL maybe im posting this in the wrong thread hehe

Could some highly intelligent person make a calculation based on this (new/old) formula as an example?

That's what I was looking for in the original post. That makes sense because it uses velocity of the mass rather than speed of light which is supposed to be constant although I'm not smart enough to figure out where the 1/2 came from.

I've been studying Tesla's work for 3 years now and haven't run across that quote although I've seen some about relativity. It's not surprising to me that I missed that one because his work was so prolific.

It would be nice to have a citation of the original source if you have it or can find it. I've been looking for a citation on the "magnificence of 3, 6, and 9" for two years and haven't found the source for that one yet. I'm to the point where I don't believe he ever said that. All anyone has been able to refer me to was a bunch of web sites but none of them have the source either and it's gibberish without knowing the context.

[indio007]

That's what I was looking for in the original post. That makes sense because it uses velocity of the mass rather than speed of light which is supposed to be constant although I'm not smart enough to figure out where the 1/2 came from.

It's a computation for 1/2 the energy of a 2 body problem i.e. a collision
It's the energy of one of the objects.
I want to know how Einstein gets C^2. He just randomly throughs it into the second law of motion so he can equate the V^2 with C^2. He wants to clamp velocity to the speed of light. So he goes ... SQRT of 1-V^2/C^2 . Circular reasoning if you ask me. there is no logical reason to use C^2 at all.

This is the problem with today's science. You draw a conclusion then cherry pick evidence to support it. Or better yet use convoluted formulas , map them to physical phenomena and declare victory.

[thx1138]

Found the citation for "a mass of error and deceptive ideas "

Although, as stated in the refernce link, it is not a direct quote but a shortened version of the same idea. See the last two paragraphs.

New York Times

July 11, 1935, p. 23, c. 8

Tesla, 79, Promises to Transmit Force
.
.
.
The theory of relativity he described as "a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense."

"The theory, "he said, "wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

Tesla, 79, Promises to Transmit Force

[mr.clean]

Well i would say you are definitely intelligent, and i didnt mean to imply that i was any more intelligent than the next in my posting that, but the title of the topic was irresistable.

i had posted this earlier and didnt get much reaction so i asked if this was the right place hehe, joking

and as a matter of fact the previous replies from Indio007 and Thx1138 have been illuminating for me as the corrected formula itself

[mr.clean]

It's a computation for 1/2 the energy of a 2 body problem i.e. a collision
It's the energy of one of the objects.
I want to know how Einstein gets C^2. He just randomly throughs it into the second law of motion so he can equate the V^2 with C^2. He wants to clamp velocity to the speed of light. So he goes ... SQRT of 1-V^2/C^2 . Circular reasoning if you ask me. there is no logical reason to use C^2 at all.

This is the problem with today's science. You draw a conclusion then cherry pick evidence to support it. Or better yet use convoluted formulas , map them to physical phenomena and declare victory.

Brilliant explanation and observations !

[mr.clean]

Although, as stated in the refernce link, it is not a direct quote but a shortened version of the same idea. See the last two paragraphs.

New York Times

July 11, 1935, p. 23, c. 8

Tesla, 79, Promises to Transmit Force
.
.
.
The theory of relativity he described as "a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense."

"The theory, "he said, "wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

Tesla, 79, Promises to Transmit Force

Good find buddy ! can you imagine where we would be if we had accepted Tesla's ideas?!
If we could have just Let him teach us what he wanted to, what would the world look like eh?

thanks again

[thx1138]

Some things are just unknowable

Can you imagine where we would be if we had accepted Tesla's ideas?!

I find most of his science pretty straight forward but that may be because I don't have any formal EE training. You do, however, have to get it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, rather than what other people say about what he did or what he said.

An entire industry has been built up around other peoples' interpretations and misrepresentations of his work. That's why I look for citations. "Radiant energy" is one such. Here's what he said about "radiant energy":

radiant energy

Now tell me what a Bunsen burner has in common with all of hoopla about electrical circuits and longitudinal waves and the aether and all the other BS that is slung around under the guise of "Tesla's radiant energy". "Radiant energy" is really simple. It's energy which is radiated. That's it.

BTW, that also includes radiation from radioactive materials which is where the Roentgen Ray (x-ray) investigations tie in. To understand it you have to understand what was unknown at the time. It wasn't until 1897 that J. J. Thomson started his investigations that led to the discovery of the electron. Before that the absolute minimum of matter was considered to be the atom.

I think most of the problems that cropped up with Dr. Tesla's plans were geopolitical. For instance, his world wide transmission of communications and power would not be acceptable to most countries back then because the governments didn't want it. He said he could power the world with less than 10 transmiiters. That, however, would make all countries dependent on his technology and they could possibly have had their whole country's power shut off. That's no more feasible today than it was then. We are seeing the problems with the interdependence of the grid today as problems cascade across systems and shut down entire regions rather than a city or two. Imagine if the whole world were dependent today on ten transmitters of electrical power. The world was a simpler world in his day so wars were fought between nations. Imagine the targets those transmitters would become for terrorists.

He also said he could make communications as private as a thought. Since Roman times and before, the need for communication in battles was quite clear. That made the desire to intercept and decode messages a priority. So his ability to make them indecipherable by everyone but him or his company was also unacceptable just as it would be today.

So it's quite hard to imagine what the world would be like today had his technologies been adopted back then. We tend to think of the good outcomes but his work is just as susceptible to bad outcomes. What if they were adopted and Hitler, Stalin, or Mao controlled them. Or Osama bin Laden, for that matter.

Of course, all of this doesn't really matter today. The world is what it is. In fact I'm looking to use technology to go in the other direction - to allow people to become less dependent and, to a degree, more autonomous. Decentralization rather than centralization which today's Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos see as just as dangerous as Tesla's centralization was back in the day.

Dr. Tesla covered decentralization also but didn't expound on it:

radiations or the energy of vast reservoirs was to be transmitted economically to any distance. Though there were other possible sources of economical power, only the two solutions mentioned offer the ideal feature of power being obtained without any consumption of material(fuelless power generation). After long thought I finally arrived at two solutions, but

Search "thx 1138", the film George Lucas made before he made "Star Wars". It's quite dated now but gets the idea across.

[Aaron]

[Aaron]