0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I would not be surprised if you can quickly dismiss my comments as totally erroneous. But I thank you for your time. Small scale assumptions:1. Energy-mass-speed relationship E = mc2 m = E/c2 c2 = E/m c = square root(E/m) - This suggests that mass is energy that has slowed its momentum. This statement is meaningless - This suggests that the total amount of energy in the universe is conserved.No it doesn't - ther is no mention of conservation here2. The universe is composed of different types of radiated energy and matter particles.3. An energy wave does not need matter particles to exist or travel.4. A particle does not need energy waves to exist or travel.5. Energy radiates (expands) from a source to all directions.True of electromagnetic radiation, but not of "energy" which is a property of em radiaton (and other things besides) - This suggests that the size of an energy wave is unlimited, potentially encompasing the size of the entire universe.true for an electromagnetic wave, but not for anything else - This suggests that the entire universe is full of activity.activity has a specific meaning which is not relevant here6. As energy radiates the intensity (strength) gets weaker with distance.7. Matter particles do not radiate (expand). The size of a particle is limited.8. An energy wave can convert into a particle. - This suggests that an energy wave collapses into a particle BECAUSE its speed or strength goes below a certain threshold.no it doesn't9. A particle can convert into an energy wave. - This suggests a particle explodes into energy BECAUSE its speed or strength goes above a certain threshold.no it doesn't10. An energy wave of a certain type always convert into its equivalent type of particle (or particles).depends on its interaction11. A particle of a certain type always convert into its equivalent type of energy wave (and/or smaller particles).not necessarily. There is no reason why a single isolated particle should do so12. Energy waves can impart momentum to a particle (push force).13. Energy waves are commonly known as electromagnetic waves.It would make things a lot clearer in everyone's mind if you used the correct terminology throughout14. An energy wave can spread out over large distances (many light years in diameter) but when it colapses into a particle, there is no waiting for the energy to travel and condense to the location where it becomes a particle (acts as a wave packet).Schrodinger said soLarge scale assumptions:1. The universe is expanding. - This suggests that the universe started as a point.No it doesn't2. Galaxies are moving away from each other at a greater speed as time progresses. - This suggests that the expansion is not only momentum, there is an increasing repulsive force that is pushing the galaxies apart.Not the only explanation - This suggests that more space is getting pumped into the areas between galaxies continually."pumped into" implies the existence of a pump and a source3. The trajectory of Galaxies moving away from each other is uniform throughout the universe.Is this observationally true? Seems improbable. - This suggests that if space is getting dumped into the universe, it is not from a central location.4. Celestial bodies that are in relatively close proximity to other celestial bodies pull towards each other (attractive force).Which contradicts the foregoingMy wacky theory. I'm afraid there seems little point in discussing a theory based on what you have said so far
...Small scale assumptions:1. Energy-mass-speed relationship E = mc2 m = E/c2 c2 = E/m c = square root(E/m) - This suggests that mass is energy that has slowed its momentum. This statement is meaningless\/color]
Quote from: alancalverd...Small scale assumptions:1. Energy-mass-speed relationship E = mc2 m = E/c2 c2 = E/m c = square root(E/m) - This suggests that mass is energy that has slowed its momentum. This statement is meaningless\/color]While I wouldn't agree that it's an appropriate way to describe mass-energy it isn't a meaningless statement. Suppose a body of mass m is traveling at speed v. If you could convert some of the kinetic energy into mass-energy then the body would slow down and the rest mass would increase.
While it is accepted that mass can turn into energy and vise versa, ...
Einstein's formula has three parts or variables.
I am surprised that no one has given it much thought to the speed variable.
What I am proposing is that that speed variable ...
What I am saying is that the speed of OPERATION of the energy (either radiated energy or a particle) changes.
In my opinion, ....
than an energy wave.
Yes, energy can convert into mass and mass into energy.
Please give me time to absorb the information in the document.My statement "Yes, energy can convert into mass and mass into energy" is wrong. I over simplified hoping not to ruffle anybody's feathers.  Since mass is not potential energy in my mind, it is the increase or slowing of forces. Let me regroup and I will post something soon. Again, thanks for your honesty and insights.
And, by the way, where did this potential energy gone? LOL Remember that space force that got radiated? It snaps back in. I know, it's wacky.
What potential energy are you referring to?
You're very welcome my friend. Let me explain a bit using pair annihilation as an example. That's when a electron annihilates a positron (aka anti-electron) resulting in two photons. If you were in the frame of reference where the total momentum was zero then the photons would have the same energy and be moving in opposite directions. You start with two particles of the same mass and the same momentum and you end up with two photons each having mass given by E = hf/c2. So the mass at the beginning is the mass of the electron and the positron (whose mass is more than its rest mass due to the particles kinetic energy) and at the end you have the same mass and the same energy. So you didn't convert mass into energy. What you did was to change the form of the energy and the mass.
I think you are saying that massless, particleless, radiating energy waves do not exist?
I will work on some drawings in the next few days to explain the dynamics of my theory.
First I provide some history of how the equation E = mc2 arose, establish what “mass” means in the context of this relation, and present some aspects of how the relation can be understood. Then I address the question, Does E = mc2 mean that one can “convert mass into energy” and vice versa?