have we found a way through, I for 1 hope so Options

[Trip like I do]

have we found a way through, into, and/or beyond.... I for one hope so.... but the re-learning and the letting go will be the bitch of it all if it turns out to be so

[Jakare]

Have we really got another option?

[Trip like I do]

good visual analogy

[Jakare]

Anyway, what was the thought or experience that inspired you to create this post? A way through, into and/or beyond what?

[Trip like I do]

einstein.... beyond what is already known, into other dimensions, and beyond the current cosmic horizon

[Trip like I do]

Have we really got another option?

anyway.... so what motivated you to respond with this video? How do you feel it pertained to my initial comment?

[Jakare]

It was a metaphor of how strongly our behavior is too often out of our control. Nontheless even if we do own full free will, who is going to prefer staying ignorant just because reality is complicated? Don´t answer to that, i know some people would do so...

Besides that i heard some phycisist would be actually quite happy, apparently physics were becoming a bit boring lately...

Einstein theories are still useful, GPS, satellites would keep working even if his theory wasn´t completely accurate and look how far have we reached even so.

[Flex]

I personally think Einstein was right anyways. Quantum mechanics to me has some fundamental flaws.

[Trip like I do]

I personally think Einstein was right anyways. Quantum mechanics to me has some fundamental flaws.

he seemingly only had part of the puzzle correct.... and that is fascinating, good old time will tell

[Flex]

I actually think he had everything right, and that quantum mechanics is a biproduct of it. I personally believe the shortcoming of quantum mechanics is the lack of acknowledgement of the mass of a photon.

Photons don't have mass but they have momentum?

Classically: p=mv

Quantum: p=-i h(bar) nabla. Units of planks constant are measures of energy such a J*s and a J=kgm^2/s^2 so h bar can be expressed as kgm^2/s

Looks to me that both in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, momentum is pretty much mv. If a photon has no mass, it has no momentum.

I honestly think that the mass of a photon changes depending on its frequency. In a chemical reaction, we draw some energy coordinate diagram representation with a transition state and a new ground state, where the y-axis is energy. We show molecules going higher in energy with new degrees of freedom (different rotational energies etc.). If E=mc^2 then why in quantum mechanics do we treat mass of a particle as a constant?

Maybe I am making no sense, but to me it seems like a load of BS.

[P.j.S]

I actually think he had everything right, and that quantum mechanics is a biproduct of it. I personally believe the shortcoming of quantum mechanics is the lack of acknowledgement of the mass of a photon.

Photons don't have mass but they have momentum?

Classically: p=mv

Quantum: p=-i h(bar) nabla. Units of planks constant are measures of energy such a J*s and a J=kgm^2/s^2 so h bar can be expressed as kgm^2/s

Looks to me that both in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, momentum is pretty much mv. If a photon has no mass, it has no momentum.

I honestly think that the mass of a photon changes depending on its frequency. In a chemical reaction, we draw some energy coordinate diagram representation with a transition state and a new ground state, where the y-axis is energy. We show molecules going higher in energy with new degrees of freedom (different rotational energies etc.). If E=mc^2 then why in quantum mechanics do we treat mass of a particle as a constant?

Maybe I am making no sense, but to me it seems like a load of BS.

E=mc^2 shows that energy has 0 mass at light speed. Mathematically light speed is 186234.5035...
Instead of mv for the photon it might be Ev instead. This would lead to 1c^2 speed at 0 mass or Ev of invisible dark matter and not the photon perhaps. That is unless the photon with no mass is the start of invisible dark matter going backward up the scale of Energy and the atom with mass is the start of matter beyond 0 on the z axis.

E = mc^2
E/c^2 = m
m = 1
sqrt E / 1 = c
sqrt E = c at 0 mass
E = c^2 at 0 mass

P.j.S

[Flex]

Yes and hence, you get the idea of a speed limit of the Universe which turned out to be wrong. The speed of light in my opinion should be viewed as a constant of relativity, not as a speed limit. Light (obviously traveling at the speed of light) would seem to be massless; however, were this true, it would not have momentum, which it does.

[P.j.S]

Yes and hence, you get the idea of a speed limit of the Universe which turned out to be wrong. The speed of light in my opinion should be viewed as a constant of relativity, not as a speed limit. Light (obviously traveling at the speed of light) would seem to be massless; however, were this true, it would not have momentum, which it does.

It is mass that remains at rest unless energy propells it. Why do you think that energy has no momentum?

Instead at 0 mass increasing v generates new energy instead of mass. It is proposed that friction acts as a counter emf to prevent energy from escalating away to infinity at infinite miles/second.

This is why the energy package of sqrt E generates to E when the speed goes from c to c^2 at 0 mass. To lessen the friction balancing energy at c^2 would be to send energy in the direction of infinity. Einstein was right that it would take infinite Energy to move mass to the speed of light but he never mentioned how much energy itself would go c speed and beyond at 0 mass.

If m = 1 was the mass of the earth then at:
sqrt (E/c^2) = sqrt 1
(sqrt E) / c = sqrt 1
sqrt E / sqrt 1 = c It takes the square root of energy to go c speed at 0 mass.
sqrt E = c at 0 mass That energy package squared would result in:
E = c^2 at 0 mass.

