E=mc2 questions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Russ_Watters said:
L

It was just a coincidental example.

I have yet to see any evidence of either, but in particular, you haven't ever posted any references that I've seen. Everything you have said was generated in your head.
Click to expand...
Of cause most of what I say is generated in my head, because it is new and science doe's not have this written anywhere, this is original thinking based on what I have learnt, which forums have learnt me, you are technically my teachers and you have provided literally 1000's of pages of knowledge and links for me over all the forums.
You persist in I have not learnt anything, although yesterday I provided your definitions back to you to show you I understand you and what I have learnt of present information.
The evidence I have provided are really simple basic axioms of rational thinking and logic based on the visual observations we all can agree with.
It is your knowledge in which I have my ideas, they are not random ideas, the subject I have the idea about is not logically accurate or lacks substantiated proof.
I have no problems accepting something of logical or absolute value proof, a lot of content in science I have already accepted to be close to the truth has you can get.
However the certainty of some subjects falls apart with reasonable questioning about the content provided, such has time dilation, light , time travel, and a few other subjects that I am more agreed to than opposed too, but I still feel there is a shortness of answers.
Convince me that time dilation exists?
I see that all you are doing is measuring the energy output of the Caesium atoms and have no idea how you associate that with time, there is obviously no connection to time and it is phases of energy being differentiated by gravity displacement, example - Put a caesium clock on the moon, the energy output will be different to on Earth because the moon has 1/6th of the gravity of Earth, so your time dilation is an energy dilation and not relative to time.
I say it how I see it, and I see no more than a difference in energy by a change in gravity force, and that is the Physics involved, no third party of time involved, although I will say that decay slows down or speeds up relative to gravity, you can exist for a longer period within time by this effect.

I also conclude that the ''time dilation'' shows you that gravity has an effect on the energy in mass, and the force of gravity extracts energy from mass, as shown by your Caesium atom.
 
Last edited:
theorist-constant12345 said:
Judge - ''Your prism shows you that it has the capability to separate an unknown input , can you show me in 3 dimensional space the constant I see as invisible, is a mixture of frequencies?''
Click to expand...
me - "No, you can't see things that are invisible."
Judge - "er, um, OK, can you show in 3 dimensional space that you can mix individual frequencies to get white light?"
me - "Sure. Here are three lasers - red, green and blue. When I combine them I get white light."
Judge - "OK, so you've demonstrated that white light can be split into colors, and colors can be combined to get white light. Now what the heck is Theorist talking about?"
TC - "Wait! Wait! I have another crazy theory in my head! I am submerged in energy that makes me see in the dark. You aren't really seeing light because it's invisible."
Judge - "Bailiff, could you remove TC? Thanks."

Judge - ''Can you provide the mechanism that establishes the mixture to become in uniform lines before it enters the Prism?''
Click to expand...
Me - Of course. It is a simple slit to allow only fairly parallel photons to come through. I can measure how quickly they diverge. It's not a perfectly parallel beam but is sufficient for our purposes.
Judge - "OK thanks."

Judge - ''can you tell me why if it were a mixture of frequencies, I can receive a carrier signal of a constant through the mix of frequencies that is of the same substance and how the signal does not become washed out in the mix by the mix?''
Click to expand...
Me - "Sure. Here's a communications system that uses LED's, which use a narrow mix of frequencies. The detector detects the light and decodes the carrier, and does not much care for the actual frequency of the light itself, as long as it is higher than the bandgap energy of the detector. See, here it is working."
Judge - "OK thanks."

