Mass Energy Formula

[Mike C]

E = mc^2 is not credible. See below: (revised)

Let us first evaluate the components of this formula.
‘E’. What is energy? Energy is motion or change. The greatest amount of energy is created by the stars in the form of light pulses. In the fusion process, the hydrogen atoms (HA) are fused into helium nuclei (HN). In this process, the individual HA had more mass than the resultant HN.

But the neutron masses are different when coupled to a proton in a deuteron and when the neutrons are in a free state where they decay in about 10 to 15 minutes. So the neutron mass varies. Neutrons do not create photons.
The reduction in mass to form helium nuclei is assumed to be converted into energy. However, a ‘strong force’ (SF) has been created as well as some neutrinos. So these newly created components could account for the apparent mass variations.
The way these masses are determined could also be flawed with the way the neutron mass varies.

Another reason why the idea of mass being converted to energy, is that it cannot be ‘visualized’ If you convert a particle that is ‘substance’ into motion of some sort, what happened to the material substance that is converted into motion? Did it just simple disappear? You cannot visualize motion without the presence of a particle.
So the creation of a SF and the neutron that is composed of an electron, proton and the anti-neutrino is more logical.

If matter is not converted into energy, than what creates the energies? The energies are created by the FORCES intrinsic to matter such as the Electro-Magnetic (EM) forces. The magnetic component is the main component in the creation of the photons. See my article on the ‘Creation of Photons’.

On the other hand, fission is opposite in its actions to fusion.

Let us consider the nuclear fission bomb.
This bomb is the result of heavy nuclei being fragmented into smaller nuclei components by shattering the nuclear binding force that constitutes the SF. The SF has an extremely short range of 10^-14 meters. This range is the diameter of a proton. So, the cause of the explosion is the coulomb repulsion between the freed protons.

Where did this energy come from? Well, as I said, a force has created this energy that was confined by the nuclear binding of the strong force. This is ‘potential’ energy contained by the SF in the nuclei. There was no matter being converted to energy. All that happened here is what one would call 'mass fragmentation' (MFr).

This MFr than restores the mass reduction in the fusion process to its original mass components for an increase! This is opposite to mass fusion that appears to convert a small quantity of mass into energy.

The point here is that there appears to be a mass loss during fusion of hydrogen to helium. When this process is reversed to separate the helium nuclei back to hydrogen, the original apparent mass loss would be restored back to its original quantity by the fission process.

Therefore, the Einstein mass/energy formula cannot be true because forces are the creators of the energies. Also, wavelengths represent different energy levels so the wavelength has to be included in any energy formula.
I also see no reason for squaring the velocity of light. Light is a single ONE line dimension. So there is no reason for squaring this dimension that represents the time element of ‘one second’.

NS

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by New Science

E = mc^2 is not credible. See below: (revised)
...

Therefore, the Einstein mass/energy formula cannot be true because forces are the creators of the energies. Also, wavelengths represent different energy levels so the wavelength has to be included in any energy formula.
I also see no reason for squaring the velocity of light. Light is a single ONE line dimension. So there is no reason for squaring this dimension that represents the time element of ‘one second’.

NS

There is nothing, as far as I could tell, in your qualitative argument that suggests Einstein's quantitative formula is not credible.

Your "forces are the creators of the energies" means nothing, if I'm not mistaken.


Why NS start four threads about your idea. Is not one (or possibly two) sufficient?

CC

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

There is nothing in your qualitative argument that even comes close to suggesting that Einstein's quantitative formula is not credible.

Your "forces are the creators of the energies" means nothing.

Why start four threads about your idea. Is not one (or possibly two) sufficient? I really hope this does not turn into another Einstein bashing proposition.

cc

The threads I posted here deal with 'different' components of a SSU.
You just cannot lump these threads into just one post or it would have the length of a book. These separate posts involve the details only of my SSU.

Math components have 'individual' meanings and mass is not a force even though it contains the forces. Mass is measured by the kilogram while forces are measured by Newtons that deals with 'motion'.
However, Newtons as a force deal with gravity while light energy would be a product of the EM forces such as the coulomb and the magnetic forces.

90% of the energies in the universe is generated by the stars. And these energies are the result of the EM interactions in the central region of the stars that create 'open orbit' magnetic pulses in the hydrogen plasma.
Mass is not even involved in these pulsations. They are the sole source of the forces and the interactions between the electron and proton actions that create the magnetic pulses.

NS