So the energy inherent in the mass of the earth if it was all changed into pure invisible energy would go c^2 speed and not be momentumless at all. But with friction to offset the generated surplus of energy the force of the energy would travel c^2 miles/second or (186234)^2 miles/sec. back and forth each taking a second.

[PJS]

Yes and hence, you get the idea of a speed limit of the Universe which turned out to be wrong. The speed of light in my opinion should be viewed as a constant of relativity, not as a speed limit. Light (obviously traveling at the speed of light) would seem to be massless; however, were this true, it would not have momentum, which it does.

It is mass that remains at rest unless energy propells it. Why do you think that energy has no momentum?

Instead at 0 mass increasing v generates new energy instead of mass. It is proposed that friction acts as a counter emf to prevent energy from escalating away to infinity at infinite miles/second.

This is why the energy package of sqrt E generates to E when the speed goes from c to c^2 at 0 mass. To lessen the friction balancing energy at c^2 would be to send energy in the direction of infinity. Einstein was right that it would take infinite Energy to move mass to the speed of light but he never mentioned how much energy itself would go c speed and beyond at 0 mass.

If m = 1 was the mass of the earth then at:
sqrt (E/c^2) = sqrt 1
(sqrt E) / c = sqrt 1
sqrt E / sqrt 1 = c It takes the square root of energy to go c speed at 0 mass.
sqrt E = c at 0 mass That energy package squared would result in:
E = c^2 at 0 mass.

So the energy inherent in the mass of the earth if it was all changed into pure invisible energy would go c^2 speed and not be momentumless at all. But with friction to offset the generated surplus of energy the force of the energy would travel c^2 miles/second or (186234)^2 miles/sec. back and forth each taking a second.

So according to this motion won't always stay in motion in space but friction will eventually bring the earth to a stop if propelling energy didn't offset the amount of friction resisting earth's movement. Therefore friction and propelling energy are part of the equation of a sustained E=mc^2 span of energy in space. But to move the earth c speed would take infinite energy in which friction would be 0.

[Trip like I do]

I actually think he had everything right

.... of what einstein knew he knew he had right, but what einstein knew (like all great minds who knew b4 him) is yet again seemingly only another piece of the much larger puzzle.... einstein knew what he knew but he didn't know everything and I'm sure he'd be the 1st to readily agree

[PJS]

I actually think he had everything right

.... of what einstein knew he knew he had right, but what einstein knew (like all great minds who knew b4 him) is yet again seemingly only another piece of the much larger puzzle.... einstein knew what he knew but he didn't know everything and I'm sure he'd be the 1st to readily agree

It is quite possible that he and Newton never considered friction as a force to be dealt with. If a falling apple on earth means that there is gravity in space then why not friction which stops the apple from rolling forever on the ground?

If Einstein had of thought of friction he might see his excellent mathwork E=mc^2 to a much fuller degree quite possibly.

[Trip like I do]

why einstein was wrong about being wrong

[Flex]

I have one problem with you derivations. You are treating the speed of light as a constant. If we instead consider light (photons) as an operator acting on mass (how we collapse the wave function by observing) your math is not valid.

[PJS]

I have one problem with you derivations. You are treating the speed of light as a constant. If we instead consider light (photons) as an operator acting on mass (how we collapse the wave function by observing) your math is not valid.

sqrt E = c at 0 mass is more like a barrier for mass. To go c speed the inherent mass must turn completetely into energy. I use the example of the earth which is 1c^2 parcel of energy. When the inherent mass is turned into a total energy package like a full gas tank then sqrt E has increased to E = c^2 miles/second at 0 mass. One package of fuel is 1c^2 not infinite energy.

This indicates that the stage of mass is now left behind as energy increases in speed along the range of miles/second. Since energy is kept at 1c^2 speed back and forth by friction, a small reduction in friction can achieve speed increases like miles/hour etc... above the barrier of 1c^2. Reduce friction further and increments and multiples of 1c^2 to 110c^2 for example (the sun) and much higher to infinity can be reached at 0 friction.

My math is worked out in dimensions. A massless Photon is two dimensional (x and y axis). Speeds less from 1c^2 to c at 0 mass are two dimensional (travels in large circles in space). Speeds of 1c^2 and greater are one dimensional (a straight line of length only x axis).

Light has a mathematical speed at the inverse of c^7 or 7.77e36 miles or 186234.5035... miles/second. There is where the true barrier for 0 mass may be possibly. Otherwise light may be an atom with mass as the first mass beyond zero that is heated up by friction to glow as light in three dimensions. The lighted mass travels from atom to photon to become atom with lighted mass to the next photon to momentarily become an atom with lighted mass and so on in a vaccuum at the speed of light which is somewhat slower than the natural speed of 0 mass at true c speed. The previous atom is left with new mass which may be moisture (H2O) or the exhaust of light as it travels from atom to atom on the z axis.

I have a mathematical theory called The Theory of Space 0/0 Dynamics that uses observation where available but sticks to a mathematical theme since a lot of the time it is beyond observation at this point.

