e=mc2 true or false?

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Master-J
i have 2 questions:

how do we know that the speed of light is the exact same speed at which mass becomes infinite when accelerating. If these speeds are different, then surely it would not matter if the speed of light varied It would only matter if the speed at which mass becomes infinite varied since that's what all calculations are based on?

Also, how can we tell if the speed of light is changing when we measure it across our galaxy? Wouldn't it be most likely that time is being dilated at some point by intense gravity and therefore making light "appear" to change speed?

ok let me answer it simple...

e = mc2 when integrated will give infiniti as the value of mass as it approaches (or rather equals) the speed of light.... it is mathematically proven... does not mean its right... there may be assumptions we make that are incorrect... but still that answers the first question...

concerning light.. it is made up... per the scientists.. of mpackets of energy... these 'packets' are affected by gravity the same way are everything else... it may not really be slower or faster but it is distorted hence it will travel LONGER say... around an object when it is affected by gravitational forces... the question of time dilation... well thats really getting onto another level and there needs to be an understanding and an agreement... but there are always new formulae being presented and theories being proven wrong or new ones made...

not to say you are wrong btw... but it is an area where there are many answers...

 

[Master-J]

thanks for the reply

 

[XP Abuser]

ok what does e, m and c represent cuz ive never known that so i condemn it to being bollox and einstein did it when he was pissed and cuz he had a good repuation everyone believed it in them days.

and who cares about the speed of light and stuff we dont need it???

 

[ironguy]

There is no gravity, the earth sucks!

In response to a number of issues here...

Dealer:
I don't think we're a black hole in a black hole, ad infinitum. A black hole has a specific defintion and our universe doesn't fit it. In a black hole, the contraction and compression of matter is caused by intense gravitational attraction. It's sort of a perpetual gravity machine. As the intense gravity sucks in matter, the mass increases whereby gravity increases which causes higher gravitational attraction which attracts more matter, yada, yada, yada.
Turns white? Do we even know what that means? Would it be a Big Bang with massive amounts of matter flinging itself outward? Can it happen? Lots of theories, but little fact about this topic. We'll probably never know in our lifetime.

Deadzombie (isn't that an oxymoron?):

I wish I could speak on this a little more intelligently but I really can't. Dr. Kaku's theories are amazing and complicated in a mathematical way. What's really amazing is someone that has that much math ability to also be sensitive in arts. I have never believed in only three or four dimensions, but the limitation, I believe, is humanities ability to perceive them, even with machines. I think many of his theories will reamin theories. I do know, however, that super quantum strings exist because I saw one in a Star Trek movie!

 

[ZAnwar]

Originally posted by XP Abuser
ok what does e, m and c represent cuz ive never known that so i condemn it to being bollox and einstein did it when he was pissed and cuz he had a good repuation everyone believed it in them days.

and who cares about the speed of light and stuff we dont need it???

E= Energy

M= Mass

C= Speed of Light

Energy=Mass(x)Speed of light2 (small 2= squared)

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by XP Abuser
ok what does e, m and c represent cuz ive never known that so i condemn it to being bollox and einstein did it when he was pissed and cuz he had a good repuation everyone believed it in them days.

and who cares about the speed of light and stuff we dont need it???

speed of light is considered to be a constant

once you get into reasonably high level math involving huge numbers you will straight away see the need to have constants to tie in the figures you are working with...


when considernig the vastness of space... e=mc2 does come into use a little

 

[Dr.Miller]

What u said is wrong, it is not 300,000,000 Km/h, it is only 300,000 Km/h. That is around 176,000 Mph !!!

I am 14 and I know that !

This is a kind reminder that the speed of light is measured in Kilometers per second, not per hour. It is roughly equal to 186,000 Miler per second. 1.609344 Kilometers in 1 mile hence your 300,000 divided by 1.609344 = 186,411 Mps.

Also take into consideration that the laws of the macro-universe do not always work in the micro-universe. For that we turn to Quantum Physics. Just the same, e=mc2 is true enough for most purposes. Just like every other rule, there is an exception.

Light is known to have a peculiar property known as wave-particle duality. Essentially, yes, light has mass and yes it does act like a particle. On the other hand, it also acts as an electromagnetic wave. Superposition of a single photon may explain this phenomenon. So while Einstein's theory suggests that an object expands to infinite mass as it approaches the speed of light, we see that in the micro-universe, a photon does NOT have infinite mass.

In the end, the more we discover about the universe, the more we see how much we really don't understand. And now... I will stop rambling... woohoo!