Judge - '' So electricity is a mixture of frequencies because it has different wattages?''
Click to expand...
Me - "No, DC electricity has no frequency. However, white noise, an AC electrical signal, has different energies at different frequencies. In other words, it is indeed a mixture of frequencies. Here is a microphone, a fan, and a spectrum analyzer. I'll put the microphone near the fan to pick up some white noise. See, I can show you the energy at different frequencies. I can also express that as a wattage if you tell me which frequency you want and what bandwidth."
Judge - "Thank you."
TC (being dragged away) "NO! Wait! I see in the dark and light is invisible and no one can see how brilliant I am because it's all in my head!"
Judge - "Bailiff, please hold him for a psych eval. Next case!"
 
billvon said:
me - "No, you can't see things that are invisible."
Judge - "er, um, OK, can you show in 3 dimensional space that you can mix individual frequencies to get white light?"
me - "Sure. Here are three lasers - red, green and blue. When I combine them I get white light."
Judge - "OK, so you've demonstrated that white light can be split into colors, and colors can be combined to get white light. Now what the heck is Theorist talking about?"
TC - "Wait! Wait! I have another crazy theory in my head! I am submerged in energy that makes me see in the dark. You aren't really seeing light because it's invisible."
Judge - "Bailiff, could you remove TC? Thanks."


Me - Of course. It is a simple slit to allow only fairly parallel photons to come through. I can measure how quickly they diverge. It's not a perfectly parallel beam but is sufficient for our purposes.
Judge - "OK thanks."


Me - "Sure. Here's a communications system that uses LED's, which use a narrow mix of frequencies. The detector detects the light and decodes the carrier, and does not much care for the actual frequency of the light itself, as long as it is higher than the bandgap energy of the detector. See, here it is working."
Judge - "OK thanks."


Me - "No, DC electricity has no frequency. However, white noise, an AC electrical signal, has different energies at different frequencies. In other words, it is indeed a mixture of frequencies. Here is a microphone, a fan, and a spectrum analyzer. I'll put the microphone near the fan to pick up some white noise. See, I can show you the energy at different frequencies. I can also express that as a wattage if you tell me which frequency you want and what bandwidth."
Judge - "Thank you."
TC (being dragged away) "NO! Wait! I see in the dark and light is invisible and no one can see how brilliant I am because it's all in my head!"
Judge - "Bailiff, please hold him for a psych eval. Next case!"
Click to expand...
Judge - ''however you have not proved that the 3 lasers do not make a single frequency out of the 3 beams?''
 
So, related to what I asked yesterday: do you ever knowingly state wrong facts? And if so, how are we supposed to know if you disagree with the fact (say, you think the experiment was done wrong) or you just don't know what you are talking about?
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
the force of gravity extracts energy from mass...
Click to expand...
So, I'm currently experimenting with this concept. I have a number of books on my desk. Since they are consuming energy by sitting there, should I be worried about them catching fire?

See, I don't think you recognize (unless this is all a joke) that everything you are speculating about is stuff that already has well proven answers.
The evidence I have provided are really simple basic axioms
Click to expand...
Maybe these questions are moot since that indicates either that you don't know what evidence or an axiom is.

Regarding time dilation: you are not equipped to handle a discussion of it until you learn middle school basic science concepts like energy - you clearly haven't the slightest clue what energy is.
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
So, related to what I asked yesterday: do you ever knowingly state wrong facts? And if so, how are we supposed to know if you disagree with the fact (say, you think the experiment was done wrong) or you just don't know what you are talking about?
Click to expand...
Do I knowingly state wrong facts, only when I am stating axioms that you may not agree with but I deem to be accurate axiom facts, example, I will say fact that light in 3 dimensional space is see through and in no way obscures our vision, I say fact because I know it is an observational axiom we all have to agree with.
If I am saying something different to present facts, that means I know the facts and am simply disagreeing with it, because in learning it I find something amiss to logic.
If I am talking about something, I know the present information, I know what I am talking about, I also understand how hard it is to contemplate something so out of the ordinary, I do ask myself could I be wrong and look at the information over and over again to see if I am missing something.
I look at your facts and methods, then I say it exactly how I see it , exactly what you are doing in the experiment etc without prejudice .

I am not naive and will never be naive, I understand I am saying science has a lot wrong and for generations science has been misunderstood, I am just putting a jigsaw puzzle together and realigning all the parts to fit where they should be.
 