So from my perspective the math of E=mc^2 is still holding for a barrier c speed at 0 mass.

[P.j.S]

Why is it said "1c^2"?

E = c^2 at 0 mass. That is the same as saying 1 full gas tank "1E" from the inherent mass of the earth.

1E = 1c^2 The inherent mass of the earth moved by a force to go 1c^2 miles in 1 second is the energy E to make all the atoms of the earth and to propell it at a constant rate. The earth is the standard for E=mc^2.

So the sun which is about 110 times larger than the earth would be 110c^2 miles/second. The force to move the inherent energy 110E at a rate of (186234)^2 * 110 miles per second would be enough energy to create all the atoms of the sun and propell it rotationally on the spot.

The energy needs to be slowed down to turn into mass under c speed. So light has mass and travels just under mathematical c speed. As mass our bodies travel as fast as the earth does. To move we consume food to get energy. That is a fundamental principle of consumption from E = mc^2.

How much energy (food) does it take to move the mass (the body) to walk 4 miles/hour. Will giving the rocket ship a bigger fuel tank (more food) make it go faster? No. The added weight will slow it down at lift off.

But now put the consuming principle in reverse. Move the mass fast enough that it becomes pure energy. Einstein said infinite energy to move mass to c speed. He understood consumption using an outside fuel source to move the mass artificially.

But in reverse it is the inherent energy of the mass that counts. I am doubtful that you can convince a piece of mass (a stone) to turn itself into pure energy and speed up. That energy has already slowed down and committed itself to the mass.

Yet we can understand the principle in reverse but we cannot achieve it most likely. Neither can we take a strand of space fabric (1c^2) and slow it down to become material. But we can understand from Einstein's equation in principle in reverse how the earth got here. So what about all this space?

The mastery of Time may make it possible to travel as a mass (the body for example) great distances in a instant of time. It may be linked to the speed of thought. Internally the person would think that he was somewhere else and generate the energy to move him there if his thoughts are faster than 0 mass at c speed at least.

Of course it helps to believe in a God who would assist mankind to achieve such ambitions and who can safely control E=mc^2 in reverse.

[Trip like I do]

''Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler", Albert Einstein

[PJS]

''Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler", Albert Einstein

It's simple when you know how.

Our thoughts may have little or 0 friction. At 0 friction infinite energy can be acquired. At infinite energy our faith could move mountains with our thoughts in a moment of time.

Not intending to preach Satan said turn the stones into bread to Jesus if you are a Son of God. Apparently Sons of God can control E=mc^2 in reverse. Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, rose to heaven on the clouds and no doubt many other things as a man but a perfect Son of God. He manipulated matter and energy with his mind.

So we learn that reverse E=mc^2 can do powerful things. We see E=mc^2 as consumption but not in reverse to make use of it practically in our lives. We can put fuel in the car to move it but we can't move the car with just our mind. But Jesus was close to God. That seems to be the key.

Spiritual Truth * True Science = Faith^2 + True Happiness.

PJS

[Flex]

Well our thoughts encounter tremendous "friction" in the form of loss of signal transduction and molecular resistance.

As far as the Earth calculations are concerned, I am less convinced I follow quantum mechanics on this one (De Broglie wavelength).

[PJS]

Well our thoughts encounter tremendous "friction" in the form of loss of signal transduction and molecular resistance.

As far as the Earth calculations are concerned, I am less convinced I follow quantum mechanics on this one (De Broglie wavelength).

Jesus was perfect. That is why he could do what imperfect people could not. Perhaps we will all be perfect someday.

At any rate I am happy that you like quantum mechanics. Maybe as you learn more you can share more. Possibly you could tell us why you feel that energy has no momentum.

I appreciate your input.

PJS Standing By. God knows why.131:548:.

[P.j.S]

Well our thoughts encounter tremendous "friction" in the form of loss of signal transduction and molecular resistance.

As far as the Earth calculations are concerned, I am less convinced I follow quantum mechanics on this one (De Broglie wavelength).

How does quantum mechanics account for the creation of the earth?

[Flex]

Creating of Earth in the same way as classical mechanics. De Broglie's wavelength makes the Earth act like a classical system, as it is so greatly different than a particles wavelength. I just mean in terms of accelerating the Earth etc.

[PJS]

Creating of Earth in the same way as classical mechanics. De Broglie's wavelength makes the Earth act like a classical system, as it is so greatly different than a particles wavelength. I just mean in terms of accelerating the Earth etc.

Is this a massless photon wavelength?

[Flex]

From my understanding it is the wavelength of anything of a given mass. Things only interact with other objects of similar De Broglie's wavelength. For this reason, an electron could travel through a wall, but your hand could not.

Other cool stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA...player_embedded

[P.j.S]

From my understanding it is the wavelength of anything of a given mass. Things only interact with other objects of similar De Broglie's wavelength. For this reason, an electron could travel through a wall, but your hand could not.

Other cool stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA...player_embedded

Wow!

[Trip like I do]

From my understanding it is the wavelength of anything of a given mass. Things only interact with other objects of similar De Broglie's wavelength. For this reason, an electron could travel through a wall, but your hand could not.

Other cool stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA...player_embedded

nice