| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/16/2008 7:26:28 PM | | Simply put, atoms do not vibrate at the speed of light. Thus, I would say with my knowledge and practice with relativity, e=mc^2 it still holds true. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/16/2008 8:26:35 PM |
This is exactly what I was inferring earlier
someone who reads your post does the 'infering'. when you post, you 'imply'.
its never a good idea to skip all the physics that leads up to relativity when trying to debunk any part of relativity.
E=mc^2 has been shown to hold true for ALL experiments to date. This includes atom-smashing experiments conducted in particle accelerators.
As Einstein's revelations built on the work of Newton and all others who came before him, so may oneday come a 'new' set of ideas that surpasses Relativity. this may or may not be string theory or any of its many offshoots.
experimentation has shown that the speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference, but it doesn't explain WHY. oneday someone may come across a fundamental principle of the universe that explains the WHY. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/16/2008 8:28:44 PM |
Simply put, atoms do not vibrate at the speed of light.
even more simply put----vibrations are not a measure of speed. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/17/2008 1:38:22 AM | | Yes they all have their own wave functions. And of course like you mention relativaty has a lot to do with reference frames. Though I may be sitting down I am actually traveling thousands of kilometres per second around the sun. huahhh... | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:39:56 AM | E = MC^2 doesn't prove or disprove relativity. It's simply a supporting member as well as whole lot of other stuff.
E = MC^2 is a ratio of mass to energy, using the speed of light as a constrict.
I do believe relativity has been covered to death, including special relativity, in almost every physics book published from any credible source. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:52:18 AM | If you look at the universe as limits it makes a lot of sense we accept that to move an object we must put the energy in to move it. Like throwing a rock, the denser the rock the more energy needed to move it. It's the same with particles. The more you want to accelerate it the more energy you have to put in. E=MC^2 expresses the observation that when a particle accelerate it gains mass. The particle isn't getting larger or more massive its just that mass = total energy, the energy that makes up the matter and the energy put into the matter to make it move (relativistic mass). So as a particle gain more an more mass, the more energy you have to put into it, so the only way for a particle to go as fas as possible you have to eliminate the mass, which a photon essentially is, and hense within the universe limits is the speed of light.
Pretty, you know easy.... | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/17/2008 5:42:07 PM |
If you look at the universe as limits
It's kinda like having "tunnel" vision and alot of people have "tunnel" vision.
the denser the rock the more energy needed to move it.
Like, the denser the person, the more control we want to make them see "our" point of view. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:31:54 AM | | I really have no idea who you are referring to. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:37:00 AM | This is not "rocket" science folks..............It's already been proven....Why do "we" need to: Infer, debunk, refer, or imply anything? | |
|
Home
login 