 

[fitz]

wow.. thread resurrection

 

[Dark Atheist]

does the bump =mc2 ?

 

[Perris Calderon]

This is a kind reminder that the speed of light is measured in Kilometers per second, not per hour. It is roughly equal to 186,000 Miler per second. 1.609344 Kilometers in 1 mile hence your 300,000 divided by 1.609344 = 186,411 Mps.

Also take into consideration that the laws of the macro-universe do not always work in the micro-universe. For that we turn to Quantum Physics. Just the same, e=mc2 is true enough for most purposes. Just like every other rule, there is an exception.

Light is known to have a peculiar property known as wave-particle duality. Essentially, yes, light has mass and yes it does act like a particle. On the other hand, it also acts as an electromagnetic wave. Superposition of a single photon may explain this phenomenon. So while Einstein's theory suggests that an object expands to infinite mass as it approaches the speed of light, we see that in the micro-universe, a photon does NOT have infinite mass.

In the end, the more we discover about the universe, the more we see how much we really don't understand. And now... I will stop rambling... woohoo!

I love this thread

here's a question, since light is bent by gravity, and then could be (and would be) bent back, wouldn't it therefore travel from one point to the other slower then the speed of light, even though it was in fact traveling at the speed of light through it's path?

if so, that would certainly explain some variations on the actual speed of light versus the theoretical

 

[Sazar]

I love this thread

here's a question, since light is bent by gravity, and then could be (and would be) bent back, wouldn't it therefore travel from one point to the other slower then the speed of light, even though it was in fact traveling at the speed of light through it's path?

if so, that would certainly explain some variations on the actual speed of light versus the theoretical

Yes, it would just take longer to get somewhere, but that does not imply that the actual speed itself has changed. I posted above about this

So you are partly correct but you cannot suggest that the speed of light itself has been modified. Only that the path and therefore the duration of time from source to end-point the light has taken to travel has been adjusted. This is precisely why you cannot say how close or how far something is, exactly, when measuring simply by the time it takes for light to arrive.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Yes, it would just take longer to get somewhere, but that does not imply that the actual speed itself has changed. I posted above about this

So you are partly correct but you cannot suggest that the speed of light itself has been modified. Only that the path and therefore the duration of time from source to end-point the light has taken to travel has been adjusted. This is precisely why you cannot say how close or how far something is, exactly, when measuring simply by the time it takes for light to arrive.

that's what I thought

however, the point;

calculating first the speed of light and then counting on that speed to produce results that are determined by the speed of light would not be indicative of the correct speed of light, therefore you could not discard the theoretical speed of light simply because results indicate a different speed

now for the next question

since the universe is indeed expanding, yet the speed of light is based on an absolute, is the speed that light would travel from one point to the other determined by the original span of that distance or the final span once light reached the expanded point in the universe we might be referencing

 

[epk]

well... the distance should be the same on both analysis... not the same points in the universe (start & end), cos the expansion would affect it


btw... u guys know that time and lenght also depend on speed? :] messy indeed

 

[Sazar]

that's what I thought

however, the point;

calculating first the speed of light and then counting on that speed to produce results that are determined by the speed of light would not be indicative of the correct speed of light, therefore you could not discard the theoretical speed of light simply because results indicate a different speed

I am not sure what you are implying here.

The speed of light is essentially a constant and repeatable in experiments.

When light, passing between or around objects, is arriving at time X and does not correspond with time Y (which is the expected time), this is an indication of one of several possible factors, such as the presence of a celestial body. This is one of the key tools used in discovering new objects in space, be they stars, planets or other bodies.

now for the next question

since the universe is indeed expanding, yet the speed of light is based on an absolute, is the speed that light would travel from one point to the other determined by the original span of that distance or the final span once light reached the expanded point in the universe we might be referencing

It is determined as the distance from which that object initially emitted the light I would presume. This would be the most logical way to discern the distance. Once you have measured this, a periodic check on the distance (over a course of months or years) could easily yield the approximate speed of the other body from us and allow us to identify the current, expected, location of the body from us.

 

[Aprox]

Wow, good resurrection, this thread is a really good read.

While using the speed of light as a direct measurement of distance is not entirely accurate due to the physical properties of light being subject to deceleration and path changes. It does however offer a maximum distance for an object. So, we could say that Object X is at the most 1.23 light years away due to constants that we know. However, it could be closer than it appears due to known cosmic bodies and other known obstacles.

 

[Dark Atheist]

could say The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.