Russ_Watters said:
So, I'm currently experimenting with this concept. I have a number of books on my desk. Since they are consuming energy by sitting there, should I be worried about them catching fire?

See, I don't think you recognize (unless this is all a joke) that everything you are speculating about is stuff that already has well proven answers.

Maybe these questions are moot since that indicates either that you don't know what evidence or an axiom is.

Regarding time dilation: you are not equipped to handle a discussion of it until you learn middle school basic science concepts like energy - you clearly haven't the slightest clue what energy is.
Click to expand...
Your books will not catch fire because the energy gained is lost to gravity and the table. The books stay at an equilibrium state of energy.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
If I am saying something different to present facts, that means I know the facts and am simply disagreeing with it, because in learning it I find something amiss to logic.
Click to expand...
Wow.
Are you aware that the universe does not care if you like the way it operates? No amount of disagreement will change the reading given by an instrument.

Do you know the definition of the word "delusion"?
 
This kind of idiotic argument will continue until TC dies, is banned, or gets really good psychotropic drugs. Anything he agrees to today, he will deny tomorrow.

You're all, (me included) arguing with a crazy, school drop out, middle aged manual laborer. And the operative term is crazy.

You cannot successfully argue with insanity.
 
Russ_Watters said:
Wow.
Are you aware that the universe does not care if you like the way it operates? No amount of disagreement will change the reading given by an instrument.

Do you know the definition of the word "delusion"?
Click to expand...
Are you even aware of what the Universe is? Do you believe that the Universe is the visual matter?

Do you not see that the Universe is the 3 dimensional space and matter is just an interaction in that space?

Do you think the Universe ends when visual distance has ceased?

Do you not know that the expansion of the stars lights the way, and if you could travel beyond our visual limitations you would see stars that had already expanded out of our visual range?
 
Russ_Watters said:
Maybe I read backwards, so I'll try again: if the force of gravity extracts energy from mass, shouldn't the books be COLD?
Click to expand...
No because of entropy gain, the water up north is froze because of less entropy gain than loss, but now the atmosphere is gaining more particles such as carbon, and gaining a greater thermodynamic intake by entropy means, the |North is now getting sufficient entropy gain in the atmosphere to allow the ice to gain more energy causing a greater kinetic energy effect, and the loss to gravity is now lessening compared to the entropy gain.

Ps it stays water underneath because of density having more energy.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
No because of entropy gain, the water up north is froze because of less entropy gain than loss, but now the atmosphere is gaining more particles such as carbon, and gaining a greater thermodynamic intake by entropy means, the |North is now getting sufficient entropy gain in the atmosphere to allow the ice to gain more energy causing a greater kinetic energy effect, and the loss to gravity is now lessening compared to the entropy gain.

Ps it stays water underneath because of density having more energy.
Click to expand...
Water? Up north? We're talking about a book (or if you prefer, a cup of water) ON MY DESK. Did your screw fall out?

Posts like that are what make you look like you are using a gibberish generator bot. I asked a clear and concise question and in response you vomited on your keyboard.
 
Russ_Watters said:
Water? Up north? We're talking about a book (or if you prefer, a cup of water) ON MY DESK. Did your screw fall out?

Posts like that are what make you look like you are using a gibberish generator not. I asked a clear and concise question that needed a one-word answer and in response you vomited on your keyboard.
Click to expand...
I am jumping ahead and giving you the end answer, if you have a cup of water on your desk and remove all the energy that surrounds it, making a temperature of zero, the last bit of energy in the water will be lost to the volume and gravity and the water will freeze.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I am jumping ahead and giving you the end answer, if you have a cup of water on your desk and remove all the energy that surrounds it, making a temperature of zero, the last bit of energy in the water will be lost to the volume and gravity and the water will freeze.
Click to expand...
My office is always at room temperature: 20C. So should the cup of water be cooler than that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top